The Trial of the Senate-ury

71 Views

It’s a common belief among the Right that Leftists and their media cohorts exchange talking points prior to a story breaking so everyone can be on the same page. Whether this is true or not is subject to debate, but if there is a case to be made in favor of it happening, we can look to how the Senate trial of President Donald Trump is being covered. It seems everyone and their grandmother on the Left is saying the Senate is on trial and if they don’t put country before party it will prove the Senate ran a sham trial.

Call me crazy (and, believe me, the label fits), but aren’t we in the middle of a trial concerning whether President Trump committed impeachable offenses? How in the hell did it become a referendum on the Senate?

Because the Left needs the Senate trial to be about the Senate, more specifically Senate Republicans and not about the weakness of the House’s articles of impeachment.

I’ve made my opinions on the two Articles of Impeachment previously, so I won’t delve too much into them except to say I’ve seen three year olds give better arguments on far less important matters than the House Democrats have so far on impeachment. Since the House went all-in on Impeach-a-Palooza, it appears they didn’t plan for what they would do if they got it, and it shows in their lack of preparedness and in their repetition of their talking points in lieu of new information or even new tactics.

While the Left has been creaming their jeans over Rep. Adam Schiff’s presentation of the House’s case for impeachment, it’s honestly come off to me like a kid who didn’t read the book he or she was supposed to read and then wing an oral book report on in front of the entire class. Schiff may sound like he’s on top of things, but it’s in the content where the presentation falls apart. How exactly is that an indictment of the Senate? If anything, it’s an indictment of the House because they approved the Articles of Impeachment in the first place.

So much of the ire against the Senate revolves around whether they will call witnesses. The Left desperately wants the Senate to do so, which is why they’re trying to shame Senate Republicans into doing it instead of, you know, having it already done when they were the ones in charge of the impeachment inquiry. Then again, if you remember waaaaaaay back in December, the House Democrats called witnesses to give powerful testimony that amounted to, at best, second or third hand information. One of their witnesses even contradicted their narrative during his testimony. And to think a good number of politicians went to law school without learning the first rule of witness testimony is to know what they’re going to say before they take the oath. What’s more, the House tried to cover up the lack of first hand knowledge by having witnesses talk about their own integrity and qualifications, none of which had anything to do with whether the President was guilty of bribery, extortion, or any of the other charges levied against him. How exactly is that an indictment of the Senate?

The larger rhetorical offensive in play is designed to conflate any action not directly in line with the way the Left expects things to be done as a gross violation of protocol and decency. Granted, this is Congress we’re dealing with here, so they could be right about the decency part, but the protocol part isn’t tied to a desired outcome. And if we’re being completely honest here, the House Democrats broke protocol by going ahead with impeachment without Trump Administration witnesses instead of getting a court to order the witnesses to testify. Now that they’ve gone this far, the House Managers are trying to get the Senate to do the work they should have done before now. If the Senate refuses, however, it’s still not a reflection on them for not allowing witnesses; it’s a reflection on how shoddy a job the House did. And do you know how I know?

Jerrold Nadler maligning the Senate as being guilty of a cover-up…before the Senate had a chance to take up the House Managers’ arguments.

It’s almost as if the Left wants the Senate trial to go poorly so their self-professed self-fulfilling prophecy will come true and they can say, “See? We told you it was rigged!” Then, they will use this narrative to help their attempt to retake the Senate and, presumably, impeach the President all over again provided he gets reelected. Judging from the current clown car of candidates, I don’t think he has much to worry about in his reelection bid.

Meanwhile, both houses of Congress may be in play while the President is running. If Republicans get what they want, they will regain the House and keep the Senate, and the Democrats want the exact opposite. I think the 2020 Congressional elections will come down to whether the public favors impeachment and removal. For once, the Left is playing a long game, but they’re playing it badly. Not only has support for impeachment slipped lower than an earthworm’s belt buckle, but it’s actually drawing people to Trump. Guess what accusing Senate Republicans of a cover-up is likely to do.

If current trends continue, the Left will be reliving 2016 in a few months, just on a much larger scale. The more the Left pushes the idea the Senate is on trial for what they do or don’t do in the Senate trial of President Trump, the more it will backfire. 

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

158 Views

House Democrats, after not learning their lesson about how impeachment backfired on them worse than Wile E. Coyote in a Road Runner cartoon, took another step towards trying to rein in President Donald Trump’s powers in the aftermath of the Iran attack. After not being briefed before the President launched the attack that took out Iran’s number 2 military leader (now he’s numbers 2 through 1 billion), the House passed a non-binding resolution that would forbid the President from blowing up more Iranian terrorists without Congressional approval. This was done under the auspices of the War Powers Resolution of 1973, also called the War Powers Act.

Although the War Powers Act (I’ll call it that for the rest of the piece because it’s shorter and I like it) has been used in a handful of situations since its inception, people, and most notably our elected officials, still don’t quite understand it in full. Even your humble correspondent had to do a bit of research on it to make sure I understood it, and if I can do it, people who get paid to write laws can do it (hopefully).

And with that being said, let’s get right into it.

the War Powers Act

What the Left thinks it means – a Congressional check on the President to avoid getting us into wars Congress doesn’t approve

What it really means – a bad idea made worse by partisan bickering

In short, the War Powers Act gives the President the authority to enter a military conflict for a limited amount of time before Congress needs to declare war and, in exchange, the President has to brief Congress within 48 hours of any military action. In the recent Iran situation, only one of the conditions was met, that being the military action. As far as the briefing, one could argue they were informally briefed by the media covering the action, but a formal briefing wasn’t offered. That angered House Democrats because…well, I’m not completely sure. Given how some Democrats were upset that President Trump didn’t act sooner, you would think they would be happy we finally did something.

And they were…kinda. But that’s a blog for another time.

The point here is President Trump is now under the microscope again for attacking Iran after they attacked our embassy and may have planned further actions against Americans in the region. We can argue the ethics of what happened all we want, but there is one thing that is crystal clear: President Trump was authorized to take action under the War Powers Act without getting Congress to sign off on it.

I can understand why the President may not have wanted to let Congress about his Iran attack ahead of time. Between the leakers, the Muslim sympathizers, and the general dullards, I wouldn’t trust them with my junior high locker combination, let alone something like information about a missile strike. Even after they were briefed, Congressional Democrats weren’t satisfied with the information and said there wasn’t enough persuasive information that Iran was going to attack again. Of course, the 40 years of Iran yelling “Death tp America” might have been a hint, but hey.

Although I believe the President was legally authorized under the War Powers Act to take action against Iran, I have to say it’s bad law because of how it circumvents the Constitution and cheapens the act of war. The President is the Commander in Chief, meaning he controls the military. Congress, on the other hand, has the authority to declare war. By allowing the President to engage in war-like activities, even if it’s done in the name of protecting us, Congress’ role in the process of war is negated. What good is getting Congressional approval to engage an enemy if the President can order an engagement prior to even talking to Congress? It’s like giving your credit card to a shopaholic for a week before setting limits to his or her spending. You know, like Congress does with our tax dollars.

What’s more, the War Powers Act ignores the human toll of war (or pre-war if you will). For every death or injury, every father or mother deployed under it, every family that is disrupted even temporarily, the War Powers Act doesn’t justify it. If we are going to strike at an enemy, it has to be done under the auspices of an actual declaration of war, not a 60-90 day window that can be extended with a Congressional vote. Not only is that far too late in the process for my tastes, it’s disrespectful to the men and women of our military and their families. We owe it to them to have the courage to put forth a united front against an acknowledged enemy.

And that’s impossible in the current political climate. Between the two poles, there is a lot of moral posturing and hatred that prevents the sober analysis of the facts necessary to declare war. Just look at the number of Leftists who blamed Trump for Iran taking down a commercial airliner because they claim it wouldn’t have happened if President Trump hadn’t acted. There’s an entire ideological side determined to blame the President for every ill and the facts be damned. And there’s an entire ideological side determined to defend the President, also with a facts be damned attitude. Meanwhile, those of us in the middle are getting exhausted trying to reason with both sides to try to get us all on the same page. As it stands, we’re not even reading the same book in the same language, which makes the likelihood of getting people to rally behind a common enemy like Iran pointless and impossible.

Which makes the War Powers Act one of the most dangerous laws on the books right now.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

194 Views

The new year started off with a bang, literally in the case of the late Major General Qassim Suleimani. Seems the good Major General got blown up in a strike in Baghdad, due to his involvement in a little act of violence against the American embassy in Baghdad. Oh, and his role in killing 600 Americans.

And now the Left is defending Iran indirectly by saying “He was a bad guy, but….”

Although there is a lot of attention being paid to Iran (after a lot of money was paid to them by a previous Administration who came up with a dumbass plan Iran wasn’t complying with), not much is known about the country itself and the Islamic theocracy in charge there. I’ll do my best to alleviate that here, and maybe throw in a few jokes.

Iran

What the Left thinks it means – a country that has suffered from American intervention, but was complying with the Iran Deal

What it really means – a country that has benefited from Leftist foreign policy failures

It’s time for a story. There was once a time in our history when Iran wasn’t the douchecanoe of a country it is today. It was the late 1970s, when polyester was the fabric of choice, KISS made a disco song, and Iran was lead by a man named Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, otherwise known as the Shah of Iran. Although he had a great deal of support in America for his more progressive (good progressive, not the Leftist version) approaches, the religious leaders and many of his countrymen disliked him and eventually overthrew him, replacing him with Ruhollah Khomeini (otherwise known as Skippy). The Ayatollah Khomeini went the opposite direction, turning Iran from a place where women could drive in public to one where shouting “Death to America” was their national pastime.

Since then, Iran has been a rigid theocracy, the kind the Left keeps telling us is right around the corner if we let those evil Christians take over! Being a Christian myself, I can see where the Left is coming from because there are some real loons out there (I’m looking at you, Westboro Baptist Church). However, I doubt the Left’s fears of a Christian theocracy are as well-founded as we think. Speaking as a Lutheran, we can’t even decide on what flavor of Jello goes best for a potluck. What makes you think we’ve got a master plan to take over the country? This ain’t The Handmaid’s Tale, kids, and we’re nowhere near it. But you know where it’s a reality?

Iran.

But, now the Left gets to pretend like they care about war with Iran because of President Donald Trump turning Qasem Soleimani extra crispy. The fact is Iran wants us dead (as evidenced by their “Death to America” chants) and will stop at nothing to make that happen. For the past 40+ years, America and Iran have been going around and around. More accurately, Iran has been getting wound up and yelling at us while America has pretty much been ignoring it. Although this approach may work with a child’s tantrum, it doesn’t work in geopolitics. All this has done is allowed Iran time to plan and develop technology that can be used to attack us.

Enter the Iran Deal. While Leftists defend this diplomatic effort from the Obama Administration to exchange lifting economic sanctions against Iran for Iran promising not to further develop nuclear technology for weapons while allowing it to continue to develop that technology to generate energy. Now, the funny thing is Iran is sitting one of the world’s biggest oil deposits, which makes it odd for them to start developing nuclear energy. Add to that the fact the Left likes nuclear energy as much as they like Ronald Reagan. Yet, the Iran Deal was heralded as a huge step forward towards reducing tensions in the area.

Oh, and the matter of a few billion dollars sent to Iran by the Obama Administration.

And what did it do? Nothing. Well, except make Iran richer and better able to develop its nuclear program.

I have been of the opinion that Iran has been developing nuclear weapons for a while now because, well, it suits their needs. Being radical Muslims, Iran has no problem lying to non-believers, as their reading of the Koran goes. And since we’re the Great Satan, they feel they’re justified in whatever they need to do to bring us down. Lying is no big deal if it leads to the end they desire.

You know, just like Leftists.

From a military standpoint, Iran has a vested interest in keeping the world in the dark about just how far along they are and in what direction their nuclear program is taking. It’s classic misdirection, and America has been taken in by promises that don’t pass the smell test. How do I know this? Because even with President Trump pulling out of the Iran Deal, Iran continued to violate terms of the agreement, as established by the foreign leaders who didn’t want us to pull out in the first place. The sensible question we should be asking is why Iran wouldn’t stick with the deal even if one of the principal partners backed out.

Because they had already achieved their goal: to bring America to heel. I maintain even if we stayed in the Iran Deal they had no intent of ever keeping up their end of the bargain because they saw what Saddam Hussein did in Iraq after Operation Desert Storm. For those of you who don’t remember, Saddam kept the UN weapons inspectors busy and distracted while they continued their chemical and biological weapons development, but the UN and Iraq both maintained the inspections and sanctions were being followed.

At least until they weren’t.

While I don’t necessarily want war with Iran, it’s insane to think President Trump’s actions in taking out Suleimani are going to make our relationship with Iran worse and lead to World War III. At worst, Iran still won’t send us a Ramadan card. But the Left need us to think this way because they have already invested a lot of time and energy trying to paint the President as a foreign policy idiot savant, minus the savant. As brutish and wrong-headed as the President is on a lot of subjects foreign and domestic, taking out a terrorist, which Suleimani was, is not a bad thing. Iran isn’t a country who will respond well to a sternly worded memo. They will, however, understand a show of force that can turn Tehran into Detroit with better water in a matter of minutes.

The Left needs Iran to be a victim of America and for the Iran Deal to be successful. With one military strike, Donald Trump has blown that right out of the water.

Sit On It

161 Views

Nancy Pelosi can sit on the Articles of Impeachment all she wants. In fact she can sit on them until the 2020 election is over.

But of course by then President Trump will have won his landslide re-election. The Senate Republicans majority will be increased. And the Republicans will have retaken the House, and Nancy Pelosi will no longer be the Speaker.

The new Republican Speaker can continue with the program set by the Democratic Party and hold on to the Articles of Impeachment. This action will of course anger and cause the symptoms of Trump Derangement Syndrome to worsen in Leftist neverTrumpers everywhere.

Now in 2022, the Speaker of the House after the mid-term elections of that year can send the 3 year old Articles of Impeachment to the Senate, if the 2022 Speaker is a Democrat. If the Republicans still have the majority in 2022 then they can continue to hold on to it as the Democrats did in 2019.

But finally after the 2024 elections. The new Speaker of the House, no matter what party, can finally send the 2019 Articles of Impeachment to the Senate. Of course by this time the Senate will dismiss the charges since President Trump will have completed his 2nd term and will no longer be the active President. And a vote or trial wont matter.

And the votes are in

185 Views

The House has Impeached President Donald Trump. This was not unexpected at all given the impeachment process started 19 minutes after President Trump took office. The Leftist Democratic Party with their Trump Derangement Syndrome wanted to impeach this President at any cost. And now they have.

The results of the vote is also no surprise either. It was a very partisan issue. And the results speak for themselves on this as well. The final vote was 232 Yea and 196 Nay. 215 votes were needed for the measure to pass. And this could have been done without a single Republican even present.

231 Democrats voted for the Articles of Impeachment against President Trump. 194 Republicans and 2 Democrats voted against the Impeachment. I will tip my hat to Congressman Peterson of MN and Congressman Van Drew of NJ who were both able to see this farce for what it was. There were also 3 Republicans and 1 Democrat that did not vote. They should have and I think all 4 of them should be voted out of office.

Now President Trump has become the 3rd US President to be Impeached but unlike the previous impeachments. This one smacks of partisan manipulation in an attempt to remove a duly elected President because the opposition did not win in the 2106 election and they do not have the ability to win in 2020.

President Trump is no angel. But his administration has done great things for the United States and the world. We are far better off now then we were under the 2 previous administrations.

This Impeachment nonsense will now be forced on the Senate. There they will try the President. In order for the President to be found guilty and removed from office. The vote must be 67 or more finding the President guilty. I don’t see this happening. There wont be enough votes for it thankfully.

The Democratic Party will scream about how unfair the Senate proceedings are during this Trial. Ignoring the fact that their own proceedings in the House were unfair and even unlawful and Unconstitutional as well. But that is the par for the course with the Democratic Party. They can take those actions but the Republicans can never do the same. It has been this way for many decades.

I will say it a 3rd time. If President Trump is found Guilty in the Senate. The Leftist Democrats will NOT stop with the Impeachment of Trump. They will Impeach Pence before he can even take the oath of office as President with the hopes of also finding him Guilty in the Senate. Then Nancy Pelosi will be sworn in as President to finish the last few months of the presidential term. From that point the Leftist agenda will proceed full steam. With the further impeachments of all those appointed by President Trump, including Justice Kavenaugh. And the policies of the Trump Administration will be erased under Executive Order and the Republic will die. 

To what end?

170 Views

Yesterday the House announced that they had two Articles of Impeachment against President Trump.

In our Constitution the President can only be impeached for one of the following crimes:
Bribery, Treason, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

The first two crimes on the list are very specifically and legally defined. And hard solid evidence is required. Thus the Leftist Democratic controlled House couldn’t charge President Trump with Bribery or Treason. The Law would stand in their way.

Now the other high Crimes and Misdemeanors was wide open. These aren’t defined anywhere as to what constitutes them. So it is up to the House to determine what is a high Crime or Misdemeanor and impeachable.

And what does the House charge President Trump with after all this time. Abuse of Power and Obstruction of Congress.

President Trump hasn’t abused his power as President. He has faithfully exercised it, which many past Republican presidents have not done. And from a legal standpoint, abusing ones power isn’t illegal. Unethical, probably so, but not illegal.

Also the term of Abuse of Power is very nebulous and could apply to anything as well. Even something harmless and mundane like getting tickets to a ball game.

The second charge of Obstruction of Congress. That one sounds bad since it sounds like another known crime. But this one too isn’t actually a crime either.

President Trump did exercise his power as the chief executive and forbade certain members of the Administration from testifying before the various House committees investigating the alleged impeachment proceedings. But this is within the rights of a President to protect his Administration.

The House could have acted on the refusal but they did not. If they really wanted the testimony of these witnesses they could have issued a subpoena. Demanding that they come before the House committee and testify. But this was not done. If it had been done and the subpoena was refused. Then Congress could have gone through the Courts and issued a court order for their appearance. But this also was not done. If it had been done and still refused. Then and only then would President Trump and the witnesses themselves be guilty of Contempt of Congress. And that could be an impeachable offense.

But all the House did was ask for the witnesses to testify. They refused. And that was the end of it. Request denied. Thus the charge of Obstruction of Congress is meaningless.

And now here we are nearly four years since this all started when prominent Democrats began calling for the impeachment of then President-Elect Donald Trump in 2016. They have finally the Articles drafted in the House. The House has enough of a Democratic majority to pass the Articles even if some Democrats vote against it. Thus forcing a Trial in the Senate.

But to what end does this serve? The House would be better served if they had passed a censure against the President, even on the same charges. It would have passed. It would have been a victory. Now the Impeachment will be handed over to the Senate where the President could likely be acquitted just as President Clinton was at his impeachment Trial. And the 2020 elections are coming fast with disastrous results for the Leftist Democrats if this fails in the Senate.

That’s It?

164 Views

Today, House Democrats announced they would introduce two articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump. After weeks of testimony, months of investigation, and years of blathering about both on the news, they finally decided on…abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.

The audible thud you heard was the Left’s expectations crashing like the Hindenburg, but with a lot less fire.

Maybe it’s me, but these articles of impeachment seem to be missing something, like…say…actual illegal activity. After all, the standard for impeachment is “high crimes and misdemeanors,” which heavily suggests there has to be some illegal activity for impeachment to be warranted. And, yes, I know impeachment is a political process and not a legal one, but you would need to either be inept or a spin doctor extraordinaire to arrive at abuse of power and obstruction of Congress as crimes.

Then again, these are House Democrats we’re dealing with here, so it’s possible both are in play.

With the last impeachment on record, that of Bill “Commander in Briefs” Clinton, House Republicans put forth a total of four counts of impeachment, all them tied to actual law. The two the House decided upon were perjury and obstruction of justice. Compare that to the two counts House Democrats cobbled together. The only one that comes close to legal precedent is obstruction of Congress, which is only close because it’s one word off from the actual crime.

With that, let’s take a closer look at the two counts of impeachment against President Trump.

First, there’s abuse of power. That is such a nebulous charge it could apply to anyone and anything. If the President got a meter maid to let him or her stay in a parking spot 5 minutes after the meter ran out? ABUSE OF POWER! The President borrowed a book from the library and hasn’t returned it in 2 years? ABUSE OF POWER!

Now, here’s the tricky part: abuse of power may not be a crime nor a misdemeanor. To my knowledge (which I admit may not be as thorough as some of the legal scholars out there), abuse of power isn’t against the law. It’s certainly not ethical, but it may not be criminal. And there is a vast difference between legal and ethical, one that House Democrats don’t appear to see in front of them. If this one doesn’t get laughed out of the House in a bipartisan effort, I’ll be disappointed, but not surprised for a reason I’ll get into later.

The second charge of obstruction of Congress has a bit more precedent behind it. Contempt of Congress has both criminal and civil punishments to it, which would fall under the actual high crimes and misdemeanors section of the Constitution. Where it falls apart is with what has happened so far with the Impeach-A-Palooza campaign. President Trump barred some members of his office from testifying, but Trump himself hasn’t been called to testify before Congress. He’s been invited, although perhaps more tongue-in-cheek than serious, but he hasn’t been called by any of the House Democrats running the multitude of committees involved in the process. Another technicality, I know, but one that changes the dynamic of the charge itself. If one is not called to testify before Congress and isn’t called to produce documents, one cannot be charged with contempt of Congress under the letter of the law.

And the self-professed “defenders of the Constitution” have failed to see the simple logical trap they fell into.

Reaction to the two impeachment articles ranged from “why aren’t there more” on the Left to “you got nothing” on the Right. For the purposes of this impeachment fiasco, I’m siding with the Right. Although both sides of this situation can rightly be accused of having partisan blinders on, the fact remains none of this would have happened if House Democrats hadn’t decided to go all in on impeaching President Trump for reasons that can best be described as petty. If you doubt me, look at Leftist Twitter right now. They are inventing high crimes and misdemeanors to justify their belief President Trump should be impeached, and few of them have any actual legal foundation. To put it mildly, they are losing their hivemind over this. The Left is out for blood and they will stop at nothing, including inventing new laws out of Orange Man Bad, to sate their bloodlust.

Having said that, I think the obstruction of Congress charge has enough legs to get through the House, and the Senate will not punish President Trump on it, mainly on party lines. What impact will that have on the President? None. He’s pretty much written off the impeachment as so much of a joke Amy Schumer is going to steal it for her next comedy special, “Who Are You and Why Should We Care?” The people who support him will continue to do so, those who don’t will continue to berate him, and people trying to play both sides of the fence will continue to pretend to be Nadia Comaneci while holding in their opinions so they can appear above it all.

What the Left isn’t taking into consideration is the fact impeachment isn’t a winning issue to a lot of people, including Democrats. Based on early speculation on how the votes are going to go, there are a handful of Democrats willing to break ranks with the party leadership and vote against impeachment. Given the fact impeachment is polling worse than toejam right now, this isn’t a dumb move on their part. So far, there’s only one former Republican, Justin Amash, willing to vote for impeachment. Now, I’m no math whiz, but if even 2 Democrats vote against impeachment, that’s already a net loss for the Left.

In the grand scheme of things, though, it may not matter. All it takes for a majority in the House is 218 votes, and Democrats have 233 votes currently. If things go by a party line or mostly party line vote, the House will be able to impeach President Trump. Yet, of the two articles so far, only one has any kind of legal foundation. This is enough under the Constitution, but it may not be enough for the voting public. In today’s political climate, even the perfectly justifiable will fall to the whims of the people.

House Democrats have taken a risk with Impeach-A-Palooza, and outside of their allies in the media and their sycophantic ideological bubble-mates, few people have come around to their way of thinking. And with there being less than a year before the 2020 elections, they don’t have the time to spare splitting their time among impeachment, going on cable news shows and talking about impeachment, trying to get something done legislatively that doesn’t suck like a Hoover at the center of a black hole, energizing the base to keep voting and donating, trying to help candidates, watching their pennies as donations to the DNC get drier than a sand martini in Vegas, deciding which member of the Democrat Clown Car to support so they might get a spot in his or her Cabinet should the President be defeated, and pretending they don’t care what the President tweets while acting like Pavlov’s dogs in a room full of alarm clocks all set to go off at the same time.

Whew! I haven’t seen anyone juggle that many balls since the last gay orgy I attended, but that’s another story for another time. In the meantime, I’ll be over here watching Nancy Pelosi play the fiddle while Congress burns.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

150 Views

As another week of the Left’s Impeach-A-Palooza goes on, the House Judiciary Committee asked for input from four scholars about whether President Donald Trump committed impeachable offenses. Of the four, three were clearly on the pro-impeach side (as evidenced by some of their social media posts before the House Judiciary Committee hearing was a thing), and one was on the anti-impeach side.

Guess who got the bulk of the attention.

As many colleges and universities across the country are letting out for winter break, I think it’s time we take a closer look at what a scholar is and see if the title fits the people granted it.

scholar

What the Left thinks it means – a learned expert on a field of study whose work cannot be questioned

What it really means – a Leftist with a title and tenure

The Left loves to use scholars to justify their ideas. Manmade Climate Change? Here’s a list of scholars who believe in it (some of whom actually have a background in climate science!). Need someone to whitewash abortion? Here’s a list of scholars who think abortion is no big deal! Want to show how the patriarchy is alive and well at women’s colleges? Here’s a list of scholars who can prove it! If you have a pet cause, the Left has a scholar ready and willing to parrot whatever line you want him or her to say.

This, of course, is a logical fallacy called Appeal to Authority. Basically, it’s when someone tries to turn back any argument critical of his or her argument by saying, “But I have [insert name or profession of someone allegedly smarter than us] to back me up, so you’re wrong.” The key to this type of argumentation is to make it seem like one side has the intellectual high ground based solely on who agrees with you and without that pesky little thing the kids today like to call facts.

Let’s take the Left’s new favorite climate poster child, Greta Thunberg. On the basis of one impassioned (and, quite frankly, so hammy it goes against both the Hebrew and Muslim faiths) speech, Ms. Thunberg was elevated to untouchable status, even to the point she is considered to be a leader in the climate change movement. In other words, the Left has made her into a saint…I mean scholar on climate change. Yet, she doesn’t have the intellectual pedigree to back up that elevation. She’s gotten famous all because she said, “How dare you?” at the United Nations while her ideas are unfounded in anything resembling science.

Hmmm…wasn’t there a former Vice President who experienced the same elevation on climate change without a scintilla of scientific evidence, someone who continues to warn us about rising sea levels as he buys up more beachfront property? I swear there was, but I’ll be damned if I can remember his name. Oh well. Guess we’ll never know. I won’t Al Bore you with further speculation…

The funny thing about the Left’s use of scholarship is it only goes one way. When they use it to support their ideas, you can’t argue against it because you’re “anti-science.” When it gets used against them, the scholar isn’t credible due to a supposed lack of peer reviewed work. As someone familiar with the quality of peer review, or lack thereof, getting a peer reviewed paper if you’re a Leftist is easier than getting a lap dance from Stormy Daniels right now. But if you express anything to the right of Leo Trotsky, no peer will touch it, except to dismiss it as drivel (even if they don’t read it). Just ask John Lott Jr. about his papers on gun ownership reducing crime.

Without going too much further down this rabbit hole, keep in mind these same scholars are teaching college students and filling their heads full of Leftist dogma, thus creating a wonderful world of self-justifying ideas once these students get out into the real world and start voting or taking up causes. Just remember scholars can be absolutely wrong or waaaaaaay off in left field with their ideas. Your Women’s Studies professor may be a nice person, but that doesn’t make his or her ideas sacrosanct. The point of education is not to regurgitate what the instructor tells you, especially with Common Core math because that stuff is nuts. Education comes when you challenge your own ideas and the ideas of others in the intellectual squared circle. The minute an instructor/scholar tells you it’s his/her way or the highway is the minute you learn you have nothing else to learn from them.

As impressive as it might be to have legal scholars testifying about high crimes and misdemeanors in front of the House Judiciary Committee, the question remains the same: do they add value to the arguments being made? Based on what I’ve read so far of their testimony, only the anti-impeachment scholar did. The others were repeating tired talking points, which is exactly what the House Democrats wanted to divert attention away from the fact their first attempt yielded testimony from people who have no proof of what the President is alleged to have done that warranted impeachment in the first place. Bringing in scholars may add context, but it doesn’t add content. Unless they have relevant information to the alleged crimes and not just their opinions on such, it’s more hot air and more of our money being spent on a quest even Don Quixote would pass at.

Oh, I remember that former Vice President now! It was Spiro Agnew!

The Trigger has been Pulled

150 Views

Today, Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi has authorized the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee to draft Articles of Impeachment against President Donald Trump. This is not going to end well for the Leftists and the Democratic Party.

Of course there is no hard evidence of any wrong doing by the President. The transcript of his call to the Ukrainian President was released. Anyone can read it for themselves. None of the so-called witnesses during Mr Schiff’s so-called investigations and hearings were parties to the conversation. Some have never even met the President.

The Articles of Impeachment will pass the House since the Leftist Democratic Party has control there. And they are all rabidly mad with Trump Derangement Syndrome. But most of those up for re-election in 2020 will find themselves back home because of this fiasco.

Even with the House passing Articles of Impeachment does not undo the 2016 election. President Trump is still President. It will go to the Senate for a Trial.

Within the Senate it must make a two-thirds majority in order to remove President Trump from office. That is 67 votes out of 100. There is a slight majority of Republicans within the Senate. 53 of them to be exact. While the Democratic Party has 47 plus 2 socialists.

I do not think the odds are in favor of passage of a guilty verdict against President Trump. This whole impeachment case sets a very dangerous precedent for future Presidents. And if President Trump is found guilty in the Senate. This will be the end of our Republic and we will have the monstrosity of a democracy that our Founding Fathers fought against.

I have said it before. If President Trump is impeached, found guilty, and removed from office. He will be the first in a line of impeachment trials by the Leftists to undo the 2016 elections. Pence will follow shortly there after and then even any appointments made by President Trump. Including those to the Supreme Court.

Pray for the proper outcome here. Save the Republic. Save President Trump.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

181 Views

This week’s Leftist Lexicon entry is a first for me. In the past, I’ve covered (and recovered) words and phrases the Left have used in varying contexts and tried to explain what they mean to the rest of us. Today, I’m going to invent a word for the Leftist Lexicon that they haven’t used yet, but most certainly applies to them. Hopefully this doesn’t lead to a mass exodus from the site, but if it does, I hereby blame the Russians because…reasons.

So, here we go!

impeachment word salad

What the Left thinks it means – Ummmm…I dunno?

What it really means – a phrase that explains the Left’s impeachment efforts against Donald Trump

Remember back in 2009 when the Left got their collectivist panties in a wad over Republicans and conservatives trying to undermine President Barack Obama’s agenda? It seems like a decade ago, mainly because it was. However, one thing the Republicans didn’t try to do is impeach President Obama for crimes he committed or were a party to (much to the chagrin of your humble correspondent because there was fertile ground to make a case or, say, 50). When Donald Trump became President, though, Leftists wanted to impeach him from Day One, oddly enough for crimes he allegedly committed before becoming President.

Yes, it’s just that stupid.

Today, though, the Left has been making all sorts of allegations for presumed crimes committed before and during Trump’s Presidency. In the process, they’ve tied a number of terms to their impeachment efforts: collusion, extortion, bribery, election tampering, and so on. And as each new word gets attached, the previous words either lose their meaning or get ignored once they’ve served the Left’s purposes. In turn, this makes the people outside of Leftist Fantasyland either utterly confused due to the shifting narrative or utterly disgusted by the Left’s antics.

Guess which camp I’m in.

The Left loves to use buzzwords they test and test to ensure their impact on the people they consider uninformed or easily-led (i.e. the non-Leftists). Most of the time, it works. Words like homophobia, transphobia, and safe spaces have become part of our lexicon (and part of the Leftist Lexicon, too), but with impeachment, these words aren’t making any sense. Hence, the “word salad” portion of today’s Leftist Lexicon entry. For the uninitiated, a word salad is when people string together words that aren’t connected by any logical and consistent thought and that the people using them may or may not know the definitions of when they use them. Kinda like…well, the current impeachment effort. Fortunately, the Left has adopted the idea that it’s better to be emotionally right than factually right, according to their Matron Saint Alexandria of New York.

The problem is words mean things, as Rush Limbaugh has pointed out several times. And when dealing with legal terms, those definitions have implications above and beyond being used towards a political end. In building their impeachment case, the Left has created a multitude of problems with their impeachment word salad. Take extortion, for example. That is a serious charge, and the Left’s definition of it in this case has removed the notion of the victim knowing he or she is being extorted for it to be a crime. And remember, kids, the alleged victim in this case is a grown man who just happens to be the President of the Ukraine. You know, the guy whose statements about the alleged extortion all but destroy the very reason the Left is trying to impeach President Trump? But we should totally believe the Left is above board on this.

And here’s the best part. The reason the Left has been using so many different terms (by their own admission, I might add) is because they don’t think we understand complex concepts like quid pro quo and need it spelled out in explicit detail for us to get it. They want us to believe them while they hold us in contempt for what they perceive to be our intellectual shortcomings. Of course, there’s no way insulting potential supporters can go wrong, right? After all, that’s the strategy that made Hillary Clinton Presi…oh, sorry. Sort of a sore spot for the Left still. My bad!

Here’s a pro tip for the Left from your buddy Thomas. We get it. You don’t like President Trump and want the 2016 Election overturned because you feel it was Hillary’s turn. But you can’t impeach a President for hurting your fee-fees, no matter how hard you try or wish for it. You’re doing what your pals in the manmade climate change camp have done for decades: start with your desired conclusion and work backwards. It doesn’t work that way, and using loaded terminology with actual legal definitions and punishments won’t make your impeachment word salad any more intelligible or defensible before the US Senate, where your chances of getting Trump impeached are less likely than Pauly Shore winning a Best Actor Oscar. A Razzie, sure, but not an Oscar.

Here’s what I think you need to do. Just admit you have nothing, cut your losses, and try to find a non-insane Presidential candidate to beat President Trump in 2020. By the looks of the current clown car, though, I think you’re already at the point of no return on all those fronts. Better luck next time!