Will the Trial of the Century Actually Take Place?

by: Brent Smith

No Audio Version

When the democrat hacks in the House of Representatives get around to fabricating whatever charges of impeachment against the president, it of course then goes on to the Senate to be tried.

To recap, the House’s only responsibility is to bring, or in this case makeup charges, or Articles of Impeachment – similar to an indictment.

Then it moves to the Senate for trial and judgment, and is overseen by supreme Court Chief Justice, John “ObamaCare” Roberts.

Regardless of what the charges are, anyone who has paid attention to the actual facts, and watched Glenn Beck’s Ukraine timeline videos, Part OnePart TwoPart Three, understands that whatever the charges leveled against the president, all will be bogus – completely fabricated. Just like Adam Schiff’s soliloquy at the hearing in September.

Recall he made people believe he was reading directly from the transcript of the phone call between Trump and the Ukrainian president. Of course he made it up. But his purpose was just to advance a narrative of guilt, knowing that most low-information citizens wouldn’t read the transcript or even inquire about it. And, for the most part, he got away with it, as spineless and/or ignorant republicans, seated right next to him, never called him on it until days later. read more

A Secret Ballot to Remove Trump?

I never thought of this, but I can almost see this kind of thing happening. Just anonymously vote the big oaf out of office and then lie to your constituents by saying you don’t know how this could’ve happened – “I voted to keep him.” And then get reelected, which is all most of them really care about anyway.

from Conservative Review:

Removing Trump by Senate secret ballot would be a disaster for our republic

 

Shadow of unknown man in Capitol Building

Brendan Smialowski/AFP | Getty Images

Could the United States Senate use a secret ballot to remove President Donald Trump from office? Possibly, but it would be an absolutely terrible idea.

An article published Tuesday at Politico Magazine floats the idea, noting that Senate procedure allows the upper chamber to set its own rules for trying impeachment and that a bloc of just three Republicans could potentially force the issue. read more

WND Exclusive: Hey, Mitch McConnell, ‘Lead’ is Part of Your Title!

Talk about leading from behind. We used to think it shameful that Obama would lead from behind, by letting other world leaders do whatever heavy lifting needed to be done (not that much ever had to be done), and then Obama would just hop on the bandwagon –being praised by leftists for it.

Obama was the king of leading from behind – until now. It seems our dear Senate majority leader, the one and only (thank heavens) Mitch McConnell may have dethroned the king. read more

Conservatives vs the Swamp

by: the Common Constitutionalist

Scroll Down for Audio Version

One of the claims that President Trump hailed during the campaign was that he wanted to “Drain the Swamp” in D.C. We heard many times from him and his surrogates about going to Washington to drain the swamp. Those at his rallies could even be heard chanting, “Drain the Swamp.”

It played great to the masses, but is it really possible? If all things remain equal, is this possible?

Well no – no it is not. First, without getting into detail, some of Trump’s cabinet picks belie his promise – although he never actually stated that, “I promise to Drain the Swamp.”

His choices of Sessions as Attorney General, Scott Pruitt at EPA, Tom Price at HHS, and certainly (we hope) the new supreme Court justice Gorsuch appear at first blush to be swamp drainers. But Reince Preibus, Steve Mnuchin at Treasury and Secretary of State Tillerson seem at best to be status quo swampists.

But it of course can’t all be left to Trump. There is no president who is capable of doing all the heavy lifting when it comes to this monumental and possibly insurmountable task. He must get help from the legislative branch. read more

Nothing Ever Changes – By Design (Part One)

by: the Common Constitutionalist

Do you ever wonder why nothing ever changes in Washington? It seems no matter who is President– Republican – Democrat – whomever – nothing changes.

Yet every four years we spent untold millions of dollars and thousands of hours promoting one candidate or another. But at the end of the day, no matter who is elected, things either get just a bit worse or a lot worse.

Same goes for Congress and the Senate. We expend so much time, effort and money electing these idiots and nothing gets better. Why is that?

Well, as usual, Mark Levin pointed to it just the other day on his radio program. It’s the bureaucracy and the judges. These faceless, nameless bureaucrats are immune from elections. Whether it’s a conservative or liberal president, it’s of no consequence to these bureaucrats.

It matters not to them who controls the House and Senate. They just continue on, pumping out more and more rules and regulations to choke us all and further their own influence.

It’s the same with federal judges. Mark cited the case of same-sex marriage. In every state, where the citizens were allowed to vote on it, they overwhelmingly affirmed marriage to be between one man and one woman. read more

Republican Three Card Monte

by: the Common Constitutionalist

At 7:45 on Friday morning reports indicated zero senate republicans were planning on voting for the Ryan-Murray House budget proposal. The GOP’s Senate leaders plan is to launch a procedural effort to kill the plan over a laundry list of objections – including a claim that it short-changes military veterans and other government retirees, which is does, of course.

Dick (turban) Durbin told reporters on Thursday, “We need Republican votes to pass the budget agreement, period. We need at least five. And I’m hoping that there will be more than that.” As of Friday morning he had none.

The GOP’s three most senior senators, including Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, have announced that they will vote ‘no.’

As one would expect, Senator Ted Cruz said the proposal, “spends more, taxes more, and allows continued funding for Obamacare. I cannot support it.” Thanks Paul Ryan, for selling us out and lying to Mark Levin on national radio about it.

One GOP Senate staffer,  speaking on condition of anonymity, said, “this is the agreement’s ‘pixie dust approach to budgeting. We’re doing what we always do. We set out a ten-year plan while knowing full well that we have a decade to undo it and shift gears again.” read more

Conservatives Must Compromise on Immigration

 

by: the Common Constitutionalist 

Several days ago (November 14) “conservative” George Will wrote a column entitled “A Need for Compromise on Immigration”. Needless to say I was curious, being that compromise and immigration are two of my least favorite words, at least politically speaking.

 

“What – you are against immigration?” I can hear it now know. Yes I am, when that word is used the way politicians and pundits intend. We all know when a politician or analyst uses that word, they intentionally lump all immigration together, both legal and illegal, as if it were the same.

 

And compromise simply means that conservatives forgo their principles and values in order to pass crappy legislation.

 

Anyway – the gist of Will’s article is that he thinks it foolish and very difficult to attempt to pass a sweeping “comprehensive” immigration bill. There’s another word that makes my skin crawl – comprehensive. Will doesn’t argue that a comprehensive immigration bill is bad for America, but that it is just hard to pass as omnibus legislation. read more

Dingy Harry Can Be Stopped… If We Have the Guts

 

by: the Common Constitutionalist

So Harry Reid actually did it. He finally pulled the trigger on the so-called “Nuclear Option”. And what does that mean for us – for our country? Nothing good, I’m afraid.

 

The “nuclear option” refers to the Senate’s advice and consent of a president’s nomination of cabinet heads and judges. With a single party line vote (all but three), Harry Reid has made the confirmation process much easier. It now takes but a 51 vote simple majority to confirm a nominee. It had been 60 votes.

 

Some have said, “Well at least it doesn’t include Supreme Court nominees”. That is correct. The Supreme Court is exempt from the new simple majority rule… that is until the Democrats decide they also want to include it. The only reason the Supreme Court was left out, was simply because no one on the court has claimed they are retiring. If say, Ruth “Buzzy” Ginsberg wanted to call it quits, the Supreme Court would’ve been part of the simple majority deal. You can bet on that.

 

So with that vote, the radicals in the Senate led by Reid are free to pack the lower courts, expand the courts and create new courts if they wish. What do I mean by expanding create? They can do that? Yep!

 

The United States Constitution states that, “the judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish” (Emphasis added).

 

So they can create whole new courts and expand the numbers of leftist judges on current courts to overwhelm the right. read more

Senate Dems Get Gerrymandered?

Via the Corner. I’ve been looking for a palate cleanser all day for you guys but until now none of the offerings were up to snuff. Rand Paul claiming that the billions in federal money that New Jersey got after Hurricane Sandy basically bought the election for Christie? Nah. There’ll be time to blog that when Christie fires back and then Paul responds with another crack about “bacon.” McCain suggesting that he’s tired of being asked about Palin? Tempting, but no. read more

No Law Like Obamacare

No major legislation has ever been passed like Obamacare — and I’m using the word “passed” pretty loosely.

It became law without both houses ever voting on the same bill. (Say, is the Constitution considered “settled law”?) Not one Republican voted for it — and a lot of Democrats immediately wished they hadn’t.

Historically, big laws have been enacted with large, bipartisan majorities. In 1935, President Roosevelt enacted Social Security with a 372-33 vote in the House and 77-6 in the Senate.

In 1965, Medicare passed in the Senate 70-24 and the House 307-116, with the vast majority of Democrats supporting this Ponzi scheme and Republicans roughly split.

Reagan’s magnificent tax cuts in 1981 — which Democrats now denounce as if they’d been appalled at the time — passed with a vote of 89-11 in the Senate and even 323-107 in the hostile Democratic House. read more