Trump rescues Obama?

This page is new as of January 11, 2017 and expected to be available for only a few days.  Please make note of the URL and encourage others to visit and read, to become a contagion, go viral.  We'd like to have at least 100K people read it in the first 72 hours after posting but will have no way of knowing: just as we carry no ads, we do no tracking. 

The concern here is not for conservatives; it is not for liberals.  It is for citizens
of whatever stripe, who believe they love The Great Experiment, and is designed with their advantage in mind.



Loose Cannon Firing Faster: Obama and Trump

Trump can still save Obama…if they both hurry.



Yeah, that opening remark may lead to as many or more questions than it might answer.  [As a side-bar: is that necessarily a bad thing?]

The premise here is that the election of Trump is, as has been suggested by any number of individuals in any number of venues, something of a bloodless revolution; things, they are a-changin’.

One of the first things to be changing once Trump takes office is scheduled to be an end to ObamaCare.  The flagship legislation Obama reasonably sees as his legacy  --  though he sees it as laudable and a goodly number of others find it detestable at best --  is scheduled to go down to a shameful end; a failed experiment that should never have been attempted and was only given light of day by way of some of the most egregious examples of the worst of forms and tactics of politics. 

Not likely a terrific legacy for history books; Obama is thus likely to be granted little more than a hardly complimentary acknowledgement in a footnote in most future histories.

That offers Trump an opportunity to secure his own legacy at the outset of his administration, if he can stay away from mimicking Obama’s first days for a bit, by saving Obama from his current fate.  Trump can repeal the shameful place Obama has built for himself in history and replace it with something really wonderful, just as Trump is scheduled to be repealing and replacing that ghastly legislation.

Why would Trump want to do that?  Why would anybody care?  Because it is not about Obama, or Trump, or ObamaCare, but about this nation, this Great Experiment.

Trump and Obama would have to work together, along with a number of others of note, quickly and intensely.  But it could be done.


*** **


The whole thing would pretty much have to flow pretty much along the line of thinking set out here, which is, of course, pure conjecture.  And it would have to largely operate with little to no “transparency” but a wink and a nod; one of the first premises would have to be a signed agreement between the principals to neither confirm nor deny that the effort was in fact coordinated, for a period of perhaps 20 or more years…on pain of the other(s) then being authorized to release full documentation of the meetings and agreements, including video and audio recordings, sets of which would have been made with one to each of those principals.

Here’s what might then transpire and yet still be left to conjecture for decades.

Trump gets together with Obama by about January 15 and lays out most clearly and definitively that ObamaCare is toast.  He is backed up by the legislative leadership of both parties, all having been convinced that, no matter what might come of this “covert operation”, the end of ObamaCare is a surety and even a necessity.  Trump then notes the gist of what we’ve already laid out as then being the legacy of Obama; unpleasant at best.  But he goes on: he offers Obama a chance at a new legacy, something few would likely have even considered as a possibility.

It would not come “free”: there would be a cost.  Obama would have to agree, and stipulate in the written “non-disclosure” agreement, that there would be no additional politically motivated Presidential pardons  -- or the like --  from him: not for Hillary, or Koskinen, or Holder, or Lois Lerner, not for Bergdahl, certainly no pardoning of “classes” of persons, such as “Dreamers”; no pardoning of any of the assorted folks involved in so many political episodes.  Pardoning of an occasional individual who has crossed swords with criminality/the justice system but has now gotten their ducks in a row, fine.  But nothing having even an appearance of being political in nature.

And it would probably cost a few days of holding office.  Yup; he might have to leave before January 20…which would then put Joe in the front seat for perhaps the briefest period on record.  But that means there must be an agreement from Joe that he would not play the pardoning game or do just about anything of consequence while enjoying the Oval Office [save legitimate response to emergency situation].  Still, that’s hardly a huge price for his part in what would become a truly historic event [not to mention the substantial increases in his benefits on leaving office as President].

So what could possibly be in the offing for Obama that could entice him to agree to such things?  The opportunity few ever get, to make historical Constitutional impact on the nation as a whole perhaps in perpetuity.  Not just as an office holder, but in clarifying one or more parts of the Constitution that could be most important at critical moments for the Republic.

*** **


We speak to the untried/unapplied Section 4 of the 25th Amendment.

The Section deals with succession to the Presidency, particularly setting forth procedures for temporary or even permanent removal of a sitting President.  But it is fraught with frailties if not failures.  And nobody can know for a surety how it would work without it having been tried/attempted.

So how Obama gets a new and arguably better legacy than he might have ever dreamed, is by essentially offering himself up as a trial balloon, willing to surrender to the possibility of removal from office through an exercise clarifying that Section 4 and ensuring the mechanism works so that in an emergency situation which could come at virtually any time, the process could be relied on rather than failing the nation as a non-working fire extinguisher when faced with a fire.

This does not mean necessarily that Obama would in fact be removed from office: it means only that the fire extinguisher of Section 4 would be tested and assured of proper operation.  Frankly, we believe it very well might result in Obama being removed; in fact, some people might have liked to have seen it done years ago.  But this goes beyond the question(s) of Obama…which is why it could provide a most laudable legacy for an individual who is arguably the opposite of laudable.  This is about the nation, and potentially its survival through a most challenging crisis.  It is about our Constitution and way of life, perhaps for millennia to come.

Obama would offer himself as sacrificial lamb to an attempt for removal under Section 4 by The House Speaker and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate, brought without rancor and primarily if not solely to resolve the frailties and failures in that part of The Constitution.

Obama has, under these circumstances, little to lose and much to gain.  One question that would almost assuredly be put to rest would be of whether Obama had ever had the best interests of the nation in mind.  To pretty much end that question for history, through such a “grand gesture” that few ever have an opportunity to make, is surely a more desirable legacy than becoming a footnote as an abject failure having led a failed administration.

There is a bit of political risk here for Trump as well.  Along with relatively immediate reaction from persons who support Obama no matter what he does/has done, there could be a bit of reaction from even Trump supporters who might see and resent “cooperation”.  While this would all take place at the outset of, even before, a Trump administration and would arguably “die down” over time, there is a larger and more long-lasting risk: once Section 4 has been clarified and exercised, it becomes much easier and thus much more likely that it might be resorted to again at a later date; the irony of using it on Trump who had orchestrated the initial action on Obama, would not likely go unnoticed by Democrats.

The Speaker and President Pro Tem would also be facing potential political risk…and potential political gain, for having taken such risk for what might fairly readily be seen as being for the good of the country in perpetuity.

Guided by the legislative leadership, hopefully from both parties, “enabling legislation” to allow The Speaker and the President Pro Tem, perhaps in concert with counterparts from the other side of the aisle [though that brings another set of problems in essentially codifying the 2-party system that is in large part responsible for so much mischief], to act in the capacity of “such other body as Congress may provide” to issue a notice for removal under Section 4 could be quickly pushed through.  Obama could veto and require that Congress over-ride to get to the next step, or sign the bill.  Our preference here is the veto, as it more clearly sets forward the requirements and standing to get to The Court, as this is largely about separation of Powers and the roles played relative to the different branches of government.

Once the enabling legislation has speedily gotten through its hurdles on the premise of emergency/timeliness/necessity and become law, the Speaker and President Pro Tem would then appoint themselves a committee of two, one from each Chamber, to issue a directive of removal.  Obama would then refuse the directive on the premise that it did not comply with the required participation as set forth in Section 4, of the VP…unless SCOTUS managed to resolve that conflict of interest in the first application from the legislators.  Either way, that conflict of interest must be addressed in the first exercise of Section 4…preferably not in the midst of catastrophic crisis…like a CIC having gone inarguably off the deep end and ordering nuke strikes on the capitals of European nations because of the handling of recent migrants, or because it’s, uhh, Tuesday.

The process could then be carried through the machinations of the back-and-forth provided within the Section for a final determination, each participant acting as quickly as possible, as the process here is actually as important if not more so than the end determination regarding the one incident.

*** **

This would be the key: recognition by all concerned but particularly those most immediately concerned  -- Obama, Trump, the legislative leadership of both parties --  of how rare an opportunity is at hand, and how important, even critical, it is to make the very best  -- not just for the individual, or party, but for the very continuation of The Great Experiment, the nation --  of the opportunity; the opportunity to resolve a number of Constitutional questions and mechanisms likely to otherwise have to be resolved hurriedly in the middle of crisis that threatens perhaps the world.

It is up to the rest of us to ensure that those most immediately concerned, are well aware of how much and in what way(s?) we are concerned.

The cooperation generated in such an effort could lead to a spirit of cooperation as great as the divisiveness and rancor that has marked the last too-many years.

Just for a moment, try to imagine what progress might be forged from a spirit of cooperation in addressing problems, rather than each side presuming that the real problems aren’t the actual issues but the other party?


Please recommend this read to others…ASAP: it is not expected to be available beyond a few days.




We continue to petition to The White House in support for “Hierarchy of Law”, largely designed to keep UN & similar attempts against US sovereignty, as regarding arms and the Law of the Sea Treaty, from ever allowing the UN or others to dictate to the US, while still allowing the US to adopt positions in line with such.  Do you really want the UN telling us what to do about an invasion at our border, for example?


Please help this effort to protect US Sovereignty and The US Constitution.  More, here.  Or, take our word for it and immediately go to The White House site by way of our "Action Items" page to sign
[making use of the WhiteHouse.gov site ensures that nobody need leave any information here, potentially saves us a lot of work, and provides opportunity for visitors to also choose from a variety of other petitions that they may also wish to support...or not].

Let’s get this thing over the 100K signatures-in-30-days threshold for a response…in record time.

We need 100,000 signatures, and would rather have twice that  -- how about a half million?


We've a companion petition also accessible through the "Action Items" page with the objective of maintaining and even improving this petition access as a tool for responsive government [novel concept, huh?].  Signatures also requested for that one.




(general) PLAN                                            

                Exercise integrity, and encourage others to do so: Support each other, and encourage others to do so;
               Educate ourselves, and encourage others to do so; Use the term Usann, and encourage others to do so;
               Resist tyranny, and encourage others to do so; Exercise authority over officials, and encourage others to do so;

       And take the country back, one day, one moment, at a time.

                 Our goal is to follow the above plan in our lives and our business, thus being a part of returning our country,
                The United States of America, to the Republic it was envisioned and designed to be and The Great Experiment 
                    -- the Rule of Law  --  brought to the world by the Founding Fathers.

We ask readers  -- and others --  consider doing likewise.

Taking no ads, the only revenue to keep this site going is out of our own pockets and should arguably
be going to other things, from the few items sometimes in our store, and whatever
donations might be put in the tip jar on our Comment/Support page.

To the extent that you think reasonable

-- and please think for a moment about how long it would take you to put something like this together,
and what it would cost you, in energy and money, to then make it and keep it available on the web --

we ask you consider contributing to our delinquency.