A DO-NOTHING CONGRESS? CRIMINALIZING POLITICAL DIFFERENCES? YUP, SOUNDS LIKE A PLAN

Last week, John Boehner advanced the notion of a do-nothing Congress as a positive step for America:

"I think having a moratorium on new federal regulations is a great idea it sends a wonderful signal to the private sector that they're going to have some breathing room." ...

"I think there's probably a way to do this with an exemption for emergency regulations that may be needed for some particular agency or another. But if the American people knew there was going to be a moratorium in effect for a year that the federal government wasn't going to issue thousands more regulations, it would give them some breathing room."

A couple of days later, he described a legislative agenda for the next session of Congress that's expanded, but only slightly:

"The first thing I would do is repeal Obamacare," Boehner said at the Christian Science Monitor luncheon....

"Secondly, no cap and trade," Boehner added....

"Thirdly, not raise people's taxes," he concluded.

Yup, that's it.

Now (via the Minneapolis Star Tribune) we have Michele Bachmann's version of a slowdown -- but don't think her party is going to be completely idle if she gets her way:

According to Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., the House Republicans should exercise their power to subpoena and hold continuous hearings. Speaking to a gathering for the GOP Youth Convention on July 22 in Washington, D.C., she emphasized this point.

"Oh, I think that's all we should do," Bachmann said. "I think that all we should do is issue subpoenas and have one hearing after another...."

Yup -- all. That's all they should do. She justified this recommendation by repeating her assertion that the pre-Obama U.S. economy had no government components whatsoever -- although she's modified her percentages somewhat. Last month she told CNS News,

...we have gone from 100 percent ownership of the private economy in private hands to 51 percent ownership of the private economy directly owned or controlled by the federal government.

Whereas now it's even worse!

"[B]efore, 18 months ago, the private economy was 100 percent held in private hands," she said. "But today 65 percent of the economy is now held in government's hands – either through direct ownership or control...."

(Omigod! 51% to 65% in a month! At that rate, the government will control more than 100% of the economy by November!)

And while Bachman was reiterating this point, Tom Tancredo was calling for impeachment in a Washington Times op-ed -- although he seems to offer nothing more than the usual right-wing whines as a justification for this:

When one considers the combination of his stop-at-nothing attitude, his contempt for limited government, his appointment of judges who want to create law rather than interpret it - all of these make this president today's single greatest threat to the great experiment in freedom that is our republic.

All of which makes Obama worse than Hitler! Or, no -- not worse, exactly. Or at least not worse than Hitler. Close, though:

Yes, Mr. Obama is a more serious threat to America than al Qaeda. We know that Osama bin Laden and followers want to kill us, but at least they are an outside force against whom we can offer our best defense. But when a dedicated enemy of the Constitution is working from the inside, we face a far more dangerous threat. Mr. Obama can accomplish with the stroke of his pen what bin Laden cannot accomplish with bombs and insurgents.

The most Tancredo's got as a specific impeachable offense is this:

Mr. Obama's most egregious and brazen betrayal of our Constitution was his statement to Sen. Jon Kyl, Arizona Republican, that the administration will not enforce security on our southern border because that would remove Republicans' desire to negotiate a "comprehensive" immigration bill. That is, to put it plainly, a decision that by any reasonable standard constitutes an impeachable offense against the Constitution. For partisan political advantage, he is willfully disregarding his obligation under Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution to protect states from foreign invasion.

We can impeach him because the feds don't stop illegal immigrants from getting in? Then why the hell didn't we impeach every president in living memory?

Here's the future, folks: repeal, regulation reversal, and revanchism.