The Impeachment Scheme – It’s not Going to Work

IMPEACHMENT - Pelosi (GOPUSA)

(Photo Courtesy of GOPUSA)

by Diane Rufino, October 31, 2019

Now that Democrats have launched an impeachment inquiry, they’ll need to convince 20 Republicans in the Senate to vote to convict and remove him from power. We all know that the Senate will never remove him. And Democrats know that as well.

So what is the Democrats’ real goal? What is their end game?

Pelosi, Schiff, Shumer, D’Nang Dick Blumenthal, and all the other unhinged Democrats understand that the most important number when it comes to removing Trump from power isn’t the 67 votes in the Senate needed to convict. It’s his APPROVAL RATING. They have chosen this particular point in time to launch an Impeachment Inquiry because of the upcoming 2020 presidential election. They are hoping to capitalize on a tanking approval rating (as a result of the inquiry) to affect the election. They are hoping to impugn Trump’s reputation as they did to Nixon in the Watergate investigation (leading to his resignation in August 1974) and as Republicans did to President Clinton in the late 1990’s in the wake of the Monica Lewinsky scandal.

But here is the difference between the Clinton impeachment investigation and the Trump impeachment investigation. Donald Trump has done absolutely nothing to warrant such an investigation. Remember the impeachment standard – “high crimes and misdemeanors.” Impeachment was reserved for those actions of a President that are so objectionable, so touching on his character and fitness for office as to convince members of BOTH PARTIES that the best thing for the country is to remove him from office. It is not a mere political tool – to be used by one political party to effect a political coup-d’état and remove a president they hate from office. Yet that is what we are seeing from the rabid Democrats from the very minute that Donald Trump took that historic walk down Pennsylvania Avenue to the Capitol Building to take the oath of office in 2017.

Bill Clinton, on the other hand, committed actual crimes – 11 felonies to be exact. That was the conclusion of the (Ken) Starr Report which was issued in 1998 to the House Judiciary Committee. The Report cited 11 possible grounds (felonies) for impeachment – that can be lumped into four general categories: perjury, obstruction of justice, witness tampering and abuse of power. All of these felonies were linked to Clinton’s affair with Monica Lewinsky. These felonies were:

1. President Clinton lied under oath in his civil case when he denied a sexual affair, a sexual relationship, or sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky.

2. President Clinton lied under oath to the grand jury about his sexual relationship with Ms. Lewinsky.

3. In his civil deposition, to support his false statement about the sexual relationship, President Clinton also lied under oath about being alone with Ms. Lewinsky and about the many gifts exchanged between Ms. Lewinsky and him.

4. President Clinton lied under oath in his civil deposition about his discussions with Ms. Lewinsky concerning her involvement in the Jones case.

5. During the Jones case, the President obstructed justice and had an understanding with Ms. Lewinsky to jointly conceal the truth about their relationship by concealing gifts subpoenaed by Ms. Jones’s attorneys.

6. During the Jones case, the President obstructed justice and had an understanding with Ms. Lewinsky to jointly conceal the truth of their relationship from the judicial process by a scheme that included the following means: (A) Both the President and Ms. Lewinsky understood that they would lie under oath in the Jones case about their sexual relationship; (B) the President suggested to Ms. Lewinsky that she prepare an affidavit that, for the President’s purposes, would memorialize her testimony under oath and could be used to prevent questioning of both of them about their relationship (C) Lewinsky signed and filed the false affidavit; (D) the President used Ms. Lewinsky’s false affidavit at his deposition in an attempt to head off questions about Ms. Lewinsky; and (E) when that failed, the President lied under oath at his civil deposition about the relationship with Ms. Lewinsky.

7. President Clinton endeavored to obstruct justice by helping Ms. Lewinsky obtain a job in New York at a time when she would have been a witness harmful to him were she to tell the truth in the Jones case. (Quid-pro-quo for Lewinsky’s silence)

8. President Clinton lied under oath in his civil deposition about his discussions with Vernon Jordan concerning Ms. Lewinsky’s involvement in the Jones case.

9. The President improperly tampered with a potential witness by attempting to corruptly influence the testimony of his personal secretary, Betty Currie, in the days after his civil deposition.

10. President Clinton endeavored to obstruct justice during the grand jury investigation by refusing to testify for seven months and lying to senior White House aides with knowledge that they would relay the President’s false statements to the grand jury – and did thereby deceive, obstruct, and impede the grand jury.

11. President Clinton abused his constitutional authority by (iA lying to the public and the Congress in January 1998 about his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky; (B) promising at that time to cooperate fully with the grand jury investigation; (C) later refusing six invitations to testify voluntarily to the grand jury; (D) invoking Executive Privilege; (E) lying to the grand jury in August 1998; and (F) lying again to the public and Congress on August 17, 1998 – all as part of an effort to hinder, impede, and deflect possible inquiry by the Congress of the United States.
[Reference: Wikipedia, “The Starr Report”]

Trump has been the victim of a fabricated plot to affect the outcome of the 2016 presidential election (the “Russian Collusion” scandal), which will backfire on Democrats and on Obama and his FBI and DOJ officials, has been the victim of a phone call scandal that Rep. Adam Schifty Schiff has inappropriately misrepresented to the House Judiciary Committee and to the American people, has been the victim of a secret Democratic plot to conduct an Impeachment Inquiry, and has been effectively under investigation and been the target of aggressive smear campaigns from the minute he took office, effectively hampering every step he undertakes as president of the United States.

The Democrats are the ENEMY and not President Trump. The only individuals who should suffer in their approval ratings are Democrats. In a world that should ultimately be rewarded for good and not evil, and in a world that we hope should even out as karma would have it, we should see Democrats losing popularity in their districts and then losing seats in Congress in November 2020. Let’s hope that as Democrats continue their witch hunt and their political coup d’état, President Trump’s approval rating will continue to rise !!

 

Bi-Sexual Wake County English Teacher Pushes Diversity and Privilege in her Classroom by Forcing Students to Disclose Private and Sensitive Information About Themselves and Others in Their Lives

 

by Diane Rufino, October 21, 2019

On their second day at school at Heritage High School in Wake County, students in Ms. Wilson’s 10th grade English class were handed a worksheet titled “Diversity Inventory,” and told to complete it. That worksheet asked each student such questions as: who their friends and doctors are, who their teachers were, who are the members of their family, and who their neighbors are. These questions may seem a bit intrusive, but so far, they don’t raise any red flags. But then the worksheet asks the student to answer the following questions about each of those individuals: their gender, sexuality, ethnicity, religion, and socio-economic status.

Why does an English teacher need to pry into her students’ lives and why does she need this information? And even more troubling, did she plan to force each student to share that private information with other students?

Apparently, according to the teacher, it was a checklist to help this teacher literally map out how to force more social justice ‘diversity’ lessons (ie, indoctrination) into her students’ lives. As if that isn’t highly offensive enough, the questionnaire worksheet has no nexus to her teaching of English. It has no relevance and should have no relevance. How does it impact her OBLIGATION to teach students about English literature, plots, and themes.

Needless to say, some students were offended and confused by the assignment. When some kids showed hesitation about answering, Ms. Wilson responded: “Hey, it’s OK because I used to be a Catholic and now I’m an atheist and I’m bi-sexual.”

When has it become acceptable for a teacher to share the details of her sex life?   And what possible relevance is it from an English teacher in an English class?

One parent, Dina Bartus, contacted the school’s principal to demand that her son be removed from the class. The principal did not respond, so she emailed him a second time. Only then did she hear back from him. As she explained: “It’s hard enough going to high school without having your teacher call you out and lump you into a category — and not a category like ‘do you like football or baseball?’ A category of, ‘who do you want to have sex with?’ She told the principal that the teachers’ worksheet, and the questions it asked, was it was unacceptable.

On Facebook, Bartus posted her disgust: “Now it gets better…. not only does she ask these questions, but she asks them stand under posters around the room representing the categories of questions she asks. For example: What makes you the most privileged? Needless to say there was an email sent. And it is only the second damn day of school.”

Luckily, and to the principal’s credit, as soon as Mrs. Bartus complained, he immediately reviewed the assignment and directed the teacher to discontinue it. The Wake County School System followed up by issuing a statement, which read: “While we value efforts to build a classroom community that is inclusive and respectful of all students and backgrounds, the Wake County Public School System also respects and values student privacy and their right to engage in discussion about personal identity when they are comfortable to do so.”

The response was dead on.

For those who believe the public school system has become the vehicle not of true education but of indoctrination by government and of social change, consider this reality. Wake County Public Schools created the Office of Equity Affairs (OEA) a few years ago to help guide the mission of Wake County’s public schools. A presentation by the OEA (accessible here: https://www.scribd.com/document/415005224/2019-06-05-NCSBE-06052019-WCPSS-OEA-Overview-v2) made clear that educators “will be the instruments for the infusion of raced-based and social justice training into schools and classrooms.” The presentation further states, and clearly so, that “Educators will work to socialize intelligence and effort among all students in every school, every classroom, every day…. Leaders will model and advance courageous conversations about special education status, family income, and race, and how these attributes shape teaching and learning experiences in schools and classrooms.”

Even more offensively, Wake County has promoted “professional development” training modules, which have been prepared by and are available on the Southern Poverty Law Center’s website – under “Social Justice Standards.” The OEA has actively promoted the use of these “standards” in the classroom, directly frustrating parents’ legitimate expectations of teachers and of rightful expectations related to the rightful role of the public school (to educate and not to indoctrinate).

 

****  The clarifier “Bi-Sexual” was included in the title not to indicate any discrimination or mal intent against such individuals but only to suggest that someone who benefits so greatly from a very progressive social agenda (as the left and as the Southern Poverty Law Center pushes) may have had a reason for pushing the “Diversity Inventory” assignment and pushing a social agenda in her classroom – a classroom historically devoted to reading, analyzing, and appreciating outstanding works of English literature, studying plots and characters, looking for themes, tying the work into the time period, etc and NOT devoted to social change and government indoctrination.

Reference:  Thanks to Lady Liberty (A.P. Dillon) for addressing the Office of Equity Affairs (OEA) in her article “Diversity Inventory Worksheet Given to Heritage High Students Yanked After Parents’ Pushback,” August 29, 2019.   Referenced at: https://ladyliberty1885.com/2019/08/29/diversity-inventory-worksheet-given-to-heritage-high-students-yanked-after-parents-push-back/

SUPREME COURT WATCH: The Supreme Court Hears its Second Challenge to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Does it Protect Transgenders?)

SUPREME COURT - building (Newsmax)

by Diane Rufino, October 10, 2019

The Supreme Court just began its 2019-2020 term on Monday, October 7. The following day, on Oct. 8, the justices heard oral arguments in two potential landmark cases, both challenges to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. The cases are Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia (Consolidated with Altitude Express Inc. v. Zarda) and R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. In the first case, the plaintiff asks the Supreme Court to include sexual orientation (LBGT) within the meaning of “sex” in Title VII for protection against discrimination. Bostock is a gay man. In the second case, which is the focus of this article, the plaintiff asks the Court to include transgender individuals for protection within the meaning of “sex” in Title VII.

The questions, of course, will be whether the provision was written to include such individuals and if not, whether or not the federal court has the proper authority to enlarge the meaning of Title VII to include them going forward.

The facts of the R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes v EEOC case are as follows: The plaintiff (the challenger), Aimee Stephens, considered herself a transgender woman for most of her adult life but presented herself as a male, which he said caused him constant emotional stress. In 2013, he decided to come out to family and friends, and arranged to undergo reassignment surgery within the next year, and began to implement lifestyle changes consistent with his ultimate transition. At that time, he had been an employee of R.G. &. G.R. Harris Funeral Homes for six years and had a excellent work record. He wrote to his supervisor, explaining that he was taking a vacation and explaining his plans to transition to a female. He also notified the supervisor that when he returned to work, he would be wearing attire appropriate for a female employee. Note, when he returned, he would still be a biological male. He would not have had the surgery by that point. Two weeks later, Stephens was notified by mail that he had been terminated by the funeral home’s owner Thomas Rost. Stephens then filed a complaint with the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission (EEOC), believing he was discriminated against on account of him being a transgender. He alleged that the provision in Title VII which protects a person from discrimination on account of ‘sex’ [“It shall be unlawful to discharge an individual because of that person’s sex…” (paraphrasing)] includes transgender individuals.

Title VII reads:

(a) Employer Practices. It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer –

(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; or

(2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants for employment in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

This case, therefore, will determine (or may determine) whether discrimination on the basis of gender identity is covered by the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The EEOC surprisingly agreed with Stephens’ position and took the case against the funeral home to the US District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. In 2016, the court found for the funeral home on two bases: (1) First, it held that Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act neither encompassed transgender persons nor gender identity individuals (neither were considered protected classes, or even considered at all), and (2) Second, it held because Rost was a devout Christian who does not accept that one can change one’s gender and who ran the funeral home under his religion, he was protected by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

The EEOC appealed to the Sixth Circuit, and in March 2018, it reversed the decision, ruling that Title’s VII “discrimination by sex” does include transgender persons. Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) took the funeral home’s case and appealed to the Supreme Court for review. The Court accepted the case.

MY OPINION is that the Supreme Court should NOT decide this case. The Court should respect the language and intent of the legislature (Congress) when it passed the Civil Rights Act in 1964. Sexual orientation and gender identity were not included in the provision; those categories of individuals were not legislatively given protected status in the Act. It is NOT the role of the federal courts (or any court system) to make law from the bench or to enlarge the meaning of laws from the bench. That would be judicial activism. The proper recourse is for the Supreme Court to acknowledge that transgenders (gender identity individuals) and sexual orientation individuals present a new situation with respect to discrimination and then leave it to Congress to either amend Title VII to include them or to decline to include them as protected classes. But the rightful branch to address this issue is Congress, and the Supreme Court must respect that and not usurp that responsibility by reinterpreting the law and enlarging its meaning judicially.

NC VALUES founder, president, and spokeswoman, Tami Fitzgerald was at the Supreme Court on Tuesday, Oct. 8 for the oral arguments. She delivered a speech on the steps of the imposing building, urging her view and the view of NC Values regarding Title VII. The transcript of her remarks is provided below. Her remarks are well worth the read:

“We are here today to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to restore sanity and the rule of law. Americans should be able to rely on what the law says. Yet, in these three cases, the lower courts have effectively redefined the word “sex” in federal law to include “gender identity,” creating unfair situations for women and girls, and punishing businesses like Harris Funeral Homes for relying on what the law says. Redefining “sex” to mean “gender identity” creates chaos and is unfair to women and girls.

Title VII was enacted to ensure that men and women have equal employment opportunities. It was not designed to be a radical social engineering project that shoehorns sexual liberties into federal law. Yet some lower courts, including the Sixth and Second Circuits, jump from stereotypical ideas about the roles of men and women to conclusions that render heterosexuality—and even the very idea of biological sex—illicit stereotypes.

The cases at issue here, have ripped the stereotyping terminology from the pages of the Supreme Court’s earlier decision in Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins and commandeered it for purposes far removed from Title VII’s objectives. The result is a sweeping redefinition of biological reality that injects sexual orientation and/or gender identity into the meaning of the word “sex.”

Title VII’s relevant protected characteristic is “sex,” which in 1964 and still today means biological sex. Plaintiffs now demand protection for sexual orientation (Zarda, Bostock) and gender identity (Harris)—which are both radically different categories.

The Sixth Circuit substitutes gender identity for sex in Title VII, rewriting the statutory text and redefining the reality of plaintiff’s sex.

Gender identity theory cements stereotypes in stone rather than eradicating them from the law. It reduces what it means to be male or female to a collection of stereotypes that many people—especially women—have spent many years trying to overcome and that many people reject.

The word “sex” in Title VII is an objective term determined by reproductive anatomy. Sexual orientation is subjectively determined by individual’s preference in sexual partners. Gender identity is subjectively determined by a person’s internal sense of being male or female. These subjective categories represent a radical departure from the text of Title VII and the underpinnings of previous case law.

The Sixth Circuit was wrong when it precluded an interpretation of Title VII that reads “sex” to mean only individuals’ chromosomally driven physiology and reproductive function. That is precisely the definition of “sex” in Title VII and many other laws. The circuit courts attempt to redefine reality and infuse the federal law with meanings that are simply not there.

Laws cannot be enforced or rightly interpreted if word definitions can be shifted at will to mean whatever someone wants them to mean.

Blurring the binary concept of male and female detracts from the fundamental purpose of both Title VII and Price Waterhouse—to ensure that male and female employees have equal employment opportunities.

Male and female are both human beings, but they are not interchangeable in every respect. When the line is blurred, there is no assurance that women will have equal opportunities vis-à-vis men.

Redefining “sex” to mean “gender identity” creates unfair situations for women and girls.

Title VII and other civil rights laws are in place to protect equal opportunities for women; changing “sex” to mean gender identity undermines nearly 50 years of advances for women.

(1)  It undermines equal opportunities for women. Men identifying as female will take women’s places on athletics teams and on the award podium. Just this fall, the North Carolina High School Athletic Association changed its rules regarding participation, so that transgender athletes can now compete according to their gender identity, rather than their biological sex. The Court’s decision in these cases will impact whether female athletes in North Carolina have to continue under this oppressive rule or can return to a fair playing field, where biology determines which team on which boys can compete—not feelings.

(2)  It jeopardizes bodily privacy rights of women by forcing organizations to open women’s shelters, locker rooms, restrooms, and showers to men who say they are women. For example, the Obama Justice Department attempted to force schools and government buildings in North Carolina to allow men who say they are women into women’s bathrooms, showers and locker rooms. Women should be able to expect privacy and safety in such facilities.

Redefining “sex” to mean “gender identity” causes big problems.

(1) It puts employers in unfair situations. Employers must treat men who believe themselves to be women as if they are women, unless those employees don’t “meet the expectations” of what women “typically” look like. This is an impossible standard and forces employers to engage in the very stereotypes the law is supposed to condemn.

(2) It sacrifices freedom of conscience.

(3) It forces doctors to participate in—or employers to pay for—providing hormone blockers or surgical efforts to alter sex in violation of religious beliefs.

(4) It endangers freedom of speech.

(5) It forces business owners, employees, teachers and others to speak in violation of their conscience by compelling them to use pronouns and other sex‐specific terms according to identity rather than biology. For example, in Charlotte and Raleigh , North Carolina, teachers and guidance counselors have been told they must use gender neutral terms such as “students” rather than “he” or “she” and that they must use preferred pronouns for students who identify as the sex other than their biological sex.

So much is riding on the Court’s decision in these cases. This decision will impact public schools, employers, business owners, employees, and churches. We implore the Justices not to re-define what it means to be a woman and a man, but rather to follow the law, common sense, and the order of Creation.”

TAMI FITZGERALD - head shot (red suit)   Tami Fitzgerald

NC VALUES fights tirelessly for North Carolina families and for our North Carolina conservative values, and we owe Tami Fitzgerald and her organization a debt of gratitude. She is always on the front line. If you are looking for a worthwhile and honorable organization to donate to, please consider to donating to NC Values.

 

Reference: https://www.ncvalues.org/tami_fitzgerald_harris_funeral_homes_speech?utm_campaign=20191010_harris_followup&utm_medium=email&utm_source=ncvalues

The Road to Impeachment: Trump Calls Pelosi’s Bluff

IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY - Trump v. Pelosi (Gage Skidmore, US Coast Guard)

(Photo Courtesy of Gage Skidmore, US Coast Guard)

The Mueller Report concluded that there were no grounds to indict President Trump. There were no grounds related to the so-called Russian Collusion allegation or any other allegation that was included in the Special Counsel’s investigation. So what to do? What to do??

The Democrats needed another avenue to frustrate the President and to find a potential “high crime or misdemeanor” to try to impeach him. And that’s where the phone conversation between Trump and the Ukrainian president came in. Democrats expected this to have great potential to blow out of proportion, as they like to do, but what they didn’t expect was for Trump to release the unredacted transcript of that conversation.

The transcript showed that Trump never engaged in any incriminating conservation and breached no unlawful or inappropriate topic with the new Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelensky. [Refer to this interview with Legal Analyst and best-selling author, Gregg Jarrett where he explains the Joe Biden and Hunter Biden situation regarding the Ukraine. https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1180521871223246848/video/1 ]

All one needs to know about that conservation is this: President Trump has every right and full authority to ask a foreign government if there has been any corruption or illegality by officials of the United States. In the conversation, that is all Trump refers to. He did not phrase the question in terms of “quid-pro-quo” action, meaning that if the Ukrainians didn’t comply, the United States would retaliate in some way, nor did he promise something in return if the Ukraine provided evidence. That would be government coercion. Quid-pro-quo action is what Vice President Biden engaged in during the Obama years with the Ukraine.

Despite the unredacted transcript, House Democrats have had the audacity to accuse the White House of providing a transcript that doesn’t honestly reflect what the national leaders talked about. As always, they think they know better (yet at every step, they have not).

On Tuesday, September 24, Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced the House would launch a formal impeachment INQUIRY into President Trump. Adding to our absolute frustration with Congressional Democrats, Pelosi announced last week that the House would yet again be neglecting its actual constitutional obligation to legislate and take care of the country’s problems in order to continue to investigate President Trump. She said a number of committees have been tasked with gathering “facts” and “evidence” in order to build a case. What she didn’t announce was a VOTE on impeachment. In other words…. Democrats intend to engage in yet another fishing expedition. We can interpret this as affirming that there still is no grounds for impeachment, but maybe, if the House investigates enough, if enough people lie and leak privileged information that can be misconstrued, if every aspect of Trump’s life is examined under a microscope, there may ultimately be grounds to move forward on articles of impeachment.

How this will play out is just beginning to unfold. Here were the possibilities:

(i)  The House could find nothing and close the investigation.

(ii)  The House could investigate in perpetuity effectively tying up the legislative calendar for the remainder of the year.

(iii)  The House could move forward and hold a vote to impeach the president.

(iv)  The White House could refuse to comply to the subpoenas and other requests for information UNTIL Nancy Pelosi first holds a vote on impeachment.

Trump decided to go with option #4.

The Trump Administration is not easily tricked, it knows the evil games that Democrats play, and it has no intention of complying with their fishing expedition. The White House is taking the position that it does not have to treat the House subpoenas or other requests for information as having the force or weight of impeachment law. In other words, he cannot be forced to comply. And so, yesterday afternoon, the White House sent a letter to House Speaker Pelosi calling her bluff on impeachment. The letter made it clear that it will refuse to comply with witness or document requests until a full House VOTE is taken and impeachment is officially underway, thwarting their witch hunt – the tactic used by Democrats since Trump announced he was running for the presidency. Pelosi, on the other hand, believes she does not need a vote to begin the process, as she has stated. The reality is that she is using the “inquiry” approach to avoid an actual vote in order to protect approximately a dozen Democratic House members who believe they will lose reelection if they vote to impeach President Trump.

As we are all too well aware, the effort to impeach President Trump began even before he was inaugurated on January 20. 2017. It began, on one front, with Senators Elizabeth Warren, Dick Durbin, and others attempting to tie the president’s business ventures to a violation of existing law and elevating that violation to a “high crime or misdemeanor” under the impeachment clause of the U.S. Constitution, at the same time the FBI’s “insurance policy” was being advanced. In fact, the first articles of impeachment were drafted in 2017, just months after President Trump took office. And Democrats have been beating that tired drum ever since. Their methods are just becoming more desperate and insane.

Impeachment in the United States, as we all know, is the process by which the lower house of a legislature brings charges against a civil officer of government for crimes alleged to have been committed, analogous to the bringing of an indictment by a grand jury. At the federal level, the Constitution gives the powers of impeachment and conviction to Congress: The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” Each house of Congress plays a part.

The House of Representatives is the chamber tasked with bringing articles of impeachment against the president (or other official). Article I, Section 2, clause 5 reads: “The House of Representatives shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.” A president is “impeached” by the House by a simple majority vote (51%), but he still remains in office.

The next step is removal, which is at the sole discretion of the Senate. Article I, Section 3, clauses 6 provides: “The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two-thirds of the Members present.”

In short, impeachment is a political process controlled by Congress, and is a tool to punish wrongdoing as defined by the constitution, not to settle policy disputes. Political hatred is not included in “high crimes and misdemeanors” and if Democrats decide to go that route, God help our country moving forward. Using this standard, political parties would be able to execute an internal government coup whenever their hatred level rises high enough.

Former federal prosecutor Andy McCarthy explains why Pelosi’s current impeachment gamble, which has given the Trump campaign an extra $15 million in just a few days, isn’t impeachment at all:

“The House has not voted as a body to authorize an impeachment inquiry. What we have are partisan theatrics, proceeding under the ipse dixit of Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). It raises the profile, but not the legitimacy, of the same “impeachment inquiry” House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) previously tried to abracadabra into being without a committee vote.

Moreover, there are no subpoenas. As Secretary Pompeo observed in his fittingly tart response on Tuesday, what committee chairmen Nadler issued was merely a letter. Its huffing and puffing notwithstanding, the letter is nothing more than an informal request for voluntary cooperation. Legally, it has no compulsive power. If anything, it is rife with legal deficiencies.

The Democrats, of course, hope you don’t notice that the House is not conducting a formal impeachment inquiry. They are using the guise of frenetic activity by several standing committees — Intelligence, Judiciary, Foreign Affairs, Oversight and Reform, Financial Services, and Ways and Means — whose normal oversight functions are being gussied up to look like serious impeachment business.”

Taking the position that the White House has taken (calling Pelosi’s bluff on impeachment) will likely have the following effects:

1).  Speaker Pelosi and House Democrats will challenge the Trump Administration in court to compel them to comply with the impeachment inquiry (Good luck Democrats once it gets to the Supreme Court!!), and

2).  The first stage of the impeachment process will drag out over a longer period of time (making it more likely that Trump will be re-elected and Democrats will lose seats in Congress).

Regarding the first, this will cause our government to enter largely untested legal waters. Speaker Pelosi will attempt to use the legal process to threaten Administration officials to comply with her requests or risk their own legal problems, and she will threaten to add “Non-Compliance” or “Obstruction” along with her list of impeachment charges against President Trump. As hinted above, conservatives should be consoled should any constitutional questions need to be addressed by the Supreme Court.

Regarding the second, House Pelosi and Democratic Leadership have desperately tried to avoid entering into an impeachment fight because of Trump’s popularity and the public’s overall approval and support of his policy initiatives. They approve of the direction he is taking our country and they feel the positive effects of his policies. There are several House Democrats know it will be political suicide to try to impeach such a popular president.

At this initial phase of this impeachment battle, the extreme partisanship of House Democrats and their vitriolic rhetoric against the president would suggest that the House will likely proceed with filing articles of impeachment against Trump. They actually may be forced to do so by the position taken by the White House. Without compliance by the White House regarding subpoenas and requests for information, the House will have a hard time making an actual case for impeachment. The Ukrainian phone call is turning out to be another disaster for them. But, if Pelosi decides to call for a vote, if Democrats vote as a block, and if Democrats are not afraid to face their voters to explain their vote, impeachment will be successful. With a full membership of the House and having a majority, 218 Democratic “YES” votes will impeach President Trump.

What can we expect from the Senate after a House Vote?

If the House does happen to vote to impeach President Trump, the Senate would have no choice but to take up the issue of removal. Senator Majority Leader Mitch McConnell admitted as such. The Senate rule on impeachment requires the Senate to receive the House managers of impeachment, provide the opportunity for the managers to reveal the articles of impeachment on the Senate floor, and begin the trial no later than one o’clock in the afternoon of the following day.

Normally, the Vice President of the United States, as President of the Senate, presides over Senate business, but in order to avoid a conflict of interest, the Constitution directs “When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside.” In the case of President Trump being impeached, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court John Roberts would preside over the trial, maintaining order and ensuring Senate rules are followed.

However, while Leader McConnell is correct that the Senate must consider the articles of impeachment, there are several different possibilities for how the Senate could deal with the impeachment of the president:

(1)  The Senate could begin the trial and in short order move to dismiss the articles of impeachment.

(2)  They could also entertain a motion to send the articles and the trial to a committee of the Senate.

(3)  They can dismiss some articles (if the House makes more than one accusation against the president) and hold a trial on the other articles.

(4)  They could also have a full blown trial on the Senate floor at which President Trump’s defense attorneys would be able to present and examine evidence, to call and cross-examine witnesses, and to deliver opening and final arguments.

Once the trial takes place, the Senate would likely debate in executive (or closed) session followed by a vote in open session as to whether or not to convict Trump. In order for the president to be convicted of the accusations contained in the articles of impeachment, two-thirds of senators present and voting must vote “YES.” A conviction is required to remove the president from office. The Senate may then vote to bar the president from holding federal office again.

Impeachment is perhaps the most serious exercise that our representative government can undertake. The purpose is to remove an unfit president from continuing in office where his seriously flawed judgement and dishonest intuition will have the chance to prejudice the country. It recognizes the fundamental code in our country that no one is above the law, including the President of the United States. The cavalier manner in which Speaker Pelosi is beginning this process exposes the worst kind of partisan politics. She has been mentally, emotionally, and psychologically compromised by her hatred of President Trump. Her hatred and her absolute desire to rally the Democratic Party behind an effort to unseat the man that is doing to most to hurt her party has her hijacking the power of her office and her position for purposes not allowed by the Constitution, nor contemplated by it. Again, political hatred does not come under the purview of “high crimes and misdemeanors,” which is the historic and constitutional threshold for impeachment. Presidents Nixon and Clinton faced an impeachment inquiry only after a vote by the House. Speaker Pelosi is buckling under the pressure of left-wing activists to impeach President Trump while violating the proper process to do so in order to protect Democratic members who may lose re-election if they vote on impeachment.

If you listen to the mainstream news or do a google search (which of course, will take you to a progressive/liberal site rather than any conservative ones), you will hear crazy talk like “Polls show more Americans are in favor of impeachment” and “More compelling evidence against President Trump.” None of these stories is true. The truth is that Democrats are suffering from Trump Derangement Syndrome which is causing them to ignore the Constitution, to ignore the will of the people at the ballot box in 2016, and to ignore proper codes of conduct and to persecute and harass the President every chance they get (or to manufacture a reason to do so).

I wish the Supreme Court would issue a “cease and desist” order to House Democrats, instructing them to stop harassing President Trump and ordering them BACK TO WORK !!

All the facts in this impeachment reveal a purely partisan attempt to overturn the will of the American people and to remove from office a man who won a historic victory at the ballot box. The victory was not simply to put him in office but it was a message rejecting Hillary Clinton and the Democratic pollical machine. The incessant investigations, allegations, and calls for impeachment are merely illegitimate attempts (ie, a coup) to overturn the election of President Trump in 2016.

But the American people are not without a role in the righteousness of the impeachment or the injustice of the impeachment. The American people have the opportunity to weigh in at the ballot box regarding their views of the impeachment. If the impeachment was clearly justified, the party responsible for bringing the articles of impeachment and for removing the dishonorable president will be rewarded with more seats in Congress. On the other hand, if a particular political party misused or abused its impeachment power, that party will suffer at election time. For example, after impeaching President Clinton, congressional Republicans faced backlash and lost seats in the subsequent election. The overwhelming majority of Americans had no idea of the actual legal basis for his impeachment (for he committed an actual crime by knowingly lying under oath as a defendant in a lawsuit) but just knew that he was a popular president who seemed to be impeached for his inability to keep his little willie in his pants.

It will be up to us, and those of us who appreciate Donald Trump and who are sickened by the actions of the Democratic Party, to push back against this evil myoptic political party and to make sure their numbers and their voice in government is minimized. We must make it abundantly clear that it is NOT acceptable to ignore one’s constitutional obligations and oath to office and instead to co-opt the powers of the federal government for the singular purpose of advancing the interests and power of a political party.

 

 

Reference:

“Oppose Impeachment,” Heritage Action. Referenced at: https://heritageaction.com/toolkit/oppose-impeachment?utm_source=heritageaction&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter_10-05-2019&mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiWVRneFl6bGtaR1ptTW1ObCIsInQiOiJFYzNUM1wvODhGeHJ2N2NpeGFZaTFmVTRYWFFyUWhBQ0FGVjNkOFFtVDVweTFDa3ZQQm1hK25rS1wvcTZOWnVZU0RsM3o0SFM5K2VIeVI2bXRnYmtBR05yVGVFVktUR2NEQWVSdGx0NStcL3cyQjVrZ1J3cTlJdGZzWnBQTVwvSE1tR2YifQ%3D%3D

The Second Amendment and Red Flag Laws: Understand Your Rights and Learn the Truth

RED FLAG LAWS - I want YOU to prevent gun violence

by Diane Rufino, October 1, 2019

My professor at law school, Judge Andrew Napolitano, FOX News Senior Legal Analyst, wrote an excellent article on Red Flag Laws.

Not only is this article spot on regarding the issues (unconstitutionality) of Red Flag laws, but it is a brilliant overview of our founding and of the original intent and understanding of our Second Amendment’s guarantee of the right to keep and bear arms. The history included in Judge Napolitano’s article is a history that our children will never be exposed to in the public school system. Our government will never allow students to be taught that they have an inherent right to be armed against government should it turn despotic and tyrannical (which almost all governments, at some point, become).

St. George Tucker, one of our country’s most influential legal scholars and an expert on the US Constitution (as ratified), wrote the following in his View of the Constitution of the United States (1803) regarding the right to arms addressed in the Second Amendment:

“This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty. . . . The right of self-defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction. In England, the people have been disarmed, generally, under the specious pretext of preserving the game: a never failing lure to bring over the landed aristocracy to support any measure, under that mask, though calculated for very different purposes. True it is, their bill of rights seems at first view to counteract this policy: but the right of bearing arms is confined to protestants, and the words suitable to their condition and degree, have been interpreted to authorize the prohibition of keeping a gun or other engine for the destruction of game, to any farmer, or inferior tradesman, or other person not qualified to kill game. So that not one man in five hundred can keep a gun in his house without being subject to a penalty.”

Tucker’s View of the Constitution was the first extended, systematic commentary on the Constitution after it had been ratified by the people of the several states and amended by the Bill of Rights. And his Blackstone’s Commentaries, With Notes of Reference to the Constitution (1803), from which the following excerpt originates, was the major treatise on American law in the early 19th century. Lawyers arguing before the Supreme Court of the United States would frequently cite to Tucker’s Blackstone’s Commentaries more often than any other commentator until 1827.

The information in Judge Napolitano’s article is information that I did not learn in my years at Seton Hall Law School (which was recently renamed “Seton Hall School of Social Justice”). The reason is that the Second Amendment had not been interpreted and analyzed honestly by the Supreme Court when I was a student there. For all of our country’s history, the Second Amendment was assumed by ordinary citizens to include the individual right to self-defense while it was assumed by government to only include the right to firearms when men formed into a militia. This difference of viewpoints highlights exactly the difference between Free Individuals and Government. It highlights the difference between the views and intent of Free Individuals versus the views and intent of government. Individuals want their rights secure; and especially from the reaches of government (as the Bill of Rights was intended to ensure). They are protective and defensive of their rights. Government, on the other hand, wants to control the people and is ever so willing to re-interpret rights such that government can burden, define, and even take them away (such as when third parties make a complaint that a certain individual is a threat and should have his/her firearms confiscated).

When I was attending law school, the controlling Supreme Court jurisprudence was that the right protected in the Second Amendment was not an individual right but a collective right. In 1939, the Supreme Court decided a firearms case, United States v. Miller, in which it interpreted the Second Amendment as such. The right to keep and bear arms, as a result of the case, was understood to be a collective right; it gave rise to the “Militia Theory” of the Second Amendment. I graduated from Seton Hall when this case was still controlling jurisprudence. The year after I graduated, however, marked a profound shift in the view of the Second Amendment. George Bush ran for president on the view that the Second Amendment protected an individual right to keep and bear arms, for self-defense and self-protection. That was also the view held by the NRA at the time, which was one of Bush’s biggest campaign backers. John Ashcroft, Bush’s Attorney General issued a letter in 2001 renouncing the “Militia Theory” of the Second Amendment and endorsed the “Individual Rights” view. The US Department of Justice would from that date forward “unequivocally” support the view that the amendment guaranteed and protected the “private ownership of firearms” (as the letter read). Immediately after the letter’s release, Ashcroft send a memorandum to all federal prosecutors officially informing them of the administration’s official position. [In other words, the Attorney General, as part of the Executive Branch, NULLIFIED the position of the Judicial Branch].

In November of 2001, we had the first federal ruling to apply the updated view of the Second Amendment – United States v. Emerson. A federal appeals court in Texas held that the earlier decisions interpreting the Second Amendment to apply only to state militias had been wrong. The case involved a man who had been brought up on charges of illegally possessing a firearm. Timothy Joe Emerson’s wife had previously accused him of threatening her, which led her to obtain a temporary restraining order against him. Under federal law, a person under such an order is prohibited from possessing firearms. Emerson, however, refused to give up his. He argued that under the Second Amendment, he should be able to keep his gun, his Beretta pistol, because the Constitution guaranteed him the right to have one for self-defense. The court agreed with him, under the Ashcroft DOJ view. The original meaning of the Second Amendment, the ruling articulated, was to guarantee individuals, and not just militias, the right to keep and bear arms. [The ruling went on to explain that persons with a history of violence could be legally barred from possessing guns. And using that logic, the court ordered Emerson to stand trial]. But the Emerson case marked a profound shit in Second Amendment jurisprudence. And then the 2008 landmark case District of Columbia v. Heller solidified that view in a brilliant and masterful opinion written by the late Justice Antonin Scalia.

I have written extensively about his in my article “Anatomy of a Supreme Court Case: District of Columbia v. Heller (2008),” which I posted on my blogsite on June 12, 2019. [https://forloveofgodandcountry.com/2019/06/12/anatomy-of-a-supreme-court-case-district-of-columbia-v-heller-2008/].

Why are lawmakers talking about Red Flag Laws and other Gun Control Laws? Why are Democratic candidates like Beto O’Rourke talking about government confiscation of firearms? It’s because they have no clue what significance the Constitution has as a founding document, as a document to define and empower the federal government while at the same time, limiting it. It’s because they have no clue whatsoever why the Bill of Rights is so critical and what purpose those amendments serve in our so-called “free country.” It’s because they idolize leaders such as Hitler and Stalin more than they idolize visionaries such as Thomas Jefferson and James Madison.

Why are millennials, liberals, and progressives (ie, Democrats) so willing to fight for and support gun control laws, to support gun bans, and to support repeal of the Second Amendment? It’s because they don’t value liberty. They aren’t inclined to take the chances that come with a free society (which is the reality that bad people will do bad things, especially in our current era devoid of religion and morality and strong stable families) and they aren’t willing to accept the responsibility that comes with being a member of a free society, which includes the support of policies that strengthen families, morality, self-sufficiency, honest education, proper gender roles, religious guidance, inclusion rather than “diversity” (which is actually code for division and identity politics), the rule of law, and the rights of victims over the rights of criminals, and which reward sacrifice and success, military service, and common sense. Healthy communities are the natural by-product of good and responsible law-making, where the most productive qualities and most productive conduct are encouraged and protected.

It is so true what they say….. People who do not know what their rights are, who don’t know why those rights are essential, and who don’t know how they are secured are the ones who are unfit to stand up for them. In a way, they are undeserving of the freedom that the United States offers. Being an American means you responsibly exercise your God-given and other liberty rights, you respect the identical rights for others, you conduct yourself in a way that reflects admirably on the United States, and you accept the duty of defending those rights, opposing government when it abuses its powers, and in general, ensuring that the country you inherited is at least the same (but hopefully better) than the one you will leave to future generations. That is the way you preserve our great American experiment and the way you preserve individual liberty.

It all starts with proper and honest education. Education should always favor the people and their rights and responsibilities, and not the supremacy of the federal government and its agenda. And that’s because the primary role of government, as explained in exquisite detail in the Declaration of Independence, is to secure and protect the rights of the individual. When it ceases to perform that primary role, then government as is should cease to exist and the people should “alter or abolish” it and institute another government, “laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

So please read Judge Napolitano’s article below and share it. Please use it to help educate your children, grandchildren, etc. At least use it to begin a conservation, a debate, or to inspire them to learn more. We can take back our country and protect our rights, one child at a time. They are our future.

RED FLAG LAWS: THE DANGEROUS URGE TO DO SOMETHING, by Judge Andrew Napolitano, Sept. 20, 2019 [https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/09/20/red-flag-the-dangerous-urge-to-do-something/ ]

When the Constitution was written, the idea of owning arms and keeping them in the home was widespread.

The colonists had just defeated the armies of King George III. The colonial weapon of choice was the Kentucky long rifle, while British soldiers used their army-issued version of Brown Bessies. Each rifle had its advantages, but the Kentucky (it was actually a German design, perfected and manufactured in Pennsylvania) was able to strike a British soldier at 200 yards, a startlingly long distance at the time. The Bessies were good for only about 80 yards.

Put aside the advantages we had of the passionate defense of freedom and homeland, to say nothing of superior leadership, it doesn’t take any advanced understanding of mathematics or ballistics to appreciate why we won the Revolution.

It is a matter of historical fact that the colonists won the war largely by superior firepower.

Six years after the war was over, delegates met in Philadelphia in secret and drafted what was to become the Constitution. The document, largely written in James Madison’s hand, was then submitted to Congress and to the states, which began the process of ratification.

By then, Americans had already formed two basic political parties. The Federalists wanted a muscular central government and the Anti-Federalists wanted a loose confederation of states. Yet the memory of a Parliament that behaved as if it could write any law, tax any event and impair any liberty, coupled with the fear that the new government here might drift toward tyranny, gave birth to the first 10 amendments to the Constitution — the Bill of Rights.

The debate over the Bill of Rights was not about rights; that debate had been resolved in 1776 when the Declaration of Independence declared our basic human rights to be inalienable. The Bill of Rights debates were about whether the federal government needed restraints imposed upon it in the Constitution itself.

The Federalists thought the Bill of Rights was superfluous because they argued that no American government would knowingly restrict freedom. The Anti-Federalists thought constitutional restraints were vital to the preservation of personal liberty because no government can be trusted to preserve personal liberty.

Second among the personal liberties preserved in the Bill of Rights from impairment by the government was the right to self-defense. Thomas Jefferson called that the right to self-preservation.

Fast-forward to today, and we see the widespread and decidedly un-American reaction to the tragedies of El Paso, Texas, and Dayton, Ohio. Even though both mass murders were animated by hatred and planned by madness, because both were carried out using weapons that look like those issued by the military, Democrats have called for the outright confiscation of these weapons.

Where is the constitutional authority for that? In a word: nowhere.

The government’s job is to preserve personal liberty. Does it do its job when it weakens personal liberty instead? Stated differently, how does confiscating weapons from the law-abiding conceivably reduce their access to madmen? When did madmen begin obeying gun laws?

These arguments against confiscation have largely resonated with Republicans. Yet — because they feel they must do something — they have fallen for the concept of limited confiscation, known by the euphemism of “Red Flag” laws.

The concept of a “Red Flag” law — which permits the confiscation of lawfully owned weapons from a person because of what the person MIGHT do — violates both the presumption of innocence and the Due Process requirement of proof of criminal behavior plus the opportunity to challenge that allegation before liberty can be infringed.

The presumption of innocence puts the burden for proving a case on the government. Because the case to be proven — might the gun owner be dangerous? — if proven, will result in the loss of a fundamental liberty, the presumption of innocence also mandates that the case be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Republican proposal, the “Red Flag” laws, lowers the standard of proof to a preponderance of the evidence — “a more likely than not” standard. That was done because it is impossible to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that an event might happen. This is exactly why the “might happen” standard is unconstitutional and alien to our jurisprudence. It is simply not sufficient to protect our inalienable rights and the liberty rights we are entitled to, according to “the laws of nature and by Nature’s God” (Declaration of Independence, first paragraph).

In 2008, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the Supreme Court, in the case District of Columbia v. Heller, that the right to keep and bear arms in the home is an individual pre-political right. Due process demands that this level of right — we are not talking about the privilege of a driving a car on a government street — can only be taken away after a jury conviction or a guilty plea to a felony.

The “might happen” standard of “Red Flag” laws violates this basic principle. The same Supreme Court case also reflects the Kentucky long gun lesson. The people are entitled to own and possess the same arms as the government; for the same reason as the colonists did — to fight off tyrants should they seize liberty or property.

If the government can impair Second Amendment-protected liberties on the basis of what a person might do, as opposed to what a person actually did do, to show that it is doing something in response to a public clamor, then no liberty in America is safe.

Which liberty will the government infringe upon next?

 

ANDREW NAPOLITANO - head shot

References:

Judge Andrew Napolitano, “Red Flag Laws – The Dangerous Urge to Do Something,” Tenth Amendment Center, September 20, 2019. Referenced at: https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/09/20/red-flag-the-dangerous-urge-to-do-something/

Diane Rufino, “Anatomy of a Supreme Court Case: District of Columbia v. Heller (2008),” www.forloveofgodandcountry.com, June 12, 2019. Referenced at: https://forloveofgodandcountry.com/2019/06/12/anatomy-of-a-supreme-court-case-district-of-columbia-v-heller-2008/