Was there ever any doubt regarding the motivation of Special Council Robert Mueller and his merry band of left leaning hit-men?
If there was a doubt, there should no longer be one – not after his now infamous closing remarks where he turned our justice system on its head and declared president Trump guilty until proven innocent.
I discuss his motivation, one particular team member and something about Trump I haven’t heard anywhere else. read more
Libertarian Rep. Justin Amash is a founding member of the House Freedom Caucus, a fiscal hawk and has a Conservative Review Liberty Score of 90, which is excellent.
So what does all this conservatism have to do with Amash’s recent call for the impeachment of President Trump? In other words, what does one have to do with the other? Well … absolutely nothing. But some “conservative” websites mean to somehow equate the two.
As a general rule, I don’t like calling out another conservative site, particularly as I often quote them. But the Washington Examiner’s piece entitled, “Get mad at Justin Amash all you want, but he’s still the biggest fiscal conservative,” tries to do just that. read more
I have to admit that to a whole lot of people, Trump looks like he caved to Nancy Pelosi – because he did. The dems got what they wanted and Trump and we got nothing.
What did the dems get and what can Trump do now? And what will the democrats do to counter whatever he does.
This is all discussed. read more
What is the best course of action for the Democrats after seizing control of the House?
See what I did there? This is how the Dems always justify their elections losses. If Republicans win, they “seize control.” If the Dems win, which is apparently the natural order of things, they assume, or re-assume, control. They are King Richard, and we are the Sheriff of Nottingham.
The left is clamoring for articles of impeachment to be brought to bear about five minutes after the new Congress convenes. It’s what their constituents expect, because it’s what House leftists promised they would do. read more
Mad at university for not addressing ‘hate’ online
Student government officials who threatened to impeach one of their leaders for using the phrase “illegal aliens” have backed off, citing fears for their “safety and wellbeing.”
They are also afraid of being sued for First Amendment violations.
Senators lashed out at Emporia State University administrators Wednesday night for not responding to the “hate” directed at them for the impeachment threat, according to The Bulletin student newspaper. read more
There is no way Trump should even consider sitting down with Mueller’s team and answering his set of
inane and hopelessly open-ended gotcha questions.
The founders never intended for a sitting president to be indicted, tried criminally, or jailed. If they had, they would have included it the Constitution, or at the very least, would have debated the idea during the Convention in 1787. It’s not that they simply forgot to add it. read more
Scroll Down for Audion Version
On March 7, 2017 Politicus USA reported that Rachel Maddow of MSNBC “Drops Major Reality Check: Trump-Russia Collusion
Looks Increasingly Likely.” Well of course it did, except that it didn’t. In fact Trump had zero knowledge of Russian hacking.
Well, that’s a pretty bold statement. How is it that you are so sure? I actually wasn’t until I saw this.
Late last week The Hill wrote a piece entitled simply, “Maddow: ‘Absolutely’ possible Trump didn’t know about Russia hacking.”
Now you might be saying to yourself – Mr. Constitutionalist – you may call me Common – you and most other conservatives never believe a word that comes from Rachel Maddow – and for good reason. Yet all of a sudden you conclude she is now telling the truth? What gives?
The left wants president Trump impeached, shackled and perp-walked out of the White House. This is their fantasy. They want it so bad that they’ve crafted an entire narrative around this fantasy. They will never get over losing to such a buffoon.
So they came up with this Russia collusion story. It got traction and with the help of all the media and the weak-kneed Republicans giving them everything they wanted, it really began to take off. read more
by: the Common Constitutionalist
Rush Limbaugh has this list he calls, the “35 Undeniable Truths of Life”. One of these truths that isn’t on the list, but should be, is that to the Left, everything is political.
After all, not a week goes by that he (Rush) doesn’t remind us of this. And good for him – because he’s right. It’s absolutely true.
Everything the left does or says is to gain some political advantage over the Republicans, or frankly, over the American people.
My only problem with Rush’s statement is that it’s only half true. Rarely does he equate the Republicans with this statement – as the establishment wing of the party certainly also feels this way.
The only difference might be that the Dems attempt to gain advantage on every issue whereas the establishment thinks only in terms of an advance for the next election. It’s micro vs. macro.
For the Democrats, it’s always the next cause – the Republicans – the next election. That’s the only difference. The sameness of both is to put party above all else – namely the country and what they swore an oath to uphold.
A shining example was a piece at Townhall.com, penned by Matt Towery entitled, “Why Republicans Should Avoid the Temptation to Impeach“.
He begins by extolling the virtues of born-again progressive, Newt Gingrich, writing: “Other than Ronald Reagan, no Republican elected official has had a more positive impact on actual public policy of a real conservative nature in my lifetime than former House Speaker Newt Gingrich”. read more
from the American Thinker:
Lately it’s hard to take John Boehner and his Coppertone tan seriously. However, when it appeared that the House Majority Speaker was proactively taking the wind out of Barack Obama’s ‘they want to impeach me’ sails, there was a glimmer of hope that someone on the right had actually grown a spine.
Republicans reiterating that impeachment was not an option exhibited a rare unified spirit. Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY) even hobbled up to the mic to reinforce Boehner’s proclamation that impeaching Barack Obama was a talking point that Democrats, not Republicans, were going on about.
Is that a pulse? Could it be that finally, after six long years of waiting, the geriatric wing of the Republican Party had actually mustered the strength to block the president’s desperate effort to divert attention prior to the midterms in November?
Or could it be that Obama’s pathetic attempt to garner sympathy at the expense of Republicans is a Saul Alinsky tactic? read more
by: the Common Constitutionalist
Recently, the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, little Johnny Boehner, proclaimed that, “Every member of Congress swore an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. So did Pres. Obama. But too often over the past five years, the president has circumvented the American people and their elected representatives through executive action, changing and creating his own laws, and excusing himself from the forcing statutes he is sworn to uphold – at times even boasting about his willingness to do it, as if daring the American people to stop him.”
“That’s why, later this month, we will bring legislation to the House floor that would authorize the House of Representatives to file suit in an effort to compel president Obama to follow his oath of office and faithfully execute the laws of our country.”
Boehner’s statement was in direct response to Obama’s “So Sue Me” statement to Congress. In other words, Obama will do whatever he darn well pleases, and if you don’t like it – tough toenails for you.
He didn’t, nor does anyone else using that phrase, mean to actually sue him. Maybe he did.
Boehner says he’s disappointed in “the president’s flippant dismissal of the Constitution we are both sworn to defend…”
He’s disappointed? That’s it? Not outraged at the president who is breaking the law on a regular basis, and consistently acting anti-constitutionally? read more
