The real 'constitutional crisis' is all on Democrats
The Democrats and media have repeatedly used the phrase "constitutional crisis" to attack President Trump for refusing to "cooperate" with the "impeachment inquiry" by the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives, led by Nancy Pelosi and Adam Schiff.
In May 2019, the speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, said we have a constitutional crisis because President Trump refused to comply with a subpoena issued by Democrat House Judiciary Committee chairman Jerry Nadler to release the full un-redacted report of Special Counsel Robert Mueller.
In 2018, Democrat New York senator Chuck Schumer said we have a constitutional crisis when there were rumors that Trump would fire Mueller and Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein.
The real constitutional crisis is that the Dems are trying to impeach and remove President Trump for political reasons and not the constitutionally prescribed reasons.
The Constitution requires "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors." This means that the "high crimes and misdemeanors" should be on the same level as treason or bribery.
If the Democrats had any real, credible evidence of "high crimes and misdemeanors," they would not be requesting that President Trump assist the House Democrats, nor would they be holding secret hearings. They would be having open, televised hearings.
There is no reason for President Trump to cooperate with Pelosi's kangaroo court, especially since the supposed basis for the impeachment is President Trump's phone call to Ukraine's President Zelensky. President Trump released the transcript of the call. If the call is the basis, then Pelosi and Schiff have the transcript. The transcript speaks for itself. If this is an impeachable offense, then Pelosi should hold the vote now to send it to the Senate.
The Dems and media have focused on President Trump, and they are obsessed with finding a crime, which means they have to manufacture a crime because no crime exists.
The reason for the impeachment inquiry is that the Democrats do not accept the results of the 2016 election. The Obama CIA and FBI tried to sabotage the Trump campaign before the election and after the election with the Steele Dossier, paid for by the DNC and Hillary Clinton, and the Mueller investigation. This is detailed by Greg Jarret in his two books, Witch Hunt (Harper Collins, 2019) and The Russia Hoax (Harper Collins, 2018).
The Democrats oppose the Trump agenda of reducing taxes, cutting regulations, appointing Supreme Court justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, and securing the southern border with Mexico. But policy differences are not the constitutional basis for impeachment and removal of a president.
The debate over the impeachment language shows that the framers rejected the idea that policy difference would justify impeachment and removal. The framers rejected the notion of "maladministration," which would have meant that Congress could remove a president if it disagreed with his "administration" of policies. The Democrats are now resurrecting the idea of "maladministration" disguised as "abuse of power."
The Dems, led by Shifty Schiff, attempted to characterize President Trump's phone call to President Zelensky as an illegal request to dig up dirt on Joe Biden for the 2020 election because it was conditioned upon Ukraine getting weapons if it complied with the request. But the transcript was released, and the plain words of the transcript are clear. President Zelensky said there was no pressure.
There is credible evidence, based on his words, where he bragged that he used the granting of American loans to Ukraine to get a prosecutor fired, that there is "dirt" on Joe Biden. We should ask Ukraine to supply any evidence it has that an American vice president used his office to fire a prosecutor who was investigating a Ukraine company paying his son, Hunter, $50,000 per month to serve on its board of directors. If Biden committed a crime, then why is he immune from investigation? Because he is a Democratic Party candidate?
The bottom line is that the "abuse of power" claim is a cover for the Democrats' opposition to Trump's policies and their hatred of Trump. Trump is a threat to exposing the corruption of the Obama CIA and FBI.
The real constitutional crisis is that the Obama CIA and FBI tried to sabotage the election and subsequent administration of President Trump, and now the House Democrats are trying to impeach President Trump because they disagree with his agenda and refuse to accept the results of the 2016 election.
Becoming what we fear and hate
“We become what we hate” is an old yoga maxim. I would extend this expression to include fear, because it isn’t just hatred that drives certain actions, fear does as well. Fear and hate are two points on a continuum. It seems we hate what we fear, implying we must feel fear first. If one accepts that premise, we progress toward a paradox of opposites where we first become what we fear and then we become what we hate, a phenomenology in which it is part and parcel of the very nature of passionate conflict to turn one into his own enemy.
Supposed anti-fascist forces utilize fascist tactics in their fights. People decry others as Nazis while emulating Nazi methods. Corrupt politicians fight corruption with corrupt practices. People think the path to non-discrimination is through targeted discrimination and the most effective way to secure individual freedom is to initiate total control over the lives of every citizen.
One could deduce that this inversion of identities is facilitated by a loss of sense of propriety in the pursuit of a goal. That would seem to argue that the adoption of an “ends justifies the means” ideology that allows a person or group to believe that bad actions, even evil ones, are acceptable if the goal is achieved.
Propriety is that set of unwritten rules by which mutually understood limits are observed, limits which are necessary to the preservation of a society, the protection of a culture, a respect for, and awareness of, precedent and the maintenance of the institution of civil government.
In short, propriety is the process by which we each ask ourselves this question: “If just because we are not forbidden from doing a thing, should we do it?”
As Albert Camus noted, “’Everything is permitted’ does not mean that nothing is forbidden.”
When one observes the actions of the political right, one can see at least a modicum of respect for boundaries, a minimum attention to propriety. There is a respect for the constitutional “guardrails” Democrats profess exist (but only for their opposition) and a willingness to stay within those boundaries has been a “win” in a philosophical sense but a loss from a practical and political sense.
When one observes the actions of the contemporary Democratic Party toward an unexpected president (at least unexpected in their minds), one can see the evidence of the fear and the hatred -- and the process by which they have sought (and continue to seek) his removal. In many ways, they have exhibited – and are exhibiting -- characteristics far worse than those of which they accuse President Trump.
Nowhere is this more evident that Democrats have dispensed with propriety (and adopted the scorched earth principles of the end justifying the means), than in the phony “impeachment” process.
The evidence is legion that Democrats have finally become that which they profess to hate.
Democrats' Contempt for the Sanctity of Life
Ed Buck, a prominent Democrat donor and fundraiser, has
been charged with battery,
administering illegal drugs, and operating a drug house. The charges
paint a disturbing picture of this wealthy scion of liberal
politics. At this time, two men have been identified as having died
and a third having been seriously harmed, but prosecutors are said to have
found hundreds of photographs "of men in compromising positions" who may have
been lured to Buck's home with the promise of money, shelter, and drugs.
This case raises many questions, not just concerning the several
felonies with which Buck has been charged, but about the morality of this and
other prominent liberals. On what basis could any human being engage
in sexual conduct with "hundreds" of unfortunate human beings, using
them like playthings and then casting them aside? What does such
conduct suggest about the capacity of some individuals to use others for their
personal pleasure, regardless of the dangerous consequences
involved?
Certainly, conservatives are far from perfect, but at least
conservatives do not flaunt their iniquities. Conservatives as
individuals possess all the imperfections of other men, but they still ascribe
to an ideal of goodness and virtue. The same cannot be said for
liberals, who believe that they should rack up as much pleasure as possible in
this world because they are sure there's no life after death.
For liberals, what happens in the Oval Office stays in the Oval
Office. Many Democrats thought Bill Clinton was just being Clinton
and that there was nothing especially immoral about conducting affairs with
aides, state employees, actresses, and nursing home managers. Was
this because they did not appreciate the sanctity of those who served as mere
diversion for our 42nd president?
Just what is so appealing to liberals about promiscuity,
anyway? Is it just sex, or is there a special satisfaction in
transgressing traditional moral codes? Is it the idea that one is
"bigger" than the law? Or is it that liberals believe that
the rules no longer apply? Is it beneath them to believe in marital
fidelity and lifetime devotion to one's spouse? Liberals think they
are too sophisticated for this kid of trust, just as they think telling the
truth is Boy Scout stuff and election promises are made to be
broken. "If you like your doctor, you can keep your
doctor." Yeah, right.
Conservatives are different. We at least hold up the
ideal of devotion, honesty, and truth-telling, and though we're not perfect, we
try to be. That's especially the case when it involves the sanctity
of life. Conservatives defend the unborn, defend their families, and
defend their God-given liberties. Conservatives know that all of
God's creation is sacred, and it is that knowledge that makes them act with
restraint and care. That is the essence of conservatism.
The essence of liberalism, as I see it, is a lack of restraint
rooted in egotism and self. The Warren presidential campaign is a
perfect example. If elected, Elizabeth Warren will, according to her
own admission, attempt
to closely regulate all large businesses, eliminate fracking
and the jobs that go with it, provide Medicare for All, dictate health care
decisions (including practically unlimited abortion "rights"),
eliminate capital punishment, raise taxes on the wealthy and on corporations,
provide free college, cancel student debt, eliminate the Electoral College, ban
assault weapons, open our borders, legalize marijuana, and significantly cut
the defense budget.
Warren's policies show her
to be an extremist driven by ideology rather than concern for the individuals
whom she would tax, endanger, disenfranchise, and tyrannize with regulation and
social mandates. Where is her concern for the individuals whose
lives she would alter so radically with her sweeping reforms? Those
lives are sacred, their right to prosper and save is sacred, and their right to
safety and security is sacred. Warren does not seem to have thought
much about the dangers of unrestrained immigration or the fact that a weakened
national defense will put all Americans at risk. What is she
describing is tyranny, plain and simple.
The most obvious example of liberal denial of the sanctity of
life, of course, is liberals' position on abortion. For any person
who truly believes in the sanctity of life, abortion must be
repugnant. One point six million abortions, terminating
approximately one quarter of all pregnancies, are performed every year in the
U.S. At this rate, that would amount to 80 million abortions over
the past 50 years. Imagine the loss of those beautiful human souls.
Or are they
beautiful? Liberals do not believe so. They tell us that
the earth has become overpopulated. It is "the earth" that
matters and not human beings. Or they say the mothers of those
unborn children would not be able to care for them and that the children would
just become a burden on the State. The "burden on the
State" is more important than the unborn child.
What you will never hear from a liberal is the idea that every
child, born and unborn, is sacred. A child is worth that burden and
worth the stress he purportedly places on "the earth." A
time is coming when America will wish that it had those 80 million souls to
defend it and help it prosper. That ability to contribute to society
and pursue economic opportunity, and to fight if necessary to defend one's
home, is another side of what makes every child sacred. Children are
sacred because of their capacity for goodness, beauty, and life, but also
because they will grow into adults who take responsibility for themselves and
for their neighbors.
Would any conservative vote to end the life of 80 million human
beings?
I believe that every human being is God's creation and that
everyone is born with the potential to contribute and achieve. Our
Founders believed in limited government because they too believed in human
potential, and they feared the tyranny of authoritarianism. They had
reason to fear, having lived under the yoke of British colonial rule.
It is no accident that those who seek a vast expansion of
government power today also oppose the sanctity of life. A free
people engaged in productive endeavors will never vote for a socialist who will
suppress their freedom. What today's tyrants fear above all is a
public that believes in the sanctity of life and is willing to stand up for it.
Jeffrey Folks is the author
of many books and articles on American culture including Heartland
of the Imagination (2011).
So is running for president now a corrupt Democrat's 'get out of jail free'
card?
Based on today's
standards, promoted in Congress and the press, Democratic
Party candidates, such as Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden, can
greatly enrich their families with massive amounts of money from foreign
parties, and a Republican president or its Justice department are not even
allowed to bring up their names, let alone research their obvious
corruption. Most of the media and other Democrats are now calling President
Trump's bid to get to the bottom of the ongoing corruption we see 'impeachable'
and they couldn't care less about corruption as they preach that no one is
above the law.
Democrats can seek trash
on their Republican opponents from foreign nationals and not only do most
journalists and other Democrats not care, they can use a fake dossier
full of opposition research as grist for an FBI investigation in their
bid to take out Trump. Then, if Trump brings up Biden’s name to a foreign
leader, they call that illegal and impeachable.
A Democrat, her staff and
many at the State Department and other agencies can continually violate the
nation's security laws (as Clinton did) and the Justice Department inexplicably
lets her off. Most journalists and other Democrats support her and call it
partisan to look at the clear violations of the law as they lecture everyone
that no one is above the law.
A Democrat and her spouse
can physically and mentally abuse women (again, the Clinton pair) and seek to
destroy anyone who gets in their way as they amass power. Most
journalists and other Democrats don’t give a damn about any of the abused women
with credible claims against Bill or Hillary Clinton even as they say how
pro-women they are.
A Democrat commits fraud
throughout her adult life by lying about her heritage to move up the economic
ladder (Elizabeth Warren) and most journalists and other Democrats will support
her. In fact, they've made her the frontrunner in the current Democratic
nomination for president polls.
Democrat candidates can
seek to destroy and impeach Judge Brett Kavanaugh based on articles the media
has published with no evidence to support the stories. And the media pretends
their stories are based on facts. How can they expect the public to believe
them when they ran years of stories on Russian collusion when there was never
any evidence?
Democrat candidates
continually lie about what Trump said in Charlottesville and lie about
Ferguson, Missouri to gin up racial hate and violence and they are
supported wholeheartedly by the complicit media as they pretend they are the
party of unity and the truthful party.
Democrat bureaucrats in
the Obama administration, at Justice, CIA, other intelligence agencies and at
the State Department continually lie to justify spying to take out Trump while
they protect Hillary from prosecution. But if the Trump administration looks at
the origins of the fake Russian collusion narrative, that is impeachable and
partisan. The compliant media doesn’t give a darn about the clear violations of
the law and abuse of power while they continually say that no one is above the
law.
A Democrat president
can violate the Constitution with DACA, be flexible with Russia, give kickbacks
to Iran tyrants, stop an investigation into drug running by terrorists to
appease Iran, violate bankruptcy laws, have slush funds at Justice, CFPB and
EPA to reward political supporters, illegally unmask names of people
surrounding Trump, leave Americans to die in Libya while concocting a lie, spy
illegally on thousands of Americans, imprison reporters, look the other way as
his Secretary of State violates security laws and takes kickbacks, Look the
other way as Obama administration officials such as Eric Holder, John Brennan,
James Clapper, Susan Rice and others commit perjury, withhold documents from
Congress for years on Fast and Furious, prosecute whistleblowers for violation
of the espionage act, cage and separate children at the border and all his
conversations with foreign leaders will remain private.
As the media watched all
this clear corruption unfold throughout eight years of Obama, almost all
journalists and other Democrat supported him, called him brilliant and to this
date pretend the Obama administration was scandal-free as they tell the public
that no one is above the law.
Known serial liars
Clapper, Brennan, Holder, plus creepy porn lawyer Michael Avenatti are
treated as reliable sources by almost all media outlets as they trash Trump.
Meanwhile, whatever Trump
does is impeachable, even if it is only bringing up Biden’s name to investigate
clear corruption. According to the media, as they collude with other Democrats,
it appears that every one of Trump’s phone calls should be made public.
And any disgruntled
Democrat bureaucrat who leaks information, whether or not they had firsthand
knowledge, should be treated as a protected whistleblower instead of a leaker.
Republicans are welcome
as reliable sources in the media, like Senators Mitt Romney, John McCain or
Jeff Flake, as long as they are trashing Trump. Otherwise they are not
welcome.
It is so hard to spot the
bias as the media trashes Trump and his supporters, daily, with every name in
the book and lecture the public that no one is above the law and how the
Democrat party is the party of unity.
Image credit: Photo illustration by
Monica Showalter with use of image by Michael Vadon, via
Wikimedia Commons // CC BY-SA 2.0.
Hillary's going to get in
It
is no longer a matter of if but of when. All doubts about Hillary's 2020
plans should have been erased by her appearances this week promoting the book
that she and her daughter “wrote” to say nothing about her mien! She
endlessly reprised her absurd claim
that the election was stolen from her, called for Trump's impeachment, and even
admitted to her gutsiness for standing by her man.
I
think she has always been in the race, covertly, and that she and Bill always
assumed that no candidate would arrive at the convention with enough delegates
to win the nomination on the first ballot, at which point she could be put
forth as a compromise.
Biden's
done for; there is no way he is going to survive the imbroglio surrounding his
son's machinations and profiteering in Ukraine and China. There's too
much there there. It will become inescapable, even to the unwashed, that
the only reason money flowed to Hunter Biden was to gain influence with Joe or
gain benefits through Joe and his network of friends and allies.
Joe’s
always been a placeholder for Hillary, whether he realizes it or not. It’s all
has changed now because Biden's done, and could precipitate Hillary's early
entry into the fray, as not only Biden but Bernie Sanders may be leaving the
field. With their supporters potentially up for grabs, Elizabeth Warren could
end up with a first ballot victory.
Hillary
has to know that she is considered to be unlikable, but I think it is a given
that no one likes Warren,
either. Daniel Greenfield compares her to Hillary here:
Warren’s likability deficit has nothing to do
with her gender....[She ripped] off asbestos victims while pocketing a tidy
sum....The ‘Hillariness’ of Warren doesn’t [just] lie in their shared fabulism
or lack of ethics....[her] a complete lack of qualifications....[or because
both are] inauthentic scolds who suffer from hall monitor syndrome. They spent
their entire lives breaking every rule they could find while awkwardly
fantasizing about running every tiny detail of everyone else’s
lives....[They're] both unlikable because you can’t picture either one having
any fun....[C]ombine that with an obsessive need to monitor, regulate and
eradicate other people’s fun, and you have the miserable essence of the
progressive movement.
Hillary,
and Bill, know that this is their [third] last chance, and they're not going to
let another woman snatch it from her, as that “articulate and
bright and clean and a nice-looking” black guy or that entitled creep
did. So, keep an eye out, for “when” is going to be sooner than anyone
expected.
Now,
can she win this time? Only a fool would count her out. She won't lose
Biden's supporters. Just being a woman will get her many of Warren's
female supporters. Despite Trump's inroads with African-American and
Hispanic voters, she'll find considerable support in those groups. Wall
Street, Hollywood, and the MSM love her. Traditional Democrats, not
wanting four more years of uproar, may return to the fold over Ukraine and the
like.
She'll
work harder this time, if she can uphold under the effort, bringing
Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Michigan, and Wisconsin into the picture.
She'll be better prepared to debate Trump, but that may not mean much since
Trump's hard to out-debate.
Settle
into the chair, get out the popcorn, the show's about to begin. If you
doubt it, then I have a walking trail in Chappaqua to sell you.
The author is retired, his profile may be
found on LinkedIn, and he usually responds to emails sent
to ringchadburn@hotmail.com
.jpg){kind=link}
No comments:
Post a Comment