The Short Form of Impeachment

It’s nothing new. In most third-world countries impeachment comes at the end of a gun barrel. It’s quite efficient, actually – no prolonged discussion or trial over the wrongdoing of a leader – the military just shows up one day, and presto, a new government is formed.

No, I’m not advocating coup de’etat as always the best way to change government leadership. I do, however, marvel at the efficiency of the process.

President Bill Clinton’s philandering and lying during his administration got him into hot water resulting in impeachment proceedings against him. The House of Representatives had no problem voting for impeachment but the democrats and RINOs in the Senate just couldn’t get the job done. As a result, we were constantly bombarded with new revelations of sexual escapades and cover-ups in the news for most of his term in office.

By contrast, in Egypt, democratically elected president Mohammed Morsi provoked the ire of the Egyptian public by not making good on campaign promises and using his close association with the radical Muslim Brotherhood to inch closer to increasing Sharia law. As the numbers of protesters demanding Morsi step down climbed to hundreds of thousands, Army leaders gave the president fair warning then stepped in to replace him.

This was a real and incorruptible vote of the public – no inked fingers, no stuffed ballot boxes or hanging chads, no vote from graveyards, and no political shenanigans. The number of Egyptians protesting in the streets against Mohamed Morsi outnumbered those in support of him – mainly those in the radical Muslim Brotherhood. Someone had to listen to the voice of the people and do something else risk a civil war, ala Syria. It is unfortunate that the army had to be that someone, but they got the job done and without a lot of bloodshed.

By contrast, this style of impeachment voting has had a negative effect in Syria. Despite the departure of many high-ranking figures in the Syrian Army, they have turned against the people of Syria in unwarranted defense of the despot in charge, president Bashar Assad.

Government overthrows are nothing new. They were old-hat when Brutus and his Senate comrades hacked Caesar to death in Rome. But what I find interesting in the Egyptian process is the rejection of a leader once elected  -- albeit in a questionably free election by a mostly Islamic influenced vote -- then rejected for moving ever closer to Sharia law.

Radical Islam take note! Once a people have tasted freedom, even in a highly Islamic country as Egypt, they are not likely to be shackled under the oppression of strict Sharia rule.

Our own beloved third President and author of the US Declaration of Independence once advocated the short form of impeachment when he said, “The tree of liberty must from time to time be nourished by the blood of tyrants.” The situation in Egypt should serve as a reminder to all tyrannical despots of Jefferson’s words.