So, Nancy Pelosi finally pulled the trigger on impeachment.  After rushing the impeachment articles through the House in December (because President Trump is “an existential threat to our democracy”), Pelosi delayed the appointment of impeachment managers to transmit the articles to the Senate for some three weeks.  All that time, Pelosi and her repulsive henchmen have tried to force the Senate to continue in the impeachment trial, the shameful kangaroo court procedures used in the House.  The Constitution clearly delineates the duties of the Congress in impeachments.  The House has “the sole power” of impeachment for treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.  The Senate has “the sole power” to try impeachments.  The Framers spent considerable time wrangling over impeachment.  George Mason suggested that an official could be impeached for “maladministration.”  The Framers rejected that as being too broad.  The fear was such language would turn impeachments into votes of no confidence whenever the Legislature disagreed with a president’s actions.  Sound familiar?  In Federalist 65,  Alexander Hamilton, writing as “Publius,” wrote that impeachment should result from “those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust.”  Nancy Pelosi and company have already violated this principle, impeaching the President for “abuse of power.”  That’s not the same thing as abuse or violation of the public trust.  In other words, the mere exercise of a constitutionally authorized power cannot be an abuse or violation of the public trust because the Constitution demands that the President take such actions.  One such power that the Constitution invests in the President is that “he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed.”  This duty necessarily includes taking actions necessary to see to it that those who may have violated the law, whether in this country, or for instance, in Ukraine, are brought to justice.  Logically, an abuse or violation of the public trust must stem criminal activity or from some action by a President which is outside his constitutional authority.  Think of Il Duce Obama, “I have a pen and a phone.”  There is nothing like that in this case.  The Senate is invested with the sole power to “try” impeachments.  We hear a lot of talk on TV about the “trial in the Senate,” and about the President “being convicted.”  At first blush, one might get the impression that the impeachment trial is just like any other trial in a court; but it’s not.  The Constitution provides that the Chief Justice of the United States shall preside when a president is impeached.  However, the Chief Justice presiding over an impeachment trial does not have the same authority to control the proceedings as does a judge in court.  Chief Justice Rehnquist said it best after the Clinton impeachment trial, “My job was to do nothing, and I did it very well.”  What that means is that the Senate is in charge of the proceedings.  Senators can ask the Chief Justice to rule, but the Senate can vote to change any rulings he makes.  Chief Justice Rehnquist did a bit more than “nothing” in 1999.  He did make an important ruling that clarified the roles of the Senators, sustaining Senator Harkin’s objection to the Senators being referred to as “jurors.”  In a court trial, the judge is the judge of the law and the jurors are the judges o the facts.  Not so in impeachment.  Rehnquist ruled that the Senate is not simply a jury, it is a court.  Senators are judges of both law and fact.  Thus, it is the Senate itself that decides on the procedures and makes the final decision.  Rehnquist’s ruling in the Clinton impeachment derived from an opinion he wrote in 1993 in Nixon v. United States.  No, not the Nixon you’re thinking of, Judge Walter Nixon, who was impeached for bribery.  Judge Nixon objected to the Senate’s appointment of a committee to hear evidence, and he wanted the Court to review the procedure.  Chief Justice Rehnquist, writing for a unanimous Supreme Court, said no.   The Court upheld the Senate’s right to determine its own procedures, including the use of a trial committee.  In other words, the Senate makes its own rules.  And the Court ruled that the decision of the Senate may not be reviewed by any court because the Senate has “sole” power.  Senate Rule XI permits a committee of the Senate to take testimony and receive evidence.  Senators are permitted to ask questions.  Mere jurors can’t do that.  The Court made clear that an impeachment trial is  not the same as a criminal trial.  The Framers chose the Senate to try impeachments instead of the courts, because when an official is removed from office, the courts must try the criminal charges that caused the impeachment.  This kind of suggests that no president should be impeached for anything less than a crime of some kind.  The House alleges no criminal conduct by President Trump.  Indeed, until now, no president has been impeached for conduct that was not either a crime or a violation of an Act of Congress.  But there’s more.  Justice Rehnquist wrote that giving separate functions to the House and Senate “avoids making the same people both accusers and judges and guards against the danger of persecution from the prevalency of a factious spirit in either of those branches.”  The House has accused President Trump of impeachable acts.  The repulsive Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi and Adam Schiff (for brains), by demanding that the Senate seek out new evidence has perverted the process envisioned by the Framers.  To say nothing of the fact that the articles of impeachment are nothing more than a persecution derived from the prevalency of a factious spirit in the super-partisan House of Representatives, that passed the articles without even one Republican vote.   Hopefully, the Senate majority will see these articles for the sham that they clearly are, hopefully the Senate Republicans will act to preserve the Constitution, and not to pervert it, and will deliver the President a swift acquittal.

Alright, enough is enough.  I’m talking to you loony leftists, now.  You had your fun.  You indulged your fantasies.  Your let your Trump Derangement Syndrome fever dreams run rampant.  But now, it’s time to return to reality.  You were all set for Hillary to be president.  I get that.  You didn’t take Donald Trump’s candidacy seriously.  Most people didn’t.  I get that.  You were shocked when he won in 2016.  I get that.  You can’t accept Trump as our president, and you can’t wait for the next election when you can vote against him.  I get that too.  You oppose every program that Trump supports, even when advancing it would benefit the country in general and Democrats in particular.  Strangely, even that I understand, and it doesn’t bother me much, because refusing to do your jobs hurts your Party more than it hurts the president.  But now, you’ve gone over the edge.  We used to have a saying, “Politics stops at the water’s edge.”  What it meant was that, we can argue and fight about tax policy, welfare and any other domestic program you care to name as much as we want, but when national security is at issue, there are no Democrats or Republicans, only Americans.  Politics stopped at the water’s edge, not due to the wisdom of our leaders.  It stopped because rational people from both Parties understood that foreign threats to our national security present a clear and present danger, and that meeting them must be above humdrum partisan bickering.  No, I’m not ascribing some high-minded, selfless qualities to our politicians.  It’s just the opposite.  Politics stopped at the water’s edge for a very selfish reason.  If a foreign enemy defeated America, the politicians would lose their meal ticket.  They had to cooperate so that they could protect their phony baloney jobs – Harumph!  This week, the loony Trump-hating Democrats have gone a step too far, even for them.  So blinded are they with hatred for our president, so intent are they to oppose his every word and deed, that the Democrats, and their media lap dogs, have chosen to support a foreign nation rather than Trump.   And not just any foreign nation, Iran.  The country that stormed our embassy in 1979, and took our diplomats hostage.  The country that is marked by mobs of people marching in the streets  chanting, “Death to America!”  The country that has been supplying  terrorists with explosives that have killed and maimed thousands of American soldiers.  Iran is the country that Il Duce Obama bribed with $150 billion and additional pallets of cash.  Iran took the money, spit in our eye, and stopped chanting, “Death to America!” only long enough to burn some American flags.  They carried out terrorist attacks all over the globe.  Iran’s chief terrorist was General Qasem Soleimani.  He personally killed over 600 American troops, and untold thousands of others in and outside of Iran.  Most recently, Soleimani was responsible for attacks on a U.S. drone, on a base in Iraq which killed an American contractor, and a two day long attack on the U.S. embassy in Baghdad.  That was the last straw for President Trump.  Soleimani brazenly took a commercial airline flight to Baghdad on January 2nd.  A U.S. Predator drone and Apache helicopters were waiting for him.  Soleimani got off the plane and into a car.  Several Hellfire missiles later, Soleimani, or at least various parts of him, arrived in Hell, rang the bell and asked, “Where are my 72 virgins?” (Or was that raisins?)   Iran’s Supreme Leader, Khamenei, was furious, “Martyr Soleimani is an International figure of Resistance & all such people will seek revenge.  All friends—& enemies—know that Jihad of Resistance will continue with more motivation & definite victory awaits the fighters on this blessed path.”  Not surprising.  Consider the source.  But what was that about “the Resistance?” Isn’t that what the Dems call themselves?  Democrat politicians and the media picked up where Khamenei left off.  Joe Biden said “the strike (on Soleimani) was a “hugely escalatory move in an already dangerous region.”  Bernie Sanders said the killing of Soleimani “puts us on the path” toward another war.   Elizabeth Warren said the strike was “reckless” and it escalated tensions with Iran.  Nancy Pelosi and Adam Schiff  (for brains) complained that Congress hadn’t been consulted before the strike.  Former Obama National Security Advisor, and well-known liar, Susan Rice, claimed the Obama administration never had the opportunity to take out Soleimani, but said that Team Obama probably wouldn’t have killed him anyway since the risks outweighed the benefits.  Uh huh.  Obama staffer Ben Rhodes really got his panties in a twist, warning that the death of Soleimani was “a frightening moment” that could lead to war.  Yeah.  Nothing succeeded like Obama’s appeasement policies, right?  The Washington Post called mass murderer Soleimani, “A revered military leader.”  Richard Engel of NBC no less (and there is no less)  claimed the U.S. turned Soleimani “into a martyr, if not a saint.”  Mr. Engel, saints do good, not evil.  And there’s one thing all martyrs have in common,  all of them are dead.  Good.  General Petraeus said Soleimani was more dangerous than Bin Laden.  Normal Americans welcomed the death of the terrorist.  Democrats gave aid and comfort to the enemy.  Demonstrating their ability to lie about all sides of any issue, they hailed the attack on the Baghdad embassy as “Trump’s Benghazi.”  When, unlike Obama, Trump took immediate action and ended the threat, by sending in troops and whacking Soleimani, the feckless Dems accused Trump of starting a war.  The House passed a useless War Powers resolution curbing presidential power.  It’s meaningless, and unconstitutional.  They don’t care.  They’re sick and getting sicker.  Case in point.  Chris Matthews of MSNBC actually compared the death of mass murderer, torturer Soleimani to the deaths of Elvis and Princess Diana, calling him “a beloved figure.”  Democrat delusions on domestic issues are one thing,  but when they openly support one of our worst foreign enemies, they can’t be tolerated.  The only thing that will curb the mad-dog leftists is a massive defeat in November.

Many years ago, when Saturday Night Live was funny, the late Gilda Radner portrayed a character known as Emily Litella.  A confused Emily would appear on the newscast to bemoan such issues as “natural racehorses” (resources), “violins on television” (violence)  or “Soviet jewelry” (jewry).  When her misunderstandings were corrected, Emily would smile into the camera and proclaim, “Never mind.”  House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s performance in the impeachment farce has been a creditable impersonation of Emily Litella.  Remember the Democrats excuses for their rush to impeachment.  Like everything else today’s Democrats do and say it was a tissue of lies.  We were told that Donald Trump represented an existential threat to our democracy, that he had to be removed immediately because he was mentally unbalanced and unfit for office, and that the nature and extent of his corruption was such that there was no time to waste.  They were sorry about it, they said.  They didn’t want to do it, but they had no choice.  Trump had to go and there was no time to waste.  Time was of such an essence that normal legal procedures could not be followed.  Democrats subpoenaed top members of the President’s national security and White House staffs and demanded internal documents, all of which were subject to claims of executive privilege.  Executive privilege isn’t a joke or some nefarious means of avoiding the law, it is the law.  Every president, back to George Washington has invoked executive privilege to maintain the separation of powers guaranteed by the Constitution.  Remember the Constitution?  It’s the document that even Democrats swear to uphold and defend.  It’s the document they hide behind when it suits them, and ignore, ridicule and lie about when that fits their agenda.  The Constitution established three branches of government, each with separate functions and powers, and each of which must be free to operate without undue interference from another branch.  The separation of powers prevents one branch of the government from improperly intruding on the workings of another branch.  The branches are separate, but don’t occupy water-tight compartments.  Congress may oversee the operations of the various executive agencies and departments because it funds them, but it can’t exercise such control that it usurps the function of the Executive.  When the Congress seeks information from the Executive which it believes it has a right to get, and which the Executive believes is protected by privilege, there is one and only one time-honored, not to mention legal, remedy available.  The Article I branch (the Congress) and the Article II branch (the Executive) bring their dispute before the Article III branch of the government, the Judiciary.  You go to court.  Which is what the Trump Administration officials did when the subpoenas were issued.  They took the case to court.  That’s what happened in 1973 when President Nixon’s White House tapes were subpoenaed by Congress.  The Supreme Court unanimously, including three Nixon appointees, ordered the tapes turned over to Congress.   The Executive complied with the court order.  That’s how it works.  You might even say that going outside the procedure I just described is what represents the existential threat to the Constitution and to our republic.  But that’s just what the Democrats in Congress decided to do.  Nancy Pelosi announced that they couldn’t go to the trouble of following the law by letting the courts decide the dispute.  That would take too much time and the Democrats just couldn’t wait.  There was a constitutional crisis, and it was imperative that Trump be removed from office immediately.  In other words, to save the Constitution, we must ignore the Constitution.  The only way to save our form of government was to violate every rule and deny every right guaranteed by the Constitution.  That’s why the Democrats moved so swiftly to impeach.  That’s why they denied the President the right to counsel, the right to confront witnesses against him, the right to call witnesses and the right to present evidence of his own.  That’s why Adam Schiff (for brains) prevented Republican Committee members from asking questions and calling witnesses.  That’s why Nadler and Pelosi rammed the impeachment vote through so fast.  It had to be done before Christmas.  Why?  Nancy claimed it was because Donald Trump was so great a threat that they couldn’t delay.  Nancy Pelosi, who at the beginning of 2019 told us that you can’t impeach without a bipartisan consensus that removal of a President was necessary, ended 2019 with an impeachment vote that included zero Republican votes and which three Democrats voted against.  No time to lose, it had to be done now.  They started the “impeachment inquiry” September 25th 2019.  They voted impeachment December 18th.  They impeached in 54 days.  And then, on the 55th day, Nancy Pelosi rested.  The normal procedure is for the House to name impeachment managers, who deliver the articles to the Senate for trial.  But Nancy won’t do it.  See, she doesn’t control the Senate, and after running roughshod over constitutional protections in the House, Nancy now demands fairness.  If Mitch McConnell won’t continue the kangaroo court in the Senate, then Nancy won’t deliver the articles.  After Pelosi put the country through months of needless turmoil, setting citizen against citizen, and further dividing an already divided nation, Nancy Pelosi gave us her best Emily Litella smile, looked into the camera, and said, “Never mind.”  This latest outrage has prompted even Democrat “experts” to ponder whether the President really has been impeached.  The Democrats are just playing for time.  There never was any imminent threat warranting an instant impeachment.  The only time pressure was and is the upcoming 2020 election.  The Democrats have no candidate who can compete with Trump, no values, and no program to run on.  Eventually Nancy Pelosi will have to relent and send the articles to the Senate.  House managers will argue for the President’s removal.  The Senators should smile, look into the camera and say, “Never mind.  Case dismissed.”

Politicians used to talk about “the vision thing,” by which they meant a candidate’s ability to formulate and present his or her vision for the country going forward.  As 2019 comes to an end, it is abundantly clear that only one of the presidential candidates for 2020 has mastered “the vision thing,” and that his name is Donald Trump.  The contrast is stark.  It’s not just that no Democrat candidate has been able, or even willing, to propose a palatable set of policies.  It’s not that the Democrats’ vision is of a different means to a utilitarian end, the greatest good for the greatest number of Americans, it’s that the Democrats’ vision itself is defective.  They’re not myopic.  It’s not that they can’t see far enough to appreciate the policies of this President.  It’s worse than that.  They have double vision, or more to the point, they are experiencing hallucinations, which cause them to see things that really aren’t there.  It’s really shocking to consider that two large groups of the electorate can view the same landscape, the same facts, and the same actions and accomplishments, and yet see two different things.  Let’s take the realities of the year 2019 as an example.  When 2019 began, the Dow Jones average stood at 23,340.  As this is written near year’s end, the Dow is at 28,565, an increase of over 22%.  In 2019, stocks added $17 trillion in value.  2019 began with an unemployment rate of 3.7%, one of the lowest rates in half a century.  Although Democrats suggested in the Spring that recession was imminent, 2019 ends with the unemployment rate at 3.5%, the lowest in my memory.  There are far more jobs available than workers available to fill them.  Businesses are thriving, wages for all income levels are up for the first time in many years.  All sectors of the population have benefited, with low-wage workers gaining most of all.  A normally sighted person observing these facts could only conclude that the economy is booming like never before, and that 2020 promises even more prosperity.  However, the vision impaired Democrats see something else.  According to the Democrat presidential field, if the economy has improved, and they’re not admitting that it has, any and all credit belongs to Il Duce Obama, who after 8 years, had everything humming along just in time for Trump to take over.  I have to agree that Obama did do one thing right, he left the White House, and with his departure the economy had nowhere to go but up.  President Trump has produced results that Democrats never dreamed of, and which Il Duce Obama told us were impossible.  Obama said manufacturing jobs would never come back.  They did come back, but those jobs, and the 6 or 7 million others created since 2017 are invisible to the Democrats.  Bad vision.  Income up, unemployment down, plentiful jobs available to all, or at least for the sighted.  Not for Democrats though, according to whom, the middle class is “being crushed,” the working class has “no way up,” and the poor “are being left behind.”  You have to wonder about more than the vision thing.  Doesn’t “the middle class” work?  And just who are “the working class?”  Are they working for the middle class?  Or are they working for the hated “rich?”  And if the “rich” are not part of the “working class,” then how did they get so rich without working?  Curious.  But back to reality.  President Trump promised a wall on the Mexican border and pledged to reduce illegal border crossings.  Despite getting no help from the Congress, and constant resistance from misguided federal District Court judges, Trump has kept his promise.  The wall is being built and illegal border crossings are down.  Trump has even gotten Mexico to use its military to stop illegal crossings.  These actions have ameliorated the humanitarian crisis on the border, have protected lives on both sides of the border, and have eased the strain on our health and educational systems, as well as preserving higher paying jobs for Americans.  This looks good to the sighted, but not to the Dems.  Democrats view these developments as proof positive of racism.  Hey, maybe that’s what they mean about the poor being “left behind.”  Poor illegal aliens have been left behind the border wall where they belong.  President Trump promised to get our NATO allies to pay more for their own defense.  He got them to pay billions more, easing our burden.  Under normal vision that’s good.  Through Democratic black-colored glasses, it’s a threat to world security.  Go figure.  Then there’s the trade situation.  The “experts” all said Trump could never replace NAFTA and could never get China to agree to trade terms that prevented them from screwing us.  They were wrong.  Trump replaced NAFTA, getting Canada and Mexico to agree to the USMCA, and the House even took a day off from trying to impeach the President, and actually passed the USMCA.  On top of that, a new trade agreement has been reached with China, in which they will at least promise to screw us a little less in the future.  But positive trade realities look a lot worse through Democrat eyes.  The Dems see a trade war hurting the U.S.  It’s not there, but they see it.  Just like they view the Justice Department’s Inspector General’s report confirming that President Trump was the victim of campaign interference by foreign interests in the last election, and instead see a president who himself is encouraging foreign governments to interfere in the next election.  Funny how faulty vision can play tricks with your mind.  The problem for Democrats is that more and more Americans are now wearing corrective lenses.  With 20-20 vision, more Americans can clearly distinguish between the President’s actual accomplishments and the Democrats’ blurred vision of current events.  An electorate with 20-20 vision bodes poorly for Democrats in 2020.

         HOW THE SCHIFF STOLE THE CONSTITUTIONThe following is a conversation with House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (for brains), also known as, Shifty Schiff, Pencil Neck Schiff, Cowardly Liar Schiff, or just plain, The Schiff, in which he provides insight on his role in the impeachment inquiry.
(With sincere apologies to Dr. Seuss).

Although most Americans want Trump to stay, the Schiff is determined to send him away.  While Trump is the happiest man we have seen, the Schiff is unscrupulous, lying and mean.  The Schiff’s an obnoxious and arrogant mass, with a face that resembles two cheeks of an ass.  When Trump sought election he said it was funny, Trump never could win, cause Hill had the money.  Trump was sexist, misogynist, racist and crude, he paid money to strippers, and then he got sued.  The Democrats all were progressive and woke, so Trump as the President must be some joke.  When they counted the votes, they all choked on their phloem, and the Democrats knew that the joke was on them.  There was anger and crying and wailing and tears, they were stuck with the Donald for all of four years.  But fear not, they were promised by Brennan and Strzok, we took out insurance, so Trump’s a dead duck.  We’ll say Trump is working as Vladimir’s bitch, and then we’ll investigate, hunting that witch.  We’ll lie about stuff, and we’ll sow some confusion, we’ll claim that it’s all due to Russian collusion.  But who could they count on to peddle that crap?  Why the Schiff, whose conscience has a big gap.  The Deep State came after the Trumpster with spies, so the Schiff would support them by telling some lies.  The Schiff said, “There’s evidence, it’s no illusion, Trump is so guilty of Russian collusion.”  The nasty old Schiff told us “Trump’s in a bind,” There was simply no telling what Mueller might find.  Only Bob Mueller found there was nothing amiss, and it looked like the Schiff would gain nothing from this.  But fear not ye Democrats, your target’s in reach, the Schiff will keep lying so you can impeach.  The President dared to speak to Ukraine, he delayed some money that caused them no pain, he wanted to see that our money’s well spent, not squandered or taken with crooked intent.  He wanted a favor, and he said so, but paying the money was no quid pro quo.  “Ah ha,” the Schiff bellowed, as quick as a missile, “we’ve heard from a phantom who’s blowing a whistle.”  He said, “I don’t know his name,” then the Schiff winked his eye, and that also turned out to be a big lie.  The Schiff just kept lying, and making up stuff, “Don’t look at the transcript, my lies are enough.”  “If I say it’s the truth, it’s the truth, and that’s it, and I know CNN will then swear to my shit.”  The Schiff called some witnesses from the State deep, who said that Trump’s words had disturbed them a heap.  They knew nothing first hand, just hearsay you see, from this one or that one, all Trump enemies.  When asked, “You want something in return for the dough?”  The President told them, “There’s no quid pro quo.”  But the Schiff overlooked this, because he’s so wise, “We can’t believe him, you know Trump lies.”  “Instead of the evidence, listen to me.” “We’ll find something on him that fits to a tee, extortion or bribery, or a tone that is sour, no wait, I’ve got it, abusing his power!”  Abusing his power? Is that a high crime?  “As long as I say it, it will be this time.”  But the Framers don’t say that in Article Two.  They said what’s impeachable, not something new.  “Don’t need no Framers,” Schiff spat with a sneer, “They’re white, were slave owners, and have been dead for years.”  “The law is whatever I say it should be, Maxine Waters agrees, and she won’t lie … to me.”  “See, we all hate Trump and we must make him go, Constitution be damned, it’s all a Schiff Show.”  But is that the standard that Democrats favor?  “Trump’s just a bad guy, so we must not waver.”  But what if it’s done to a Democrat Prez?  What if the law is what Jim Jordan says?   “Not a chance,” the Schiff snorted, “you’re way off the track.”  “After Biden’s elected, we’ll just change it back.”  But what if the voters make Democrats pay?  The Schiff smiled slyly, “I’d rather not say.”  “Alright,” he relented, “You might as well know.  Once there’s no Constitution, then anything goes.  We’ll still have elections, we’ll still let them vote, but if you think that matters, you’re missing the boat.”  “They voted for Trump, and now that doesn’t count.  When the Deep State says go, then you’re finished, you’re out!”  But how can you peddle such terrible lies?  Have you no decency, like other guys?  The Schiff cracked what’s known as a shit-eating grin, “I learned it from Clinton, they’re not lies, it’s spin.”  You may think the Schiff  has plenty of nerve, but if we let him do this, it’s what we deserve.  Ron Reagan once told us with charm and distinction, our freedom’s just one generation from extinction.  So tell all your friends what the Schiff’s all about, and then next November, let’s throw the crumbs out.