RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.frontpagemag.com/point/2021/01/constitutional-scholar-serving-dem-impeachment-daniel-greenfield/

The Democrats and their media keep billing Rep. Jamie Raskin as a “constitutional scholar”.

Raskin did teach constitutional law. He also keeps claiming falsely that the 25th Amendment was meant to allow the removal of presidents you don’t like. That’s a coup. And that’s exactly what a majority of House Democrats voted for. But when Raskin, a supposed “constitutional scholar” keeps making the coup argument, then that’s a huge problem.

Yet here he is.

Congressman Raskin: The 25th Amendment is all about the preservation of the republic and the continuity of government. That’s why it’s in there. It was added to the Constitution in 1967, in the nuclear age, with the understanding that it could be extremely dangerous to have a vacuum or an unqualified person sitting in the Oval Office. And if you go back and you look at what Birch Bayh and Robert F. Kennedy were talking about, it was about the central importance of protecting the American system of government against destabilizing dynamics in the presidency.

The 25th Amendment was not about having an “unqualified” person, but someone who was deceased or otherwise medically unfit to hold office. It deals with “unfitness” in the physical sense, not the political sense.

Raskin and Democrats keep using “unfitness” in the political sense and that’s a coup. 

Since Raskin cites Bayh, here’s what the gentleman actually stated, “[T]he word “inability” and the word “unable,” as used in  . . . refer to an impairment of the President’s faculties, mean that he is unable to either make or communicate his decisions as to his own competency to execute the powers and duties of his office. I should like for the record to include that as my definition of the words “inability” and “unable.”

Just for the record.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2021/01/kangaroo_court_now_in_session.html

President Donald Trump left office on Jan. 20, 2021.  The Democrats hated the man, his family and all of his Bible-reading followers. The leftists in this country wanted you know just how much they hated him, so they impeached him for a second time, just to hate him some more.  Ironically, the impeachment is unconstitutional because 1) the president had already left office and cannot be removed, and 2) Supreme Court Chief Justice John Robert’s refuses to preside over the impeachment because, well, it’s unconstitutional. Ya think?

In a brilliant stroke of genius the Democrats have now unwittingly brought back a man who had just exited the stage with 75 million angry followers, again to center stage.

This is the same group of 75 million people who firmly believe that the 2020 election was rigged and Biden* (who’s going to go down as the president with an asterisk) is a usurper. Emperor Joe just said that this second farcical trial of Trump, “has to happen,” but whether he understands what he is saying is anyone’s guess. He might be confused with getting ice cream or taking a nap for all we know. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer was not confused, and said, “I don’t think there’s a need for a whole lot of witnesses.”  That makes total sense. You don’t need no stinkin’ witnesses for what’s in reality a kangaroo court!

Democrats are pulling the old sleight of hand trick: Hey, dummies come watch our total Schiff show.  We have clowns galore and RINO elephants who just want to poop on Trump once more. Over in the center ring a bunch of preening, moronic, nincompoops will burn Trump at the stake and totally ignore slow Joe Biden.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2021/01/the_mystery_of_conservatives_hating_trump.html

Five to six years ago, I was corresponding online, on a regular, frequent basis, with several strong conservatives.  We all advocated for policies like smaller central government; lower taxes; First, Second and Tenth Amendment freedoms; restrictions on abortion; strict control of our borders, including merit-based immigration; and many other standard conservative positions.

That was then.

Along came the 2016 presidential campaign, and the finalists were Hillary Clinton and Donald J. Trump.  As expected, most conservatives, as described above, were enthusiastically supportive of Trump.  Unexpectedly, however, there was a significant proportion of conservatives, or those who claimed to be, who were not only opposed to Trump, but vehement “NeverTrumps.”  “Anybody but Trump” was their mantra.  And they meant it.  Anybody. 

Why this is so is a mystery not yet fully explained.

In recent encounters (online) with some of them, I was amazed at their glee, caustically expressed, that Donald Trump had left the White House.  According to them, Trump was the devil.  He did nothing right.  He made everything worse.  He locked children in cages, then went golfing.  He was Islamophobic and xenophobic.  He was destroying the environment.  He was recklessly risking nuclear war with North Korea and Iran.  He was colluding with the Russians.  He sold much of our scarce uranium to the Russians (oh, wait — that was Hillary, but even so, Trump was bad).

There is so much more and so little room here.

And it all had to be true, because all the leftist “news” outlets were saying so.  They wouldn’t lie.  They were unbiased, science-oriented, purveyors of fact, weren’t they?

https://issuesinsights.com/2021/01/28/democrats-want-biden-to-be-the-dictator-they-said-trump-was/
They have a maniacal need to rule….

Donald Trump was treated by the opposition party and media (we repeat ourselves) like no other president in our memory. He was called a dictator, a tyrant, an authoritarian, and a fascist, to name a few childish invectives hurled his way. Of course his adversaries were projecting. It’s the Democrats and their media collaborators who yearn for absolute power.

Trump was accused of being a dictator at the same time he was trying to weaken the federal government through tax cuts and deregulation. The agitators – the elected, unelected, functionaries, and self-appointed – who made the allegations were never required to explain why a dictator would undermine his power base by downsizing the government under his charge; how a tyrant could be impeached twice; how an authoritarian failed to expand his authority during a pandemic; how a fascist brokered peace deals in the Middle East; how someone routinely called “Hitler” willingly walked away from his “dictatorship” after losing an election; how screaming heads could insult him and his family without fear of punishment.

Yet Trump was a dictator just because they said he was. Questioning the proposition is not allowed.

Meanwhile, Charles Schumer, the New York Democrat and Senate majority leader, said Monday “it might be a good idea for President Biden to call a climate emergency” because there are “many, many things under the emergency powers of the president” that “he could do without legislation.”

Even without declaring a climate emergency, Biden is already moving in the direction Schumer laid out for him, signing 33 executive orders within his first week. This is only months after Biden said “you can’t [legislate] by executive order unless you’re a dictator. We’re a democracy. We need consensus.” 

So now we know what could be reasonably assumed: He’s just another pen-and-phone president who doesn’t need the hassle of the legislative process to rush through his party’s agenda.