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
by Tom Tancredo:
(Tom Tancredo is the founder of the Rocky Mountain Foundation and founder and co-chairman of Team America PAC. He is also a former five-term congressman and presidential candidate. Tancredo is the author of “In Mortal Danger: The Battle for America’s Border and Security.)
Almost every week brings a new reason for the United States House of Representatives to bring impeachment charges against President Obama. The question of the day is not why he should be impeached but why it hasn’t already been done.
This week it was Secretary of Defense Panetta’s declaration before the Senate Armed
Services Committee that he and President Obama look not to the Congress for authorization to bomb Syria but to NATO and the United Nations. This led to Rep. Walter Jones, R-N.C., introducing an official resolution calling for impeachment should Obama take offensive action based on Panetta’s policy statement, because it would violate the Constitution
Well, really, folks: Is Obama’s disregard of the Constitution really news? No. He has done it so many times it doesn’t make news anymore. Democrats approve it and Republicans in Congress appear to accept it – not all Republicans, of course, but far too many.
The list of Obama’s constitutional violations is growing by the day and ought to be the topic of not only nightly news commentary but citizens’ town-hall meetings and protest rallies.
President Obama can only be emboldened by the lack of impeachment proceedings. His violations typically arouse a short-lived tempest among some conservatives, yet impeachment is not generally advocated by his critics as a realistic recourse. That must change.
That Obama can be voted out of office in eight months is not a reason to hold back on impeachment. Formal impeachment proceedings in the House of Representatives would help alert the nation’s 120 million likely voters that more is at stake in Obama’s power grabs than Syrian human rights and contraception subsidies for college students.
The grounds for House impeachment proceedings have been laid by Obama’s own actions. A list of his unconstitutional and illegal actions would embarrass any honest public official and makes Nixon’s Watergate cover-up look like a college fraternity house panty raid.
Obama’s policy on the use of military force abroad raises grave issues – both policy issues and constitutional issues. When Defense Secretary Panetta tells a Senate committee he will
rely on NATO and the U.N. for “permission” for use of military force, that is an affront to and direct assault on the Constitution.
Those Panetta statements propelled Rep. Jones to introduce a House resolution stipulating that any use of military force by the president without an act of Congress, except to repel a direct attack on the United States, is an impeachable offense under the Constitution.
But this is only the latest Obama assault on the Constitution. There are many other examples of Obama’s disregard for constitutional limitations to his power.
•Obama violated the Constitution with his “recess appointments” while the Senate was not in recess. It is up the Senate to decide when it is in recess, not the president. That distinction between executive and legislative authority is what the Separation of Powers 
doctrine is all about.
•Obama is an obvious participant and co-conspirator in Eric Holder’s approval and later cover-up of the illegal “Fast and Furious” gun-walking program. Unlike the Watergate case, people have actually died as a result of this illegal program.
•Obama undoubtedly has knowledge of and has approved Homeland Security Secretary Napolitano’s project to require Border Patrol management to falsify apprehension numbers on the southwest border. This is a clear violation of Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution, which requires the federal government to protect the country against foreign invasion.
•The president’s open refusal to enforce the Defense of Marriage Act is a violation of Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution, which does not authorize the president to choose which laws to “faithfully execute.” The oath taken by a new president on Inauguration Day does not say, “… to defend the Constitution of the United States… to the best of my ability except when I disagree with it.”
•Did the president violate the law when he instructed Labor Secretary Solis to negotiate agreements with foreign governments to expand the “labor rights” of illegal aliens?
The precedent of Clinton’s impeachment over his perjury in the Monica Lewinsky case established the principle that the legal definition of “high crimes and misdemeanors” is what Congress wants them to mean. Have Obama’s actions met the constitutional standard for impeachment? Absolutely, yes.
Unless the House of Representatives acts to begin impeachment proceedings against this bold usurper, we are headed for dictatorship. Either the Constitution limits the president’s powers or it does not. If it does, Obama must be impeached for his actions. If not, then a dictatorship is not only inevitable, it will be upon us soon.
