As this is written, the House of Representatives has drafted two articles of impeachment against Donald Trump.  They are finally ready to fulfill their dreams.  20 minutes after Trump took the oath of office in January 2017, the Washington Post proudly published this message, “The effort to impeach President Donald John Trump is already underway.”  Now it looks like they will get their wish.  The fact that the Democrats have been pursuing impeachment since day one of the Trump presidency tells you all you need to know about the bona fides of the recent action by the House.  Simply put, the entire affair is a steaming crock of Bull Schiff.  This latest move stinks of desperation, stinks of their paranoid delusions about this president, stinks of their mindless hatred for anything Trump, and well, just stinks.  Nancy Pelosi put in her teeth and stood alongside Jerry (the Penguin) Nadler, Adam Schiff (for brains), bottle blonde Carolyn Maloney and crazy Maxine Waters to announce two impeachment articles – abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.  Then they beat a hasty retreat, taking no questions.  Not surprising, because to answer a question, you need facts to support your claims.  This impeachment saga has two components – the process and the product.  The lying, thieving Democrats talk about our values and about the Constitution, but they have no values and their interpretation of the Constitution is a cruel joke.  They shed crocodile tears, expecting us to believe they “take no pleasure in impeachment.” “We were forced to act,” and “the Constitution compels us to impeach.”  More Bull Schiff.  They have been planning this for three years.  The process – Donald Trump was afforded none of the constitutional protections that are guaranteed to any civil litigant in America, to any criminal defendant, and indeed to any terrorist.  In Schiff’s Star Chamber, Trump was denied the rights to counsel, to see evidence against him, to confront witnesses against him, to submit exculpatory evidence, or to call witnesses on his own behalf.  The denial of any one of these protections will result in the reversal of the most minor conviction.  Yet they consider this appropriate for the removal of a president.  When Republicans complained, the Democrat retort was, “All they’re talking about is process.”  The guarantee of due process is no technicality.  It underpins the Constitution that the Democrats swore to uphold and claim to be following.  The “inquiry” was started by a so-called whistleblower who claimed the President misbehaved during his call to the president of Ukraine.  The President released a transcript of the call, but this was real evidence which exonerated Trump, so it was ignored.  The phantom snitch was vitally important, until it was revealed that he was a Democrat CIA employee, worked for Joe Biden, hired a lawyer who worked for Hillary Clinton, and improperly coordinated with Schiff (for brains).  Then, not only was he unimportant, but he must remain anonymous.  Schiff called 17 witnesses.  16 had no first hand knowledge, they just “heard things” that made them uncomfortable.  Ambassador Sondland actually had first hand knowledge.  He spoke to the President.  He asked Trump, “What do you want in return for the military aid.”  The President was explicit, “I want nothing from them, no quid pro quo, I just want them to do what they said.”  Schiff ignored the direct evidence and endorsed the opinions of the 16 sniveling Deep State Trump haters, who opined that they were “troubled” by what they heard or were told about the phone call.  Really?  Then they brought in three moth-eaten law professors to give legal opinions that what the President did is impeachable.  This really underscores the fact that impeachment is not a legal process, because courts don’t permit experts to give opinions about what the law is or about someone’s guilt.  The professors babbled about bribery and extortion, one actually claiming that, if what Trump did is not impeachable, then nothing is impeachable.  In the end, the Democrats reported two articles of impeachment, neither of which concern bribery, extortion, or any other crime.  One is for abuse of power.  The other is obstruction of Congress.  Both are absurd.  Think about it.  Abuse of a president’s power?  A president’s powers derive from the Constitution.  When he exercises those powers it’s not abuse.   You can’t be  impeached for carrying out the duties of your office.  One of those duties is the conduct of foreign policy, i.e., what went on in the phone call.  Government employees don’t have to like it.  Members of Congress don’t have to agree with it.  And you can’t impeach a president for doing his job.  At the end of the day, they will impeach Trump for keeping his promises.  He promised to make European nations pay more for their own defense.  That’s what he told the Ukranian president.  Obama’s Ambassador to Ukraine testified that Hunter Biden’s job in Ukraine was a major issue for the Obama administration.  Translation – Obama knew Ukraine was corrupt.  Trump arrives, he tries to assure that our foreign aid money isn’t going to be stolen, and he gets impeached?  Bull Schiff.  Obstruction of Congress?  Really?  It’s not a crime or misdemeanor of any kind.  It’s a fiction.  Here’s how it works.  Congress demanded witnesses who work directly for Trump.  He refused to let them appear, claiming executive and attorney-client privilege.  The Congress refused to let the courts decide the privilege issue and just declared Trump guilty.  In other words, since you didn’t confess, and you wouldn’t help us screw you, you’re guilty.  Once again, Democrats have adopted a Russian tactic, taking a page from the Russian prosecutor at Nuremberg, who ended every question with, “Do you now confess yourself to be a fascist pig?”  Neither of these articles are appropriate “high crimes or misdemeanors” that warrant impeachment.  Nancy Pelosi told us she had to impeach because Trump is not a king.  Good thing for her.  If he was the king they complain about, the heads of Pelosi, Schiff and Nadler would be on pikes on the White House roof.  There is an abuse of power, and it’s coming from the House of Representatives.

Things are really getting bad when a bunch of politicians who make their livings by mincing and parsing words, mouthing platitudes, and working overtime endeavoring not to offend anyone by speaking plainly, begin to throw around the L word with impunity.  I am speaking of the Republican members of the House of Representatives who lately have distinguished themselves by bluntly separating Schiff from Shinola.  The L word they have been applying to Adam Schiff (for brains), of course, is “Liar.”  This is highly unusual, as Members of the House normally adhere to an artificial and obsequious code of phony civility when they address one another.  They’re always bowing and scraping, while while addressing “the gentleman from Here” and “the gentlewoman from There.”  They normally say nothing harsher than, “the gentleman will suspend,” when they’re really thinking, “Shut up you dirty SOB!”  There used to be consequences for what was called “unparliamentary language.”  The House has sanctioned members for such conduct.  In 1869, Edward D. Holbrook was censured for unparliamentary language for stating in debate that another Member made false assertions.  In 1890, John Y. Brown and William D. Bynum were censured for unparliamentary language for insulting a Member during debate.  And we all remember the reprimand of Joe Wilson in 2009, after he dared to yell “You lie!” at Il Duce Obama after the Duce said illegal immigrants (yes, even Democrats could use those words in 2009) would not get medical coverage under Obamacare.  I guess truth is not a defense.  There have been even more egregious breaches of the peace in the Congress.  In 1856, in the wake of perhaps the most well-known episode of congressional violence, the House censured Laurence Keitt for assisting fellow South Carolinian Preston Brooks as he beat Senator Charles Sumner of Massachusetts unconscious with a cane on the Senate Floor.  The assault was motivated by a disagreement over slavery.  A motion to expel the offender was defeated, and he was reelected.  The Civil War soon followed.  In 1997, the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania produced a study entitled, Civility in the House of Representatives. The study found that instances of unparliamentary language, more specifically, the application of the word “liar” to another House member were more prevalent in the aftermath of a change in leadership from one Party to the other, as happened this year.  The disgraceful Adam Schiff Show has removed all the phony civility filters normally employed when Republican members comment on another Member of the House.  Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy said, “When it comes to Adam Schiff I have a lot of concerns.  He can’t remember whether he met with the whistleblower, who it was.  Adam Schiff has a long history with a problem of telling the truth. Adam Schiff also has a long history to do anything above and beyond and even lie if it takes to impeach the president.  We’re just finding another flag where Adam Schiff is doing it one more time.”  GOP lawmakers, Rep. Lee Zeldin and Rep. Jim Jordan then slammed Adam Schiff for lying to the American people, telling reporters, “Adam Schiff is misleading you and you’re playing along with it … The American public is then getting deceived.”  At one of the Intelligence Committee hearings, Jim Jordan was even more blunt, addressing Schiff (for brains), Jordan observed, “You say you don’t know who the whistleblower is, but nobody here believes that.”  Never before have I heard Members of the House of Representatives repeatedly apply the L word to a colleague.  It put me in mind of Charles Laughton’s cross-examination of Marlena Dietrich in Witness for the Prosecution, “Are you not in fact a chronic and habitual liar?”  The President was even more direct at a November 26th rally, calling the impeachment inquiry “really bullshit.”  Or perhaps he meant Bull Schiff.  The dropping of the pretense of civility really has more to do with the media than with Schiff (for brains).  House members are permitted to lie about others.  You and I are not, as we are mere mortals, and not Members.  Remember Candace Owens, testifying before the Judiciary Committee, and being admonished by Jerry Nadler that mere witnesses are not permitted to suggest that a member is not telling the truth?  So they can call us liars, and they’re protected by the Speech and Debate Clause, which gives them absolute immunity for any defamation they utter in their official capacities.  Sweet.  The Republicans resort to the L word when speaking of Schiff is motivated by the media’s bias.  The media will swear to any lie Schiff, Pelosi, Nadler, or any other Democrat tells.  Under these circumstances, it is difficult to conceive of any reason why a Democrat would ever tell the truth.  They know they can lie with impunity and never be contradicted by the Fourth Estate (or is it the Fifth Column?)  When they are called liars by Republicans, they know the Republicans will be denounced as extremists.  It’s tailor made.  The only problem is that so much Schiff is being peddled for truth that the Democrats and the media are doing lasting damage to the country.  There was a time when Walter Cronkite was the most trusted man in America.  Today, the media is considered to be only slightly more trustworthy then the lying politicians they protect.  That’s dangerous.  It’s doing irreparable harm to our nation.  They don’t seem to care.  The Trump haters are deranged.  Their derangement causes them to view any evidence, or a lack thereof, and come to but one conclusion.  Donald Trump is guilty.  Guilty of what?  It doesn’t matter.  This will not end well.

We’ve been treated to a continuing soap opera in the House Intelligence Committee.  Chairman Adm Schiff (for brains), has hand-picked deep state embedded bureaucrats to testify as to their dislike and disagreement with the foreign policy of President Trump.  That’s what this whole charade is really about.  Trump is the President.  They don’t like that, and they don’t like the fact that Trump has steered away from the deep state, sell the American people down the river, foreign policy of past administrations from both Parties.  This die was cast the moment that candidate Donald Trump began promising to “drain the swamp” and to cut 20% of the federal workforce.  That was akin to showing a cross to a vampire.  And there is no deeper deep state than that in the State Department.  It’s not by accident that the State Department is in Foggy Bottom, the deepest, dankest swamp in a City which is built on a swamp.  There’s too much money to be made from foreign business deals, by rich donors, lobbyists, and would-be lobbyists, currently holding public office, but anticipating their turn at the Washington pig trough that feeds the federal swine a limitless supply of slop.  These are the real forces behind the hatred for Donald Trump and the continuous drive to remove him.  It’s not his “tone,” it’s not “racism,” “sexism,” or any other “-ism” that they keep spouting out.  As Congresswoman Ilhan Omar so colorfully put it, “It’s all about the Benjamins,” or in Latin, “sequere pecuniam” – follow the money.  The Dems thought the CIA and FBI coup attempt would defeat Trump.  That failed, and some of the participants are about to be indicted.  Avenatti and Michael Cohen couldn’t take Trump down.  They counted on Bob Mueller, but he found nothing, which wasn’t surprising, since there was nothing to find.  So now its Ukraine, and the dreaded references to quid pro quo, which means nothing more than “this for that,” an agreement to exchange one thing of value for another.  The Democrats like to use the Latin phrase, because the Latin sounds more substantial.  They have to try to make it sound substantial, because their case is wholly without substance.  To put a point on it, the Democrats are lying in Latin, hence they are Latin liars.  The witnesses put before the Intelligence Committee had one thing in common – each of them disagrees with the President’s foreign policy.  Each of them expressed the opinion that Trump’s phone call with Ukraine’s President Zelinsky was bad.  The problem is that the opinions of bureaucrats as to what they agree or disagree with is irrelevant.  They are not the President.  The President makes foreign policy, they don’t.  So if they disagree with the administration they have two options:  shut your pie hole and carry out national policy, or resign.  And only one witness had any direct contact with the President.  Ambassador Sondland asked the President, “What do you want in return for the aid to Ukraine?”  The President answered, “I want nothing.  No quid pro quo.  I just want them [the new Ukranian government] to do the right thing.” [End corruption].  That’s pretty clear.  It’s what the Romans would call res ipsa loquiter,  “the thing speaks for itself.”  But it’s not good enough for Lord High Impeacher Adam Schiff (for brains).  He’s made himself judge, jury and executioner, thus violating another Latin maxim, “nemo iudex in causa sua” – no man shall be a judge in his own cause.  All the other witnesses had no direct evidence, only hearsay, that is something they heard from someone else, which makes this an REO Speedwagon impeachment -“Heard it from a friend who, Heard it from a friend who, Heard it from another you been messin’ around.”  In other words, even in Latin, it’s all bovis stercus, which is to say, Bull Schiff.  The Constitution doesn’t permit impeachment for mere political disputes, only for crimes and other violations of law, or as the Romans might say, “nulla poena sine lege est – there is no penalty without a law.  None of the witnesses before the Committee could provide any evidence that any crime was committed or any law was violated, or as Julius Caesar might say, “Questio quid iuris” – I ask what law?  There has been no violation of law, unless you consider it illegal for a president to make sure our hard earned money isn’t being squandered when it’s given away to a foreign country.  Despite their sanctimonious protests, the Democrats don’t care about foreign aid going to Ukraine, or being delayed.  The notion that a delay cost Ukranian lives is more Bull Schiff.  Il Duce Obama refused to send Ukraine any weapons at all, and no Democrat even noticed, much less complained about it.  The Ukranian phone call nonsense is just the latest installment of the Democrats’ impersonation of another old Roman, Cato the Elder, who kept repeating, “Carthago delenda est,” – Carthage must be destroyed.  Cato was as obsessed with Carthage as the Dems are obsessed with Trump.  As this is written, the Dems, including old Schiff (for brains), have seemingly taken a step back from impeachment.  Adam’s Schiff Show not only failed to convince more voters of the need to impeach Trump, they actually lost ground, and Trump’s approval went up.  A recent poll found Trump’s support among African-Americans at 34%.  Donald Trump has double-dog dared the Dems to impeach him, declaring, “I want a trial!”  At a Senate trial, hearsay testimony will be inadmissible, which should shorten the witness list to just Ambassador Sondlin (see above).  Meanwhile, Trump has vowed to call the so-called whistle-blower, Hunter Biden and Adam Schiff (for brains) to testify under oath.  These facts may have convinced Nancy Pelosi to  “festina lente” or, hurry slowly.  The Dems are not going to be able to remove this president.  A baseless impeachment will cause election day 2020 to be a “dies irae” a day of wrath against Democrats.  The American voters aren’t as stupid as Democrats think.  “Franc locuta, causa finita.”  Frank has spoken, the case is closed.

I recently read a delightful article in The Wall Street Journal written by Andy Kessler, entitled Follow Michael Crichton’s Rule, which imparted the wisdom of the late author and physician who wrote such classics as The Andromeda Strain and Jurassic Park.  In a 2003 lecture he gave at Caltech, entitled Aliens Cause Global Warming, Crichton discussed what he called, “the uneasy relationship between hard science and public policy.”  What Crichton was lampooning was the increasing use of unproven scientific theories to advance desired governmental policies.  In his lecture, Crichton gave examples such as the fear of “nuclear winter” that were spread by the likes of astronomer Carl Sagan.  The story was that, in the event of a major nuclear exchange, dust rising into the atmosphere would block out the sun, stop photosynthesis, and effectively end life on Earth.  As Crichton noted, there was no empirical scientific evidence for that proposition, but it couldn’t be challenged without the doubter being accused of being in favor of nuclear war.  Concerns over second-hand smoke causing cancer spawned laws banning smoking in restaurants and offices.  Later studies have disproven the second-hand smoke link to cancer, but it didn’t matter.  “What, are you in favor of cancer?”  Anyhow, smoke kind of stinks, and many people don’t like it, so the cancer scare continues to be used to ban smoking, even in outdoor settings, such as on the beach, and some cities (run by liberal fascists) seek to ban smoking even in one’s own home.  It’s the same old National Socialist song, the government is just protecting you for your own good.  Michael Bloomberg knows all about that.  According to Michael Crichton, “Once you abandon strict adherence to what science tells us, once you start arranging the truth in a press conference, then anything is possible.” Andy Kessler posits what he calls “the Crichton Conundrum” which permits the zealots to adopt any untested theory which proves them right.  It’s akin to the Frank on Friday notion of liberal delusions of rectitude.  To paraphrase Rene Descartes’ quote, Credo Ergo Verum, “I believe it, therefore it’s true.”  Andy Kessler treats us to a number of examples of progressive policies, launched with good intentions, and bearing positive sounding names, that have gone awry.  The $15 minimum wage, or so-called “living wage.”  You would begrudge the poor a living wage?  Meanwhile hundreds of restaurants have closed or automated, putting thousands out of work.  But it’s the thought that counts, right?  Besides, creating more unemployment would permit the government to indulge another progressive pipe-dream, “guaranteed minimum income.”  As Harry Truman once said, “the minimumer the better.”  But I’m sure we’d succeed where the Soviet Union failed, prompting Soviet citizens to say, “We pretend to work, and they pretend to pay us.”  We are beset by programs with innocuous sounding names, which are really designed to permit a socialist takeover of all aspects of our lives.  “Net neutrality” sounds fair, but would put the government (think Adam Schiff) in charge of what can and can’t be said on the internet.  I’ll pass on that.  “Natural Forest Management” was sold as a way to keep pesky humans from interfering with the natural processes of the forest by clearing trees and controlled burns.  How progressive!  It’s resulted in raging wildfires consuming large areas of California, and causing the State to shut off electric power to the pesky humans who pay the highest taxes and energy rates in the country for the privilege of living in a socialist worker’s paradise.  Good job!  Andy Kessler hits other aspects of liberal hypocrisy, “Free college, day care and medical care?  Didn’t Cuba try that?”  “Free or price-controlled goods always end up like subsidized bread in the Soviet Union.  You get less of it and empty shelves.”  The problem with the progressive imbeciles who keep claiming they “feel our pain,” is that it never occurred to them they’re also the ones who caused our pain.  Kessler pushed on, “And then there’s social justice.  No one is for injustice, but now campus mobs are threatening free speech.”  They’re not only threatening free speech, they’ve effectively cancelled the First Amendment on college campuses, because in the progressive mind (such as it is) they must destroy the constitutional system of government set up by the evil slave-owning Founders, in order to save the country.  The Founders had a simple name for this, treason.  And anyhow, save the country from what?  Full employment?  Prosperity?  Public safety?  National security?  They’re clearly nuts, and getting nuttier by the minute.  The point of Michael Crichton’s speech 16 years ago was that the mindless acceptance of hair-brained progressive schemes keeps us from hearing, or even acknowledging, that there is another side to the argument.  Since his speech in 2003, things have only gotten worse.

The moment Donald Trump was elected president, the Democrats transformed themselves from “the loyal opposition” into the disloyal resistance.  This is not to suggest that the Party out of office isn’t expected to and doesn’t oppose the president of the other Party.  That’s normal.  What’s abnormal is the notion that the out-of-office Party, in this case the Democrats, will abandon any sense of fair play, duty, and responsibility to resist any and all acts, words or proposals of the elected president just because they don’t like him.  That’s abnormal, not because it prevents the Democrats from conducting the business of Congress for which they were elected, although it does, not because it compels them to oppose even proposals which they previously supported, although they do, not because it keeps them from dealing with the crisis on the border, which exposes American citizens to harm, which it does, and not because it puts Democrats in a position from which they are forced to take positions which endanger our national security, which they do, but simply because it’s stupid.  There’s no other word for it.  We understand that Democrats don’t like Donald Trump, we get that.  We understand that they have legitimate disagreements on policy.  All well and good.  But when you zealously cling to a mindless opposition to the point where you jeopardize your own brand, sorry, but that’s plain stupid.  Don’t take my word for it, consider the wisdom of that great orator Al Sharpton, “But resist we much.  We must, and we will much- about that- be committed.”  Confused?  That’s understandable, but Sharpton’s gibberish makes more sense than what the Democrats are doing.  When Trump was elected the Democrats said the stock market would crash.  They were wrong, it’s up 50%.  They said Trump would plunge us into endless wars, not the endless wars given to us by Bush and Obama, but some new endless wars.  Instead, Trump has consistently worked to keep the peace and to withdraw U.S. troops from foreign lands.  Democrats, who formerly condemned U.S. intervention in civil wars abroad, even oppose this.  “Resist, we much!”  The very name of “the Resistance” is a fraud.  “The Resistance” derives from the French Resistance, the groups that opposed the Nazi German occupation of France and the collaborationist Vichy regime during the Second World War.  The French Resistance fighters put their lives at risk to oppose fascism.  Sadly, the Democrat Resistance really believes they’re doing the same thing.  They’re delusional.  It’s a sickness.  The sad fact is that, if we take them at face value, today’s Resistance must spring from the sincere albeit totally false, belief that Donald Trump is not the duly elected President of the United States.  Viewed through such deranged eyes, since Trump is not really the President, nothing he does is legal.  Following this psychosis to its illogical conclusion, therefore, any action taken by Donald Trump, even actions specifically delegated to the Chief Executive by our Constitution, are illegal, and thus impeachable.  Now it all makes sense, assuming insanity ever makes sense.  Am I jumping to conclusions here?  No, there’s proof.  The moment Trump won, the Resistance sprang to life.  Nobody ever heard of Congressman Al Green, nor should they have.  Since January 2017, Mr. Greasy Kid Stuff has been calling for Trump’s impeachment.  On October 31st, after the fake impeachment investigation vote, Nancy Pelosi once again lied through her false teeth, claiming no representative came to Washington to impeach the president.  I guess she never saw Rep. Rashida Talib’s election night 2018 speech, in which she screamed, “We’re going to impeach the M****r F****r!”  The totally deranged radical Left was driving the impeachment train, due to their delusional belief that Hillary should have won – because they thought she would.  The Loony Left saw resistance as their duty, because, after all Trump wasn’t supposed to win, he must have been helped by Putin, and worst of all, they disapprove of his “tone.”  Trump’s “tone” is also a concern of the Never Trumpers.  Permit me to translate.  Trump’s “tone” is unacceptable because he’s not like other Republicans.  The Left, which necessarily includes the media, and the Republican establishment (Never Trumpers) prefer Republicans with a more pleasant tone, who are good losers.  Think John McCain and Mitt Romney.  Now they were good losers.  The Left could bash them, lie about them and defame them every day, but they’d never fight back.  Kick them in the nuts, and they’d just keep smiling.  Good loser Republicans.  Donald Trump don’t play that.  Attack him at your own peril.  You hit him, he hits you, and it will hurt – bad tone.  Which brings me back to Mitt Romney, and the subject of this piece, La Resistance.  Mitt Romney masquerades as his French internet alter-ego Pierre Delecto.  Romney adopts this Twitter persona in order to bash (resist) the president of what is supposed to be his own Party.  Recall Romney denounced Trump before the 2016 election.  After Trump won, Romney, in true collaborator fashion, shamelessly tried to have Trump appoint him Secretary of State.  He didn’t get the job, so he turned on Trump again, becoming the leader of The Resistance in the Senate.  As one who is willing to change sides whenever it most benefits him, Romney does harken back to the days of the French Resistance, not as a resistance fighter, but as another Pierre.  Pierre Laval.  Laval was the Premier of the Nazi Puppet Vichy government, set up after the Nazis conquered France in 1940.  Laval was a collaborator.  He betrayed France, and tried to appease Germany by providing French citizens as slave laborers for German industries, and by deporting Jews, 90% of whom were killed by the Nazis.  After the war, the French executed Pierre Laval.  Pierre Delecto won’t face a firing squad, but if Donald Trump is reelected that collaborator may wish that he had.