Dem Leadership Looks to Squelch Impeachment Talk

Emphasis mine.

The Hill:

(Rex Features via AP Images)

Democratic leaders have a message for those members of their caucus beating the drum to impeach President Trump: not so fast.

“I would suggest … there needs to be a full investigation first,” Rep. Joseph Crowley (N.Y.), chairman of the House Democratic Caucus, said Wednesday. “We need to get to the facts, and let the facts lead where they may.”

In the eyes of several Democrats, however, the facts already lead to impeachment.


Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) spoke out at a closed-door House Democratic Caucus meeting Wednesday morning to highlight the urgency of removing Trump, whom the Democrats increasingly see as a national security liability.

Almost simultaneously, Rep. Al Green (D-Texas) took to the House floor to trumpet the impeachment call he’d sounded earlier in the week. He characterized his decision as a “position of conscience.”

Full article: Dem Leadership Looks to Squelch Impeachment Talk

The highlighted area above is everything. I’m sorry, but it is.

The rule of law in the United States is not based off of feelings, no matter how much some of these lefties want it to be. As Ben Shapiro so often says, “Facts don’t care about your feelings.”

Everything coming out in the media recently has been quotes and things stated by anonymous sources, which is fine. But those aren’t facts. It’s someone else’s recollection, opinion, or feelings with nothing behind them. If it comes out that Trump did, in fact, do something that warrants impeachment, then great! Let’s start the impeachment proceedings. And if anything comes out that says his removal from office is warranted, then great! We can start those proceedings next (for those who don’t know it, impeachment is not removal from office). But you can’t base impeachment on something someone says they sort of recollect seeing in a memo, or hearsay. It has to be actual provable facts that can be presented in a court of law with no room for reasonable doubt.

Impeachment is no light matter. It should not even be discussed until actual facts are presented and reasonable doubt is erased. And so far, we haven’t seen any. All we’ve seen are feelings.


Democratic Rep. Val Demings Tells Facebook Commenter: ‘My First Amendment Right Is Different From Yours’

When a commenter asked Demings if they ever found her stolen handgun and suggested that she be more responsible with her own firearms before talking about gun control for others, Demings offered a peculiar reply:

Screenshot via Facebook

It’s unclear exactly what Demings meant when she said “My First Amendment right is different from yours.” Regardless, several Facebook users responded to her comment:

Screenshot via Facebook

Screenshot via Facebook

Full article: Democratic Rep. Val Demings Tells Facebook Commenter: ‘My First Amendment Right Is Different From Yours’ | Daily Wire

Yeah, I’m with Michael Louis Greenstein on this… how, exactly, are her 1st amendment rights “different” than mine or anyone else’s? Does she think she has a right to more 1st amendment rights? Does she think she gets to decide what is covered by the 1st amendment and what is not? Does she think it only applies to lefties? Most likely the last one there, because the lefties lately seem to believe they are allowed to say whatever they want, but if you disagree with them you can’t speak.


Ann Coulter’s “Hate Speech” IS Protected by the First Amendment

“You have every right to protest and use your speech to counter someone else’s speech. What you don’t have a right to do is silence someone else by using violence or intimidation.”

If you haven’t delved into “The Rubin Report,” I highly suggest you spend some time. He’s a leftie, but he’s a good leftie. He interviews folks he doesn’t agree with, and somehow manages to not call them names, shout them down, or any of that crap. It’s a good, thought provoking channel.

Trump Threatens To End Press Briefings To Fight ‘Fake News’


BREAKING: Trump Threatens To End Press Briefings To Fight ‘Fake News’ | Daily Wire


I don’t normally find it valuable to tweet at the president, whoever the president may be. But I did this time.

As much as I dislike and distrust the press, they have a Constitutional right here and I will defend that. Stopping press briefings because you don’t like what they say is not the answer. Sure, give out written responses. Hell, live stream the press conferences so the truth is available for everyone to see. But stopping the press briefings? No, I don’t agree with that at all. Stand strong, you do you. They are never going to have a good word for Donald Trump. But keep rolling through anyway. And do not block them out. It won’t end well. Take the high ground, Mr. President.

Feinstein: I’m Concerned that Gorsuch Is an ‘Originalist’

Feinstein began by noting she was “deeply disappointed” that Obama’s choice for the Supreme Court, Merrick Garland, did not get the luxury of a hearing. Nevertheless, she said it is now the committee’s job to determine whether Gorsuch is a “reasonable mainstream conservative” fit for the highest court in the land.

She did not seem to have much confidence in the nominee. Feinstein is disturbed by Gorsuch’s originalism, she argued, because she believes the concept “ignores the intent of the framers.”

“It’s a framework on which to build,” she said. “I firmly believe the Constitution is a living document that evolves as our country evolves.”

Full article: Feinstein: I’m Concerned that Gorsuch Is an ‘Originalist’ – Cortney O’Brien

She obviously has a different idea of what the framers intended. I don’t believe the framers meant for it to be a “living document.” I believe they meant for it to limit the powers of the government to benefit the people. That’s why it is so difficult to amend and change. If they wanted it to “evolve,” they would have said so and made changing it much easier.

Why All the Fuss About the 25th Amendment?

donald-trump-secim-840x420-800x420Lately, we have been hearing from a lot of news sources that lean both right and left about enacting the 25th Amendment. There have been a lot of threats about it from the left who still can’t seem to grasp that they lost an election, the president is doing what he said he would do, and he isn’t taking crap from the media. Apparently, that makes him 25th Amendment worthy crazy.

This is what they are talking about:

Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.

Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.

Source: Legal Information Institute

Basically, they’d have to get a majority and the VP on board. They can’t just say, “I think you’re nuts, I’m enacting the 25th Amendment.” They have to get enough folks – and the VP – on board to do so, and after that, he would be evaluated by a doctor, most likely cleared, and would be back in office. Even if he wasn’t cleared, Pence would be president.

Look. Is Trump a narcissist? I haven’t the faintest idea… I’m not a frickin’ doctor. And neither are any of these people. Just like doing away with the electoral college, it isn’t as easy as saying you are going to do it and then signing some paperwork. It’s a process. And one that would likely fail.

To put it bluntly, this is another item in a long line of long shots that the dems want to go for to get Trump out of office. It happens constantly. It happened with Obama. People were still trying to get Obama impeached the day before he left office. It’s nothing new. It may be getting more coverage, and there may be more public talk of it in the actual political class, but it doesn’t change that fact that it is 99.9% unlikely to go anywhere. It gets their base all fired up and excited thinking THIS TIME! But that’s what it always does, and nothing more.

The best defense? Just stop giving attention to this basic jackassery and stick with reality. As I’ve always said, there is enough going on in the world to focus on that we don’t need this junk on top of it.

Assault Weapons Not Protected by Second Amendment, Federal Appeals Court Rules

AR-15 rifles. Scott Olson / Getty Images

Maryland’s ban on 45 kinds of assault weapons and its 10-round limit on gun magazines were upheld Tuesday by a federal appeals court in a decision that met with a strongly worded dissent.

In a 10-4 ruling, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia, said the guns banned under Maryland’s law aren’t protected by the Second Amendment.

“Put simply, we have no power to extend Second Amendment protections to weapons of war,” Judge Robert King wrote for the court, adding that the Supreme Court’s decision in District of Columbia v. Heller explicitly excluded such coverage.

Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh, who led the push for the law in 2013 as a state senator, said it’s “unthinkable that these weapons of war, weapons that caused the carnage in Newtown and in other communities across the country, would be protected by the Second Amendment.”

“It’s a very strong opinion, and it has national significance, both because it’s en-banc and for the strength of its decision,” Frosh said, noting that all of the court’s judges participated.

Judge William Traxler issued a dissent. By concluding the Second Amendment doesn’t even apply, Traxler wrote, the majority “has gone to greater lengths than any other court to eviscerate the constitutionally guaranteed right to keep and bear arms.” He also wrote that the court did not apply a strict enough review on the constitutionality of the law.

“For a law-abiding citizen who, for whatever reason, chooses to protect his home with a semi-automatic rifle instead of a semi-automatic handgun, Maryland’s law clearly imposes a significant burden on the exercise of the right to arm oneself at home, and it should at least be subject to strict scrutiny review before it is allowed to stand,” Traxler wrote.

Full article: Assault Weapons Not Protected by Second Amendment, Federal Appeals Court Rules – NBC News


Jokes aside, this is serious stuff. I see a lot of people talking about the term “assault weapon,” and that’s all well and good, but the ban actually lists the guns, so the argument that it doesn’t apply to your gun because it is a “modern sporting rifle” isn’t accurate.

The Heller case (which this ruling blatantly disregards and violates, although they argue it does not) did make reference to the right to guns in popular use at the time, which these rifles do fall under, but not according to the court. These rifles would also not be seen as adequate arms to send overseas with our troops, making them not “weapons of war,” but again, not according to this court.

This opens up the flood gates to bans that are wholly unconstitutional, regardless of what this court says.

And it opens a lot of other problems as well. After all, if the 2nd amendment only protects guns that were available and in popular use at the time of writing, one could argue the other amendments are also null and void. If this stands, one could argue that you could, in fact, be arrested for writing something on the internet with your smart phone that the government doesn’t like. After all, if one amendment only covers things at time of writing, why would another include modern technology? And while that is a “joke” that gets passed around, a lawyer could push it in court. And I hate to say… that lawyer could win. Again, if one covers modern technology, they all must. If one doesn’t cover modern technology, none of them can.

So while the anti-gunners rejoice, the flood gates may have just been opened.