The Democratic Party: Elections are bad, let’s end them!


Chronological Encyclopedia of Discoveries in Space cover

After being in print for twenty years, the Chronological Encyclopedia of Discoveries in Space, covering everything that was learned on every single space mission in the 20th century, has finally gone out of print.

 
I presently have my last four hardback copies available for sale. The book sold new for about $90. To get your own autographed copy of this now rare collector's item, please send a $120 check (which includes shipping) payable to Robert Zimmerman to


Behind The Black, c/o Robert Zimmerman
P.O.Box 1262
Cortaro, AZ 85652


"Useful to space buffs and generalists, comprehensive but readable, Bob Zimmerman's Encyclopedia belongs front and center on everyone's bookshelf." -- Mike Collins, Apollo 11 astronaut

 

"The Chronological Encylopedia of Discoveries in Space is no passionless compendium of information. Robert Zimmerman's fact-filled reports, which cover virtually every spacecraft or probe to have ventured into the heavens, relate the scientific and technical adventure of space exploration enthusiastically and with authority." -- American Scientist

So, have you all been closely hooked to your televisions or computers, watching nonstop the impeachment trial against President Donald Trump going on in the Senate this week?

Yup, me neither. No one in their right mind and with the freedom to avoid it would spend eight-plus hours each day watching this obscene impeachment effort by the out-of-control and power-hungry Democratic Party. They have nothing to offer but lies and policy differences, hardly sufficient to justify their campaign to remove a duly elected president, merely because he has the audacity to oppose them. Better to read summaries and commentary afterward.

In fact, the ratings of the impeachment trail in the Senate bear this out. On the first day the ratings showed a 20% decline in viewership from the numbers seen during the House impeachment vote, from 13.8 million to 11 million. This trend continued on day two, when the ratings plunged another 19% to 8.9 million.

Nor is this drop in ratings surprising. Everyone knows that there no chance Trump will be convicted by a two-thirds majority of the Senate. Not only are the charges against him bogus, the Democratic managers appointed by the House to argue their case in the Senate have done a terrible job making their case. Instead, they have offended the few Republican senators who might have considered conviction. Both Senators Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Susan Collins (R-Maine) were considered unreliable Republicans, willing to listen to the Democrats’ line of reasoning, with the possibility that they might even have voted against Trump.

Instead, manager and congressman Jerry Nadler (D-New York) offended both deeply with his accusations that anyone who voted for blocking the introduction of new witnesses was participating in a “cover-up.”

Lisa Murkowski’s response? “I took it as very offensive. As one who is listening attentively and working hard to get to a fair process, I was offended.”

Susan Collins’ response? She immediately wrote an objection of Nadler’s language and submitted it to presiding Chief Justice Roberts, who then in his typically wishy washy manner chastised both sides for making rude and uncivil comments.

[Update: On the third day of the trial the Democratic managers did it again, offending these same moderate Republicans with new over-the-top statements that were essentially lies or misinformation.]

Meanwhile, the second House manager, congressman Adam Schiff (D-California), is a proven liar who has repeatedly spouted easily proven falsehoods about Trump for the past four years. He has no credibility, and only lowered that credibility further by mouthing off several more provable lies during his Senate arguments. His presentation was so weak that even a Washington Post columnist blasted it, calling it “disingenuous.”

In fact, it is far more likely that several Democratic senators will vote against impeachment than any Republicans will switch sides. Six Democrats face tough elections in November. Four are in states that Trump won in 2016. Faced with these realities and the insulting and dishonest arguments of the Democratic House managers, these Democratic senators should find it very reasonable option to defy their party.

We should therefore not be surprised if the final vote against conviction is somewhat bipartisan, with several Democrats joining the Republicans to reject conviction.

The bottom line of this entire fiasco however was said by liar Adam Schiff in a rare moment of true honesty on his part. In his opening remarks on the trial’s second day he openly revealed the Democrats tyrannical motives and bold desire to overturn any elections they lose.

If not remedied by his conviction in the Senate and removal from office, President Trump’s abuse of his office and obstruction of Congress will permanently alter the balance of power among the branches of government. For precisely this reason, the president’s misconduct cannot be decided at the ballot box, for we cannot be assured that the vote will be fairly won. [emphasis mine]

In other words, the voters should not have any say. Only those already in power can decide, and the decision can only be one that favors the Democrats, because the election of anyone else is clearly illegitimate and must be nullified.

If the Democrats haven’t scared you by anything they have done in the past four years (such as their effort to repeal at least three of the ten amendments in the Bill of Rights), this statement by Schiff, spoken in the context of an effort to remove a legally elected president and thus cancel the choice of the voters, should terrify you. These people are fascist thugs, and if they ever gain full unopposed power they will do whatever they can to never relinquish it, including canceling elections and our entire constitutional government.

Share

40 comments

  • Cotour

    Desperation is its own reward. May I have some more?

  • wayne

    “Mark Levin Delivers His Opening Statement on Impeachment to Senate”
    January 21, 2020 BlazeTV
    https://youtu.be/2E1mOkNohl8
    38:00

  • Edward

    Robert wrote: “They have nothing to offer but lies and policy differences, hardly sufficient to justify their campaign to remove a duly elected president, merely because he has the audacity to oppose them.

    The House of Representatives is a laughingstock! What a pack of idiots. They impeach the president in a hurry, because it is so urgent to remove him from office, then they delay by a month sending the impeachment to the Senate for trial. Some urgency.

    In the meantime, the House begins to insist that they need more witnesses during the Senate trial, because there was not enough evidence to impeach the president in the first place! WTF?

    So for ever after, we now have an impeachment process that can go forward based upon a lack of evidence of a non-crime, rather than sufficient evidence of “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors” (U.S. Constitution, Ariticle II, Section 4).

    Impeachment used to be a terrible thing, but from now on, it will be a joke that any majority in the House can impose upon any undeserving person that they merely dislike or disagree with. Which, for the Democratic Party, is everyone who is not a Democrat and everyone who does not toe the Democratic Party’s line.

    This is why no one is watching this trial and why no one cares about the outcome. It has far less value than the entertainment value of Trump’s old television show, “The Apprentice,” which I didn’t watch, either. The only question we have left is who is going to get fired next fall, but we already know it isn’t going to be Trump. It likely will be several Representatives, because they have proven themselves to be a pack of idiots, and could even be a couple of Senators, if they toe the Democratic Party’s line.

    If blocking the introduction of new witnesses was participating in a “cover-up” then that tells us that the lack of evidence that the House has is part of this cover-up, otherwise they would have sent to the Senate sufficient evidence for a conviction. The House has declared itself as participating in what it insists is a cover-up, because they had exactly the same access to the exact same witnesses that they want the Senate to hear. Did I mention that the House has shown itself to be a pack of idiots?

    Worse, the argument that they need additional witnesses in order to prove their case is the worst move ever. They have just told everyone in the world that their case is so weak that unless the additional witnesses are brought forth, then the Senate must acquit for lack of evidence. I recall hearing that Schiff had once been a prosecutor, but if that is true, then he must have been the worst one ever, because it is a losing move to tell the jury that he lacks sufficient evidence for a conviction. The idiots in the House sent a couple of idiots to the Senate to make their case. Did I say “make?” I meant to say “lose their case.”

    The House has made Trump look like the smartest person in the room, in the building, and in all of the District of Columbia — even when he is out of the room, the building, or the district and in Florida, like he was yesterday.

    Robert wrote about what I see as the only reason to watch this fiasco unfold: to watch as the House managers alienate their only possible allies in the Senate (e.g. Lisa Murkowski and Susan Collins), the House’s friends in the press (e.g. the Washington Post), and the American public (who they claim cannot even vote correctly).

    No wonder they want to end democratic elections. The Democrats seem to be learning that they can no longer Gruber us, that they can no longer depend upon the “stupidity of the American voter.”
    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/affordable-care-act-architect-on-camera-bashing-american-voters/

    Normally, I would argue that stupid people are too stupid to do damage, but these Democrats in the House of Representatives are the legislative equivalent of a stupid president with his finger on The Button. They can pass all manner of unconstitutional laws, such as Obamacare. The Supreme Court has proven itself to be just as dangerous, when they rewrite a law in order to make it appear constitutional — despite the rewrite still not being constitutional.

  • sippin_bourbon

    Edward, you said ” impeachment will be a joke”..

    As soon as the DNC to re-wrote “impeachment for Perjury” into impeachment for getting sexed in the oval office, it became a joke. They politics and policy over Rule of Law.

    They convinced people he was impeached for sexual proclivity, and they made a man if questionable character into a hero. Ask 100 people what WJ Clinton was impeached for, I doubt any will really know.

    It’s come full circle. Now they trash the process again. The next corrupt politician in this office will never be impeached, or held to any other standard, because this process is dead.

  • Andi

    I am looking forward to the Schiffenfreude that I will feel when he gets his comeuppance.

  • Edward

    sippin_bourbon,
    You wrote: “As soon as the DNC to re-wrote “impeachment for Perjury” into impeachment for getting sexed in the oval office, it became a joke.

    It was only a joke to those ignorant of that impeachment. However, this would explain why Democrats thought that they need not have an actual crime in order to impeach a president. Judging by Nadler and Shiff, pretty much the entire Democratic Party is made up of ignoramuses. Go ahead and throw in Nancy Pelosi, too, because she showed us that she has no idea what she is doing, either.

    So, the ignorant Democratic Party has no idea about impeachment, about the Constitution, or about how to run a legislature (much less run a country). No wonder they couldn’t pull us out of a recession under eight years of Obama, and no wonder the US life expectancy began to decrease as soon as Obamacare kicked in.

    So it seems that the three-year-olds in the room have the floor in the Senate. Tomorrow the adults in the room get to talk to those three-year-olds. And maybe they will change their diapers, while they are at it.

    It is too bad that three-year-olds continue to want everything to only go their way, because that talking-to will not help in the long run or the short run. *Sigh* Babies. What are you gonna do? Feed ’em, change ’em, and keep ’em warm, and try to keep them from playing with anything dangerous, like electrical outlets, knives, or government.

  • sippin_bourbon

    Two words. “Term Limits”

  • Mitch S.

    Edward wrote:
    ” Judging by Nadler and Shiff, pretty much the entire Democratic Party is made up of ignoramuses.”
    No, they are not ignorant or idiots, they are playing a different game.
    The “Strategy over Morality” that Cotour views as a shocking revelation, is the way things are done in politics by most of it’s top operatives.
    Pelosi, Schiff, Nadler, Schumer etc are playing to their crowd.
    They would have accepted and done deals with Trump if that were in their selfish interests. But Hillary’s “it was Russian trickery” excuse for losing was grabbed by the left (especially left media such as MSNBC) as a way to delegitimize Trump and ignore that half the population would rather choose a pompous “Orange man” than vote for the “brilliant heroine” and her raft of Democrat ideas.

    So the Dem leadership has been pushed into impeachment (Just needed Schiff to cook up a “whistleblower” after Muller and the FBI’s “backup plan” failed) .
    There are risks, but the Clinton impeachment mitigates them to a degree.
    As “sippin_bourbon” pointed out, the populace has been convinced Clinton was impeached by the Republicans for sex, so impeaching Trump doesn’t seem like an outrageous overstep. (IMO while Clinton’s perjury was clearly criminal, the Repubs should have not impeached, they should have gone after Clinton with speeches etc and pursued legal action once he left office. But the Repubs were pushed into it by their right wing and now there are some further consequences)

    The Dem leaders are comfortable that Trump will not be convicted – which is just what they want.
    Now they get up and make their speeches. A month from now those speeches will be cut up and packaged as ads showing the “impassioned Dem leaders” going up against the corrupt Republicans who blocked justice and backed the “dangerous” Trump.
    Great stuff for fundraising, energizing the base and protecting their legitimacy among the left wing of their party.
    Impeachment wasn’t their first choice but they’re going to make lemonade from the lemon.

  • Cotour

    Sippin:

    Forced term limits is a toothless measure unless along with it comes the banning of any politically connected persons from becoming enriched by contracts or other financial vehicles and insider information. This must include the ex politicians and their family members.

    But where to draw the line? How many generations back do you draw the line? And what about friends of politicians? We can all plainly detect what the Bidens have crafted as a family cash flow model plugged into Joe Bidens long career overseeing such entities as Amtrak, Credit card companies, China, Iraq, and of course Krazapistan. To the tune of what is now being revealed only because of the contentiousness of the current presidential race of millions and even billions of American dollars.

    A complex and twisted road for sure.

    Maybe the only solution is for the people of America to judge these people that THEY empower. You know, after the Media and the journalists who need to do their job properly but become self interested themselves in choosing a horse do their part of their job.

    And now we find ourselves once again at the same point.

    The only real remedy will be presented soon in our country when the DOJ reveals its investigations into the FBI and CIA abuses of power and if there will be prosecutions will real consequences. And next the Bidens. But if so there may not be enough prisons to house them all, think of where that string would lead and how deep it would without doubt go.

  • Cotour

    Since Mitch S referenced Strategy Over Morality (S.O.M.) I will repost it here with certain refinements that I have made as I have better come to understand things.

    STRATEGY OVER MORALITY / S.O.M. :

    The Existential Exercise Of Power And The Foundation Of Abuse Of Power
    Copyright, J.G.L. 2011, revised 1/20/18, revised 1/19/20

    STRATEGY OVER MORALITY / S.O.M. DESCRIBES JUSTIFIABLE EXISTENTIAL LEADERSHIP THOUGHT PROCESS AND ACTION WHERE THE ENDS ALWAYS JUSTIFIES THE MEANS, WHERE MORALITY AND TRUTH ARE ONLY HUMAN CONCEPTS, ADHERED TO BY “OTHERS”.

    How civilizations, governments and wars and their leadership throughout history are founded, fought and at their existential human core must operate.

    EXPLANATION:
    Strategy Over Morality describes a two-tiered “conversation” between a Public and their Empowered Leadership where the Public believes there is only a single, no tiered conversation occurring and that single conversation relates to the Public’s morality model perspective.

    A model in which leadership or their empowered subordinates within government can subjectively justify to choose to formulate an interpretation of their core fiduciary responsibilities which becomes paramount over and above the public’s truth and morality model. Where plausible deniability can be claimed when “immoral” acts or modified “truth” strategies are employed or executed by leadership, their subordinates or by arms length leadership proxies.

    In this “conversation”, leadership in the empowered “Political Realm” or their empowered subordinates step “down” to the public’s level, the “Pedestrian Realm”, and presents information, agenda or strategy in a tailored, palatable package the public can believe and comfortably accept. Leadership then steps back to their “higher” level, formulates and executes “necessary”, by their subjective standards, agenda and strategy where the public’s interpretation of morality or truth is not relevant or becomes optional.

    CONCLUSION: The public lives and operates under a subjective moral code or within a “Pedestrian Realm” perspective which they assume their leadership which exists within the “Political Realm” is constrained by. This is a subjective false perspective conclusion on the part of the public. Leadership is not about morality, truth and honesty, leadership is about the fundamental exercise of power and survival.

    TERM DEFINITIONS:
    PUBLIC OR PEDESTRIAN REALM: The individual citizens of any civilization, society or country.

    LEADERSHIP OR POLITICAL REALM: Any macro empowered governing entity or their direct subordinates concerned with the formulation and implementation of laws, strategies and policies, both civil and military.

    LEADERSHIPS CORE PRIME DIRECTIVE: Above all else the securing, promotion and survival of the society, culture, territory, power and treasure.

  • pzatchok

    We do not need national elections.
    We just need a group of super smart people to choose our leaders for us.

  • Lee S

    I have to say guys….. US politics is nothing but entertaining! ;-)

  • Mitch S.

    Lee,
    They say Washington (politics) is Hollywood for ugly people!

  • wayne

    Mitch S.–

    Before Schiff entered California politics, he was a failed Screenwriter.

  • Mitch S.

    Wayne –
    Ding!
    He’s still writing fiction.

  • wayne

    Hans Herman-Hoppe
    “So to Speak” 161 times
    https://youtu.be/ageItlYh1Mo
    2:10

  • Edward

    Mitch S.,
    You wrote: “No, they are not ignorant or idiots, they are playing a different game.

    No. In my context, the leaders think that they do not need a crime in order to impeach, while the followers think that Clinton was impeached for having sex, not for the actual crimes of perjury and suborning perjury. This is the game that they are playing, as you describe it. Most of the country understands that the Democrats are abusing their power, the exact same thing that they are accusing President Trump of having done. It doesn’t require being an idiot to misunderstand the majority of the country, but the Democratic leaders are idiots nonetheless.

    Although it is true that they are playing to their crowd, their crowd is people who still have a three-year-old’s desire that fairness means that everything goes only their way (what is “fair,” anyway?), and that someone should take care of them and should control them so that they don’t do the wrong things, meaning someone to protect them from themselves. Their crowd is people who are unwilling to take responsibility for themselves.

    Pelosi, Schiff, Nadler, Schumer, etc. want to be those protectors, the ones who take control of everyone else’s lives. Obamacare is one such control. However, these ignoramuses do not realize that there is no “one size fits all” solutions, which is why we each must find our own solutions — the ones that fit ourselves. When government solves a problem for one person, it creates problems for everyone else. For those who want to be the master problem-solvers, this is a good thing, because it means that they get to solve an ever increasing number of problems, but for those who want to live free, this is a bad thing, because it means that we have less freedom to solve our problems properly.

    These leaders also have the same three-year-old attitude that nothing should go against their desires, just as Hillary is still unable to accept that she lost her election to the presidency — especially since she had rigged an unfair advantage for herself, the bogus document now referred to as “The Dossier” (in order to give it undeserved credibility: if it is
    a dossier then it must be true), which she used as the Democrat Party’s usual “October Surprise.”

  • sippin_bourbon

    “No, they are not ignorant or idiots, they are playing a different game.”

    This I agree with. Do not underestimate them or think them dumb. There are several that know exactly what they are doing. Never ever ever think your opponents stupid or incompetent. If they truly are, let it surprise you.

    They are playing a very long term game.

    Cotour, politicians will always find a way to get money in their pockets. Graft is ubiquitous. To hold out against this to find a perfect solution would be pointless. “The enemy of ‘good’ is ‘better'”.
    It will never be a perfect system. Please accept that and seek workable solutions.

    My point is this:
    We have “ruling class” in the Republic. We were never meant to have such a thing.

    We shed aristocracy through blood. And yet here we are 237 years later, with an Ignoble American Aristocracy. Politicians for life (Harry Reed, Chuck Schumer, even McConnell). Families (Clintons, Kennedys Bushes, Quayles, Gores). Children who are untouchable (Chelsea Clinton, Hunter Biden), and names that Shall Not Be Impugned (Obama, McCain, Roosevelt).

    Term limits are the only answer to end the ruling class. It is not a complete solution to the Republic’s ills, but its a very good start. As long as there are people, and families, that believe they are entitled to those positions, the rest of us will be subjects to the laws they pass while they are held to a lesser standard. We will be subjects to the morality (or lack of) they impose, while our values are mocked and discarded. We will be subject to follow the leaders they choose for us.

  • Chris

    Coutor – I like the Strategy Over Morality (SOM) model. Thanks for that post.

    One area I disagree with – The Leadership Core Prime Objective. I see the Prime Objective as two things:
    – the Outward goal of securing and promoting the culture, territory …etc (This also keeps the overall structure in place to support the model)
    – But also the goal of protecting the ever increasing flow of money and power to the Leadership and NEVER revealing the relationship of Leadership and Public.

    To my mind this is why Trump has been so deeply opposed. Anyone or anything (organization for example) that threatens the ever increasing flow of money and power to Washington; or -Heaven forbid – threatens to decrease that flow; must not be stopped, no they must be utterly destroyed. Their family must be destroyed and the “story” of their success and efficacy discredited.
    In addition, Trump has also entered into this office without the anointing of any of the Leadership. He has no “training” in how to act and what the role is. He may do anything – how dangerous is that?

  • Cotour

    Chris: Your welcome, and thank you.

    “LEADERSHIPS CORE PRIME DIRECTIVE: Above all else the securing, promotion and survival of the society, culture, territory, power and treasure.”

    Just keep it simple, S.O.M. is the boiled down essence of the nature of man related to power and governance and every scenario either “good”, “bad” or “corrupt” in any governance model that you can think of will emanate and grow from these simple stated rules of operation. This is fundamental, S.O.M. has been true for every power structure that has ever existed, from the first two cave men sitting around a fire and making decisions for the group, to Gengis Khan, to Napoleon, etc, etc, right up to and including every president that is, has been or will ever be. The exercise of power and self interest are inseparable.

    The Founders understood S.O.M. precisely and the nature of man related to power and governance. The Constitution through their efforts is simply the direct counter balance to that tendency of man to abuse power.

    It is the core responsibility of leadership, any leadership throughout history, to ultimately ensure the continuation of their society / civilization and at that level there exist two realities and leadership speaks to these two realities, but ultimately the political realm and survival and taking care of business is the prime directive.

    And that is why in the case of any president of the United States the president MUST have confidence in executive privilege in the exercise of the established policy and strategy. When the fiduciary dirty work must be done to ensure the prime directive and that “dirty” business must be taken care of where people both outside and within may lose their lives someone must be able to make those subjective decisions and move on.

    Its cold, and is disturbing especially to those totally immersed in the relatively comfortable American Pedestrian realm, but its how things at their foundation in the real world of survival operate.

    The best is when I hear people say ” The president is a liar, and he is Immoral!”. Makes me laugh.

    Leadership has little to do with either.

  • wayne

    Tullock Paradox
    Marginal Revolution University
    2012
    https://youtu.be/5C8W5S5rzlU
    3:25

    “…one big question in economics is why the world isn’t even more corrupt than what we observe. It’s not such an easy question to answer…”

  • wayne

    Gordon Tullock and James Buchanan:
    The Calculus of Consent After 25 Years
    George Mason University 2012
    https://youtu.be/aG_MOGoY_EY
    59:17

    Tullock and Buchanan co-authored The Calculus of Consent: Logical Foundations of Constitutional Democracy in 1962. In it, they laid the groundwork for what is today known as public choice theory and constitutional economics.

  • pzatchok

    Term limits are not the answer, unless you want parties to have even more power than they do now. Because they will then pick who is replacing who and finance those people more than any single ‘unconnected’ unknown scrub would ever be able to.
    Sort of like the Democratic party so obviously did with Obama, Hillary and are now trying to do with Biden.

    Term limits are the loosing sides answer to not having a popular candidate or platform and thus not being able to raise enough cash as the other sides.

  • sippin_bourbon

    “[parties] will then pick who is replacing who and finance those people more than any single ‘unconnected’ unknown scrub”

    I disagree.

    Ending the practice of career congressional jobs will change the definition of what is popular and therefore electable.
    Money will always be there.
    There is no getting away from it.

    And Parties pick them now. Look at how Hilary was anointed as the candidate. The entire 2016 Dem Primary was a foregone conclusion.
    Locally, the Dems pulled an incumbent candidate from the 2020 ballot and appointed a candidate to replace him in the elections, because they were mad at him. He was popular across party lines and would have won otherwise (probably why the pulled him).

    So what you suggest already happens now.

    And there will always be money raised. Its there now also.
    There are 15 states with term limits at the State House. 35 Limit the Governor.
    There is no significant change in how candidates are picked, or the money raised.

    The longer any of them are there, though, the longer they become institutionalized.
    The US Congress, as a career option, needs to end.

    “Term limits are the loosing sides answer…”
    This is ad hominem. I will not address it.

  • pzatchok

    The states with term limits now just the same politicians moving from one job to another.
    They still get the chance to work 20 years in government and then retire.

    What if the guy was a really great governor? And the next election just has idiots running? Is a corrupt idiot better than a second term politician who is liked and trusted?

    We already have term limits. They are called elections. Just don’t elect the guy you don’t like.

    Like I said. term limits are the loosing sides answer to not winning.

  • Cotour

    The people have got to get pissed off and get smart and do their job. That is the solution.

    All of the talk about term limits just creates a new problem with the new solution. And usually they become more and more corrupt with each new solution because of the newly introduced complexity.

    Keep it simple, just like it was designed, everyone seems to forget the most important part of the equation, the people.

    Sorry, but that is what is required be design.

  • Sippin_bourbon

    In the original design, they all had outside jobs.

    And Congress has drastically shorter sessions.
    They were not paid as much, not enough for it to be a full time job.

    The design was for a time that no longer exists.

    The guy was a great govenor? Awesome, he will be a good senatorial candidate. Or President. Or, he can go help his state in the private sector.

    Idiots get elected now. Term limits will not change that. 35 states agree. I

    My candidate is in currently office, at all levels. I am on the winning side. And I still want term limits. So keep your ad hominem to yourself.

  • wayne

    Let us not forget the 17th Amendment.
    The Senate was supposed to represent the separate & sovereign States of the Union. The States created the Federal government, not the other way around. We don’t need the Senate if they are popularly elected. These people have been systematically breaching Constitutional firewalls for the last 100 years.
    Our current Federal government absolutely refuses to restrain itself– the last and only legal way under our system is to hold a Convention of States for the purpose of proposing specific Amendment’s.
    –we all know these people are criminal’s at heart, which is why our system was originally designed to diffuse and limit power, now they just endlessly inhabit their jobs and spend all their time creating fiefdoms and make the rest of us pay for it all.

    pivoting….

    “Kings are Bad—Politician’s Are Terrible” (so to speak…)
    Hans Hermann Hoppe
    https://youtu.be/ZsIUjxOXFkE
    2:45

  • sippin_bourbon

    “Let us not forget the 17th Amendment.”

    Wayne, in principle I agree.

    However, getting a new amendment that imposes congressional term limits is more likely than repealing the 17th. I would be totally in favor of that repeal, and agree that the Senate was meant to be the State legislatures’ check on the Federal government.
    However, it is not a popular notion at this time.

  • Mark Matis

    They are owned by the tribe, and yearn for the “good old days” of their Messiahs – Lenin and Stalin. As demonstrated by Schiff and Nadler and Schumer and Bernie’s campaign!!!

  • wayne

    sippin_bourbon–

    I empathize. My point would be, however– progressive statist’s from both party’s spent 100 years dragging us to the edge, the least we can do is spend 10 years pushing for a Convention of States.

    Mark Levin talks to Glenn Beck
    “The Liberty Amendments”
    2013
    https://youtu.be/ZjFBdmHF2TI
    16:28

  • sippin_bourbon

    Wayne,

    I am well acquainted with the push for the CoS.
    I read Levin’s book on proposed amendments as well.
    Good idea’s, in principle.

  • Edward

    sippin_bourbon,
    You wrote: “They are playing a very long term game.

    I may be having a failure of imagination, but I cannot think what long term game can be played by a party that insists that the impeachment it has sent to the Senate is now unconvincing and is part of a cover-up. Where does the advantage come in when the Democrats claim that they helped cover up some sort of impeachable offence? This would be an offence that they still cannot find.

    How does a series of idiotic moves help a long term game?

    Instead, I believe that they have become too emotional and are no longer thinking straight. They are not planning any farther ahead than the current move, which is why right after the 2016 election they declared that they would impeach, why they eventually started impeachment investigation despite Pelosi insisting that it was the wrong thing to do, impeached on two clearly unsupportable articles, waited a month before sending to the Senate the sloppy impeachment that they had claimed to be too urgent to do right, and now are claiming that they don’t have any supporting evidence and that their own impeachment investigation was a cover-up.

    It seems to me that none of these actions are the actions of people who know what they are doing. What is the long term goal, and how do these moves get them there?

  • sippin_bourbon

    Edward.

    The long term game the Progressives are playing is is the slow and steady disassembly of American institutions, Constitutional safeguards, and Liberty in general. They hate The Republic and for decades have been slowly taking it apart.

  • wayne

    Edward–
    I agree with sippin-bourbon on this, the progressive-statists play a long game. What is presented to us —the day-to-day sausage-making— however does present as very chaotic and I would agree with your characterization.
    They are diabolical– that’s what throws us off– it’s always two steps forward and one step back with them.

  • Cotour

    WHY THERE WILL BE NO WITNESSES
    (Oh, they will go to the precipice but I doubt if they will go there)

    Why? Because then both Bidens will be called to testify, in addition to president Obama. And who in the Democrat party would want that?

    https://youtu.be/6QT_mVKV4wc

    Trump defense team: “Mr. president (Obama), did Joe Biden, who you put in charge of Ukraine and who’s son Hunter was immediately hired by the corrupt gas company Burisma and paid millions of dollars have your authority to threaten the Ukrainians with withholding the $Billion dollars in aid if the Ukrainian prosecutor looking into Burisma corruption was not fired?”

    There is no executive privilege here since Biden freely communicated what he actually said and intended while threatening the Ukrainians, and he included president Obama in his threat. “Go ahead, call him”.

    Will the Democrats be willing to trade John Bolton who will certainly come under Trumps executive privilege, for both Bidens and president Obama? And the Bolton executive privilege will take months to litigate, and Trump and his executive privilege will certainly prevail. And it is plain to anyone what went on between Burisma and the vice presidents son and the access to power that he facilitated to the vice president himself. And there is soooo much more where the Biden family leveraged the Senator then vice president political power. Sooo much more.

    I really do not think so, that will result in a cascading effect of multiple witnesses, an Armageddon of witnesses.

    Are the Democrats that crazy? Stay tuned, but I do not think so. This is all IMO posing and posturing and just about dirtying up a president that the Democrats have no other strategy to deal with. Do you really think that Trump being the president had no justification to ensure that the existing corruption that plainly existed in Ukraine and related to U.S. aid was being dealt with? Really?

    And as to the charges of Obstruction of Congress and Abuse of power, that is any presidents job related to Congress when he or she disagrees with them. A 1 on a scale of 10, and you need a 10 to remove a president from office. Trump has been impeached related to political strategy and not for anything he did that threatened the integrity of his office and fiduciary responsibility or the country.

  • Edward

    it’s always two steps forward and one step back with them.

    Then this must be a big step back for them.

    This whole thing was flubbed from the beginning. Schiff opened the House’s investigation by dramatically parodying (his word) the phone call that the second-hand pseudo whistle blower reported. How serious can he and the House be if their report of the phone call is a parody? How smart is it to open an investigation with a parody of the supposed crime rather than emphasizing its seriousness?

    I’m sticking with these guys being incompetent, stupid buffoons, causing more damage than help to their cause. As I recall, Pelosi agreed to an impeachment just to appease Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. When it all went south, Ocasio-Cortez sort of dropped off the radar, as though she is hiding from the damage that resulted from her words. Clearly, the Democrats know less about what they are doing than the Republicans — and that is saying something!

  • wayne

    Edward–
    While I remain highly empathetic with the general thrust of your commentary, there’s the War itself and then there are individual battles within the War.

    https://usdebtclock.org/

  • Edward

    Now the Democrats in the Senate are admitting that the House impeached the president without any evidence. According to Senator Richard Blumenthal, the House’s case against President Trump is “a case bereft of evidence – we need the evidence.
    https://www.wnd.com/2020/01/democrat-senator-admits-impeachment-bereft-evidence/

    Fortunately, the Senate is more thoughtful than the House, because the house emotionally impeached a president without considering any evidence — or considering that it lacked any evidence. Now the Democrats in the Senate admit that evidence is needed in order to impeach anyone. It is too bad that the House failed to think of finding any.

    The House has turned itself into a kangaroo court: impeach first then worry about evidence of guilt. Perhaps the Democrats in the House thought that the Senate would follow the House’s rules and require the accused to prove his innocence, despite giving no opportunity to make his case.

    This is not American. It isn’t even British. Heck, it isn’t even French, because the French at least give the accused an opportunity to make a case of innocence, hard as it is to prove.

    Have you seen my country lately? I seem to have lost it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *