Google+

Podcast – War Powers – Did Trump have the Authority to Kill Soleimani?

by: Brent Smith

Did Trump have the right, the authority under the Constitution to kill Soleimani and that other bag of dirty, al-Muhandis?

That’s been the burning question on everyone’s mind and just another perceived log, stoking the democrat fires of impeachment. Can this also be added to their Articles of Impeachment – or maybe saved for later?

Was Trump Constitutionally correct in “unilaterally” ordering the strike against the left’s new war hero, Qassem Soleimani?

Well, the short answer is yes, and I will explain exactly why the president was and is right and the dems are once again wrong. read more

Stein: Democrat Long Knives

from the American Spectator:

The Democrats’ Long Knives

Tagwaran/Shutterstock.com
To whom do we owe our freedom? Do we owe it to the nightly news show hosts? I don’t think so. To the rap stars? Again, not a chance. To our great athletes? To the stars whom we sometimes dance with? No.

We owe everything to a tiny sliver of the population, about 2/3 of one percent, who wear the uniform. They put up their lives each and every day to save us. There are about 1.45 million of them out of a national population of about 330 million. We do virtually nothing for them. They do everything for us. read more

The Gift of Our Constitution

from the New York Sun:

As President Trump and Speaker Pelosi retreat to their corners for Christmas, we find ourselves thinking of the gift of the Constitution. It was ten years ago that the Sun started writing about America’s “constitutional moment.” We had just brought out — as “The Citizen’s Constitution” — our annotated guide to the national parchment. It was animated by a sense that our politics had become so divided, so bitter, that our factions would end up fighting ever more battles on America’s legal bedrock. read more

WND Exclusive – Take a toke, man – your town needs the tax money

from Brent Smith for World Net Daily:

There are some odd things going on in our country lately.

Yes, I know that’s a silly open-ended statement and could refer to just about anything these days. But I’m talking about the seeming disconnect between states and the federal government. Or more specifically, the disconnect between state and federal laws.

In this case, the disconnect between federal marijuana laws and that of the states.

Marijuana is considered an illegal substance by the feds, yet at least 11 states have legalized its purchase and consumption – either strictly medically and/or for recreational use.

The United States Constitution is unmistakably clear concerning the relationship of federal and state law.

Article VI, Section 2, states: read more

Deplorable has a New Meaning – And it’s Nancy Pelosi

by: Brent Smith

Scroll Down for Audio Version

Don’tcha just love the flags?

Remember when Hillary Clinton described us as “deplorables?”

Well there’s a new definition, and it describes the impeachment speech that Nancy Pelosi gave the other day. There was nothing quite as deplorable as listening to 5 minutes and 42 seconds of disingenuous faux-patriotism from a San Francisco leftist who, like her fellow leftists would, if they could, shred the Constitution.

It was the most despicable display I’ve seen since the last time Adam Schiff opened his mouth. So really – not so long ago.

Up to the point of the phony Trump impeachment, we never heard a single democrat quoting the founding fathers or our founding documents. Until recently, not a single leftist has mentioned that the United States is in fact a Republic, and not a democracy. However Pelosi intentionally intermingled the two terms as if they are synonymous.

She began by describing our revolution and our want to break free from an oppressive King, King George III, and “the King’s refusal to follow rightfully passed laws.” This, of course, is also meant to describe president Trump. read more

Podcast – The Deep State Department, Impeachment and the Founders

by: Brent Smith

Today I’ll discuss what I’ve coined the “Deep State” Department and how it is akin, as Glenn Beck astutely describes, as Hydra, form the Marvel movies. They are, we discovering, remarkably similar, except for all the death ships and such.

In mine and others’ opinion, that’s really what’s this latest attempt at impeachment and removal of president Trump is really about – teaching our elected officials that the deep state actually runs the show and don’t try to usurp their power, or pay the price for doing so.

I also discuss Marie Yovanovitch “feelings” testimony, Liz Cheney and the founders original intent and language of the impeachment clause in the Constitution. read more

WND Exclusive – Trump’s California Emissions Move Unconstitutional

by Brent Smith for World Net Daily:

We’ve all heard by now that President Trump is proposing to take away “California’s power to set its own vehicle tailpipe emissions standards, escalating an environmental dispute that has trapped auto makers in the middle.”

This move by Trump is reported to be in conjunction with a rollback of Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) Standards.

To date, all of California emission standards restrictions eclipse those of the federal government.

If you are unfamiliar, Corporate Average Fuel Economy(CAFE) Standards are regulations, first enacted by the United States Congress in 1975, after the 1973–74 Arab oil embargo, to improve the average fuel economy of cars and light trucks (trucks, vans and sport utility vehicles) produced for sale in the United States. read more

The Left’s Bill of Wrongs

by: Brent Smith

Scroll Down for Audio Version

The Atlantic wrote recently of, “an obscure New York City ordinance governing how firearms owners could—note the past tense—travel with their weapons.”

Under this law, “New Yorkers with a “premises” license had to keep their guns in their homes at all times, except when being taken to a licensed target-shooting facility for practice and training. But those facilities had to be in New York City itself. “Premises” licensees could not put their guns in their trunk and drive out of town for any reason—not to go to a gun range, not to compete in a shooting match, not to take the guns to a second home.”

A premises license? Well heck. If this isn’t unconstitutional, I frankly don’t know what is. Just where in the Second Amendment does it say anything about being forced to keep your guns at home at all times? Answer: NOWHERE!!

But as bad as this is, it is not my point.

The plantiffs, the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, as well as the NRA, sued all the way to the United States Supreme Court, and much to most peoples’ surprise, they agreed to review the case. read more

Don’t Cave on the Constitution

The beginning of the end of the Second Amendment

by: Brent Smith at the Common Constitutionalist

I agree with the President on most things, but I can’t on this.

We’ve been hearing, ad nauseum, that polling suggests that the public supports universal background checks and greater gun restrictions. And we’ve not only been hearing this from democrats, but also from Republicans.

So now I guess we’ve given up on protection and defense of the Constitution and will be governed by the whims of the people and politicians?

It reminds of what the father of the modern progressive movement, president Woodrow Wilson said.  (I hate that guy!) “The Constitution was founded on the law of gravitation. The government was to exist and move by virtue of the efficacy of ‘checks and balances.’ The trouble with the theory is that government is not a machine, but a living thing. No living thing can have its organs offset against each other, as checks, and live.”

This was the beginning of the “living, breathing,” Constitution. That musty old document was fine for its day, but it should not have been built on immovable bedrock. Instead it should be built on sand so that it may move and shift with the changing times.

President Trump and the Republicans have expressed openness to a federal red flag law and for “meaningful” background checks. read more

Video Podcast – Trump Must Put the Courts in Their Place

by: Brent Smith at the Common Constitutionalist

The other day, Daniel Horowitz of Conservative Review made a couple of great points regarding the recent supreme Court decisions.

It was regarding both the DACA non-decision and the census decision.

Neither of these “cases” should involve the courts at any level, much less the supreme Court.

I discuss why both should be decided by only the Executive branch, with no inputs from the courts, and little, if any input from even the Legislative branch. read more