Whenever I hear some left-wing wacko spewing moronic hatred for President Trump, I think, Wow!  If this President can make a whack-job like that hate him, he must be doing a pretty good job.

 

Think about it.

 

Adam Schiff, Eric Swalwell, Jerrold Nadler, Nancy Pelosi, Maxine Waters, Alexandria-Ocasio Cortez, Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib, Juan Williams, Chris Matthews, Joe Scarboro, Mike Brezinski, Rachel Maddow, Chris Cuomo, Peggy Noonan, George Conway, Peter Strozk, Lisa Page, James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Hillary Clinton, Max Boot, Jennifer Rubin, Michael Gerson, Bill Kristol, Peter Wehner, Trevor Noah, Tom Hanks, Shakira, Russell Simmons, Rosie O’Donnell, Ricky Martin, Miley Cyrus, Mac Miller, Louis CK, John Oliver, John Legend, JK Rowling, George Clooney, Eva Longoria, Demi Lovato, Chrissy Teigen, Chris Brown, Joe Walsh (not the Eagles’ Joe Walsh, the phony politician Joe Walsh.)

 

Whew!  And that’s mostly the rookie league. (Maybe Pelosi is AA.)

 

We haven’t yet gotten to the Democrat politicos running for the Democrat nomination. (Triple A)

 

There, you have one billionaire (Tom Steyer) who called Trump a “failure” in a TV spot he’s paying for himself, hopefully to get past 1 percent.

 

Then you have another billionaire, a former New York Mayor who just “apologized” for the stop and frisk policy he inherited from his predecessor—Trump’s personal lawyer—but cannot otherwise explain the dramatic drop in violent crime during his term.

 

If you look at just the list above, there are some common threads.

 

First are the overstuffed Hollywood types—some of whom I’ve only briefly heard of—who just know so much about politics that we should be overwhelmed by their intelligence quotients.  Then we have the writers and TV personalities who fall into the category of “pundits”.  They are trying to make a living by badmouthing the President.  And, finally, we have the politicians who are green with envy.  They should have his political skills.

 

Why do they hate this guy so much?

 

Well, he stands for the concept that this is the United States of America, as my father used to say, and any little boy or girl can grow up to be President or accomplish anything they want to accomplish by simply putting one foot in front of the other and moving forward.

 

Contrary to what the clowns on the list above would have you believe, Donald Trump is not successful because his father was rich.  In fact, he went against the wishes of his father when he went into Manhattan real estate.

 

He’s successful because he took some giant risks.

 

Not everything he did worked.

 

His experience in Atlantic City as an example.  Hillary Clinton famously asked in a debate, “I mean, ask yourself, how can anybody lose money running a casino? Really.”

 

Of course, she demonstrated her ignorance of that business because she asked that question without knowing that one of the two largest casino companies in the nation, Harrahs, was almost two years into Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code.  That’s right, the company now known as Caesars Entertainment because, yes, it happened to own Caesars Palace in both Las Vegas AND Atlantic City.

 

Caesars today operates approximately 47 casinos in 13 U.S. states and five countries, including the Caesars, Harrah’s, Horseshoe and Bally’s brands.  When stupid people ask stupid rhetorical questions, they often get they asses handed to them.

 

I mean, ask yourself, how can you take any of the clowns I have listed above seriously?

 

----

 

Fred Weinberg is a guest columnist and the CEO of USA Radio Network. His views and opinions are his own and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of GCN. Fred's weekly column can be read all over the internet. You can subscribe at www.pennypressnv.com. This is an edited version of his column, reprinted with permission. 

Published in Opinion
Thursday, 28 November 2019 02:09

Dr. Lee is NOT President Trump's doctor!

After a period of silence, Dr. Bandy Lee and her committee of mental-health “experts” have again burst onto the scene, angling to participate in the impeachment of President Trump. They are defying the Goldwater Rule, which holds that it is unethical for physicians to diagnose patients they have not personally examined. They claim that President Trump is a such a serious threat to the nation that they are allowed to violate rules.

“We don’t believe there is the need for any further evaluation, and we are making ourselves available for the impeachment hearing because we believe that mental health issues will become critical as pressures from the impeachment hearings mount,” Dr. Lee told the Washington Examiner. “In other words, the more successful the impeachment proceedings become, the more dangerous the psychological factors of the president will become.”

Obviously, the thing to do is to increase the psychological pressure on a person you declare to be unstable.

Dr. Lee’s “medical assessment” of the President’s “mental capacity to fulfill the duties of his office” includes the examination of tweets, public appearances, and the 448-page Mueller report. “There is very little that a personal examination will add,” Lee said.

She denies that she is actually making a diagnosis. Indeed, “unfitness for office” is an opinion, a conclusion that is not in the DSM, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of currently defined psychiatric diagnoses.

Regardless of one’s opinion about President Trump, this self-appointed “Independent Expert Panel for Presidential Fitness” should concern all Americans. Where does a group of academic experts get the ability or the authority to determine whether the President is “capable of keeping the country safe”?

The U.S. Constitution provides several methods of “regime change,” which is what Congressional Democrats, the mainstream news media, and this Panel seem

determined to achieve. The first is elections. In 2016, Americans voted for a change from the policies of Obama and Clinton and the imbedded bureaucracy. Ever since then, the losers have been seeking to nullify this result. Attacks on the President by the press have been unrelenting. Unlike Abraham Lincoln or Woodrow Wilson, this President has not imprisoned any journalists or shut down any newspapers. But he does make sarcastic remarks—and his opponents would like to deny him the forum of social media.

Second is the 25th Amendment, which provides for the removal of a President for incapacity. This might have removed Woodrow Wilson after a devastating stroke had it been in existence at the time. It requires action by the Vice President and a majority of executive officers or a body appointed by Congress—not a few activist academics. This has so far been a non-starter.

Finally, there is impeachment, for “high crimes and misdemeanors.” In American jurisprudence, proceedings are supposed to be triggered by a crime—not by the Soviet KGB method of “show me the man, and I will name his crime.” Or worse, “KGB Plus”—show me the man, and I will invent his crime.

In a world where there are so many ever-changing rules that everyone might be inadvertently committing “three felonies a day,” anyone could be prosecuted. But one is at least supposed to have certain rights: confronting the accuser, assistance of counsel, access to all the evidence, the right to call and cross-examine witnesses. And knowing exactly what the charges are.

Why should psychiatrists be intruding themselves into this legal process? Are there Thought Crimes that they have a special ability to discern?

Ordinary Americans should be very concerned. If this can happen to the President, it can happen to them. And it does.

One alarming example is the “fitness for duty” evaluations to which physicians may be subjected by people who for some reason want to destroy them. There are virtually no due-process rights. The examiner has the status of a physician, but no obligation to act in the “patient’s” (target’s) best interest. Some psychiatrists may presume to have god-like power to judge a person’s emotions, intentions, and capacity—asserted in the name of safety or “security.” “Red flag” laws are another example.

President Trump may be right in saying: “They’re not coming for me. They are coming for you. I’m just in the way.”

Bandy Lee and associates are showing us a method to remove undesirables if legal process fails.

 

Jane M. Orient, M.D. obtained her undergraduate degrees in chemistry and mathematics from the University of Arizona in Tucson, and her M.D. from Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons in 1974. Her views are her own. This is an edited version of her column that originally appeared in pennypress.com. Reprinted with permission. 

Published in Opinion

f the Democrat jihad against President Donald Trump has shown us anything about the so-called Deep State it is that there is a class of professional bureaucrats—so called “experts”—who think they're accountable to…nobody.

 

Certainly not the President.

 

And they think of us as “the American People” in the pejorative.  Not that they work for us.  No, they work for some mythical country in which “the people” don’t get a vote because we’re far too stupid to have any actual say in things like foreign affairs, or military issues or trade or the law.

 

They populate the Departments of State, Justice, Defense and, even the White House itself.

 

And many of these people don’t have the common sense that God gave a goose.

 

That was all on display during the Schiff Show, the last two weeks.  The question you need to answer, now that the arrogance of these people has been fully on display is where do we go from here?

 

There is still some question—not much—as to whether or not Nancy Pelosi is willing to endure the inevitable results of an impeachment.  Assuming she is—or just cannot avoid it—Donald Trump will most likely be re-elected for the same reason he won in the first place.  That is, to drain the swamp of the arrogance exhibited by the so-called deep state.

 

A swamp that the House Democrats put on full display through their patron saint Adam Schiff.

 

And, like the Kremlin, this group of governmental super studs has their own newspaper.  Only, instead of Pravda, theirs is the Washington Post.  With headlines like “Trump’s GOP support hardens despite damning impeachment testimony”.

 

Seriously?

 

Had I written a headline like that DURING WATERGATE, I would have been hustled off to a public relations firm if I wanted to continue my career in the media.  The writers and editors at the Post have become nothing but pimps and pimpettes (call them “presstitutes” like they do in the Phillipines) for the group of deep staters and Democrats I have described above.

 

But, again, they all seem to have forgotten that this is a very large nation with a huge silent majority that has simply had enough.

 

You can take a map of the United States and find the WalMarts where you can “smell the Trump support” West of the Hudson River, South of the Cook County line and East of the Los Angeles County line.  In the last election that produced 63,000,000 votes AFTER NBC leaked a private conversation with Billy Bush which would have certainly disqualified most candidates.

 

How bad a light does that cast the deep state?

 

The fact is that you, I and our neighbors have had enough.  We are tired of being called stupid and not well educated.  We are tired of a world where common sense is derided as “impeachable” by geniuses like Schiff and his little buddy Eric Swalwell.

 

And to put the cherry on top of the sundae, the President saw that the rules of engagement for the wars we are fighting in the Middle East were being used to ruin the lives of service members (but never those with stars on their shoulders) who actually killed the enemy.  We wanted to have a war but make actually killing the enemy illegal.

 

So, he issued two complete pardons and a commutation.

 

Immediately upon those actions, some two star pissant admiral in the Navy told a Navy Seal who had his sentence overturned by the President that he would face a board to remove him from the Seals.

 

That board will convene shortly.  Or not. What do you think will happen?

 

Can you say “military-industrial complex”?  Well President Trump can say “civilian control” and did.  Ask the now former Secretary of the Navy.

 

Want to try and remove him?  As they used to say on a game show—which is what this really is—COME ON DOWN!

 

Indeed. 

 

----

 

Fred Weinberg is a guest columnist and the CEO of USA Radio Network. His views and opinions are his own and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of GCN. Fred's weekly column can be read all over the internet. You can subscribe at www.pennypressnv.com. This is an edited version of his column, reprinted with permission. 

Published in Opinion
Thursday, 21 November 2019 17:53

Are House Democrats thinking about self immolation?

If you ever wondered why Donald J. Trump was elected our 45th President, you only needed to watch the testimony last week of William Taylor, George Kent, and Marie Yovanovitch.

 

If you ever wondered what Washington based bureaucrats do to represent us, you only needed to watch the testimony last week of William Taylor, George Kent, and Marie Yovanovitch.

 

And, if you ever wondered why real Americans refer to Washington as a swamp which needs to be drained, you only needed to watch the testimony last week of William Taylor, George Kent, and Marie Yovanovitch.

 

Taylor, Kent and Yovanovitch aren’t inherently bad people.  But they live in their own little worlds where what they think is more important than what the President—whose pleasure they serve at—thinks.  And they are an integral part of what former (and the late) President Dwight Eisenhower warned us about on his way out—the military, industrial complex.

 

They have—and freely admit—zero first hand experience of the subject matter allegedly being “investigated” by Adam Schiff.

 

Now, diplomacy—in context—is a good thing.  In theory, that is what keeps mushroom clouds away from Peoria, Illinois, Tulsa, Oklahoma and Reno, Nevada among other places where you can “smell the Trump support” at the local WalMart Supercenter.  But it is the President and Commander in Chief who gets to set our foreign policy—not some diplomat at State who serves at the pleasure of the President.  Any more than an FBI director who also serves at the pleasure of the President.  And the real world is not an episode of Madam Secretary or the West Wing.

 

The truth is that impeachment is purely political.

 

The House, if it has the votes, can impeach the President because it does not like the cut of his suit.

 

Ask the dumb Republicans who impeached Bill Clinton in 1998.

 

How do you impeach a President who has less than two years left in his second term?  But Newt Gingrich did it and ended up bringing dishonor on the institution for no good reason.  And did I mention that the Senate told him to pound sand?  In an almost predictable vote mostly along party lines, the Senate fell way short of the 67 votes necessary to remove him from office.

 

So, let’s assume that the currently sitting House goes ahead with impeachment.

 

What do you think might happen to these guys—Adam Schiff et al—who have such a flimsy case against Trump in a Republican controlled Senate?

 

The Senate vote will be utterly predictable.  And that’s assuming the Senate doesn’t dismiss the charges without a trial.  (If this is what passes for an impeachment investigation, who’s to say the Senate cannot hold a 20 minute trial to dismiss the charges?)

 

The anger from the 63,000,000 voters who elected Trump and told both the media and the Washington establishment, “Enough already!” will be palpable enough to elect him again and take that anger out on the House.

 

People like Schiff and his little buddy Eric Swalwell may not realize this, but they are doing their best to make the House of Representatives irrelevant to the real Americans outside of the swamp.  It would appear that these guys were beat up every day when they were freshmen in college by the seniors and now, they are going to show all of us.

 

I wasn’t in the room when our founding fathers wrote the impeachment clause, but I read a lot and I have serious questions that Adam Schiff’s version—along with Rashida Tliab’s “impeach the motherf**ker”—were what they had in mind.  I’m pretty sure when they wrote the term “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors” they weren’t thinking about a President doing his job.

 

So my question is simple.

 

What will the left do when what I have predicted actually happens?

 

Self immolation?

 

----

 

Fred Weinberg is a guest columnist and the CEO of USA Radio Network. His views and opinions are his own and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of GCN. Fred's weekly column can be read all over the internet. You can subscribe at www.pennypressnv.com. This is an edited version of his column, reprinted with permission. 

Published in Opinion
Wednesday, 09 October 2019 20:14

"No treason, no bribery, no criminal conduct"

Oooooh…The President said “Bullshit” in a tweet as a description of Adam Schiff’s and Nancy Pelosi’s actions in the latest kafuffle regarding his phone call with the President of the Ukraine.  That’s a comment even Schiff can understand.

 

And at least two of the three broadcast TV news divisions could not resist mentioning it.

 

This is nuts.

 

You want an enemy of the people?  Just watch the evening news.  Even during the dog days of Viet Nam it wasn’t this bad.  ABC and CBS should be ashamed.

 

Most of these clowns cannot see or admit that something smells, even when the derelict son of a then-sitting Vice President took huge amounts of money from companies in the very countries his father was assigned to monitor.  What a coincidence!  Even some Pulitzer Prize winning twit at the Wall Street Journal called the Biden corruption “widely discredited.” Which should bring a new level of scrutiny to the Pulitzer Prizes.

 

I have a friend of long standing, who, among other positions in a long, distinguished career of public service, served as a United States Attorney.  He has a serious understanding of the United States Code.  Asked if he could cite any specific portion of the law which the President could have violated with the phone call being bandied about by Adam Schiff, here was his reply: “No treason. No bribery. No criminal conduct.”

 

This “impeachment” inquiry has zero basis in law and, if it goes too much further, will be regretted by the saner elements (if there are any) of the Democrat Party should it ever gain any serious power again.

 

They are making this crap up as they go along.  And here’s a big hint it’s crap.  None of the TV lawyers on the various cable channels can name a single section of the U.S. Code that the President appears to have violated.

 

Now keep something in mind.  Every day, the average American commits three felonies. So argues civil-liberties lawyer Harvey Silverglate in his book Three Felonies a Day, the title of which refers to the number of crimes he estimates that Americans perpetrate each day because of vague and overly burdensome laws.  Yet, all the media and Democrats can talk about where President Trump is concerned are generalities.  Collusion is not a crime.  Asking a fellow head of state to look into a former sitting government official’s actions is not a crime. 

 

This is purely political.  

 

And it will surely come back to bite certain purveyors of Trump conspiracy theories on their well upholstered asses.

 

As I am writing this, I just heard Jessica Tarlov tell Fox news that this was “an abuse of power” and thus a “constitutional violation”.  Well…that was certainly a valid use of her Bryn Mawr College B.A. in history and two master’s degrees and a Ph.D. in political science and government from the London School of Economics and Political Science. 

 

It’s just amazing what professors teach people these days.

 

The Constitution is NOT to be confused with the law.  It is a framework.  The Constitution does not codify “abuse of power.”  Ms. Tarlov is a classic know nothing who was educated by people who know less.

 

And yet, Fox uses her so it can trumpet Fair and Balanced as if having a slightly older Greta Thunberg parrot Democrat talking points allows a conversation to be “balanced.”

 

Undoing an election means telling 63,000,000 Americans to pound sand. 

 

Before these leftist screamers take the first step to doing exactly that, maybe they ought to consider what other nations look like which try to tamper with the will of the people.

 

Look closely at Hong Kong.  Or Great Britain, where the elites are trying to not do what the public voted for in Brexit.

 

What might the reaction of 63,000,000 voters be if the elites in Washington keep it up?

 

----

 

Fred Weinberg is a columnist and the CEO of USA Radio Network. His views and opinions are his own and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of GCN. Fred's weekly column can be read all over the internet. You can subscribe at www.pennypressnv.com. This is an edited version of his column, reprinted with permission. 

Published in Opinion

Well, we know how most of this story plays out in the media. Liberals laugh at anything conservatives say. Conservatives laugh at anything liberals say. And none of that gets us closer to the truth. So, I thought I would try and round up simple facts. The who, what, when and where. As to the “why,” well - we don’t know exactly why some of these things happened. I’ll let you speculate. 

A timeline: 

More than a week before the infamous Trump / Ukraine phone call in question, the U.S. President froze almost $400 million dollars in military aid to Ukraine. The reason? The White House claims they were reviewing where the military aid goes, as there have been concerns about corruption within the Ukraine government; and questioning the level of support from other countries. As in, “If no one else is giving Ukraine military aid, why should we?” 

Okay. Fair enough. The problem is that, despite pressure from the Ukraine asking the reasonable, “Why are you delaying military aid? We seriously need it,” the WH did not respond to Ukraine. 

Which leads to the phone call. At this point, Trump has cut off military aid to Ukraine and has not given the Ukrainian government an explanation for doing so. This is the first time the two Presidents have spoken and the first time the President, or any from the State Department, has discussed military aid with Ukraine - since the freeze. 

In an unclassified rough transcript of the call, the two Presidents, on speaker phone with approx. 30 other people in the oval office listening in, exchange pleasantries for a while. Then President Trump says: 

“... I will say that we do ·a lot for Ukraine. We spend a lot of effort and a lot of time. Much more than the European countries are doing and they should be helping you more than they are. Germany does almost nothing for you. All they do is talk and I think it's something that you should ·really ask them about. When I was speaking to Angela Merkel she talks (about?) Ukraine, but she doesn't do anything. A lot of the European countries are the. same way, so I think it's something you want to look at but the United States has been very very good to Ukraine. I wouldn't say that it's reciprocal necessarily because things are happening that are not good but the United States has been very very good to Ukraine.”

Then Zelensky says:

 “I would also like to thank you for your great support in the area of defense. We are ready to cooperate for the next steps … ready to buy more Javelin (missiles) from the United States for defense purposes.”

And Trump says, “I would like you to do us a favor, though …” 

At that point President Trump asks Zelensky to investigate Hunter Biden, the son of his chief political rival, Joe Biden. You see, Biden’s son, Hunter, was on the board of directors for Burisma, a Ukrainian gas company while the company was under investigation for some undisclosed reason. 

Trump says about that:  

"There's a lot of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the persecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the attorney general would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it. ... It sounds horrible to me."

So, to be clear and from my understanding of “the investigation,” it seems as if there was an investigation into Burisma for - something. And the prosecutor in charge of the investigation was removed and replaced with another prosecutor. Which is what President Trump is referring to when he says, “Biden (Joe) stopped the persecution…”   Implying the first prosecutor was on to something ... and Joe Biden used his power and influence and had him removed in order to protect his son, Hunter. 

The phone call ends with the President of Ukraine basically saying that yes, we’ll help you in any way we can. 

Then, according to multiple White House aids, and per the Whistleblowers allegations, WH lawyers “directed” aids to remove the transcript from the computer system and place it into a separate system designed for “sensitive intelligence.” This would seal the transcript and prevent it from getting out to the public. 

Enter the Whistleblower. After hearing about the phone call from multiple sources the Whistleblower wrote to the chairman of Senate Committees on August 12th, expressing “concern over Mr. Trump’s phone call with the Ukrainian President,” calling it an abuse of power and broke down a detailed analysis of the subsequent cover up / lock down of phone call / transcripts because - everyone in the room knew what the President of the U.S. had just said and done was illegal.  

The story broke in the Wall Street Journal on September 21st

President Trump and his personal lawyer Rudi Giuliani at first denied the story, but then confessed on camera that both did indeed pressure the Ukrainian President to investigate the son of Trump’s chief political rival. So, it’s clearly a true story. 

Then, the transcript of the phone call in question was released confirming the vast majority of the Whistleblower's initial testimony. 

Then, Nancy Pelosi said, “We’re moving forward with an official impeachment inquiry.” 

Then, no one has been able to find any wrong doing with Hunter Biden during his tenure with the gas company in question and even the Ukrainian prosecutor himself, the one who was investigating Hunter Biden’s gas company came out and said, “We investigated Hunter Biden and he didn’t violate any laws.”

And now we’re finding out that Secretary of State Mike Pompeo was also on the July 25th phone call with the Ukrainian President which is not exactly what WH officials have told the media. Pompeo is now being subpoenaed for not turning over information and documents pertaining to the call. As are many, many others including AG William Barr and Rudy Guilianni. 

Okay. So what does this all mean? 

Well, first of all, if you’re the President of the U.S. and you withhold aid to a foreign power and use those frozen assets as leverage to pressure said foreign power to investigate a political rival of yours then …  you’ve probably just broken multiple federal law. Which would make it an impeachable offence. 

Now, you can say, “But what the President did wasn’t THAT big of a deal - so I don’t care if it’s illegal.” 

Fair enough. You are entitled to that opinion. 

But … despite that opinion, it very well might be illegal and it might be a gross misuse of power. Either way, an investigation into the matter is - a totally reasonable way to handle this!  

Remember, “impeachment” does not mean “remove from office.” Impeachment means, “put the President on trial.” Perhaps the President will be removed from office, perhaps not. Bill Clinton was impeached, as in - he was put on trial. As you know, he was not removed from office despite Ken Starr running the most costly federal trial in history costing American taxpayers $70 million.

So, the impeachment inquiry is moving forward. 

A new poll from CNN shows Republican support for Impeachment Inquiry is climbing. Even Hilary Clinton weighed in. (Which, please, Hilary - for the love of God - please shut up and go away before you lose the Democrats another election that you won’t even be in!). 

Like it or hate it, the impeachment inquiry is rapidly moving forward for legitimate reasons. But, that doesn’t really mean that anything will come of it. Or, even if it does go to an impeachment trial, that doesn’t mean much will come of that, either. 

It’s only just the beginning.

 

Published in Politics

Here is a message to Democrat dim bulbs everywhere who, after the Mueller report’s release, cannot, as one of their favorite organizations is so aptly named - move on.

On November 8, 2016, Donald John Trump whupped your collective ass.

On April 18, 2019, your collective ass got whupped again—this time by your own designated agent, Robert Mueller.

You still don’t understand that the average American voter thinks you are full of crap. That the reason Hillary lost was not the Russians but that she called half of America, “deplorable.”

No, you want to get rid of the President by any means possible - or impossible.

Go ahead and impeach the President. Please. Let cocky little jerks like Jerrold Nadler and Adam Schiftless rule the day with their pseudo-intellectual bullcrap. Paraphrasing the immortal words of the late George Wallace, I’ll bet they couldn’t even park a bicycle straight. Both of these clowns are like the freshman in college who got beat up every day by the seniors and now, they’re going to show us.

Meanwhile, we DO have a crisis at the border.

And the economy IS doing quite well.

A classic episode of a TV show, WKRP in Cincinnati, ends with the station manager saying, “As God is my witness, I swear I thought turkeys could fly.”

Who would have thought that the writers in 1978 could have imagined today’s Democrats 41 years later.

We know a few things.

One is that turkeys CANNOT fly.

Two is that Democrats in the House of Representatives are auditioning to be turkeys.

In 448 pages, (available on pennypressnv.com) you see a President who has little or no patience for fools and has never been afraid to say so to anyone who paid attention.

The fact is that Donald Trump is the President of the United States.  If the President wishes to fire anyone in the executive branch at any time for any reason, it may be a political firestorm, but not a legal one. Richard Nixon fired Archibald Cox. The firing stuck because Nixon was the President and in charge of the executive branch.

Had Trump fired Mueller or Jeff Sessions, it might have caused him political agita, but I’d put money on this Supreme Court ruling out obstruction of justice if it ever got that far.

And, as far as these clowns - yes, clowns - who chair various committees in the House go, if I were the Attorney General I would not answer their demands with nice letters.  I would call a press conference and tell them to blow it out their…anal orifices. Or something like that. But that’s just me.

Although, I would observe that many of my fellow average American voters tend to feel the same way and use the same or similar language in their unguarded moments.

And as far as impeachment goes, the aforementioned clowns are playing with the possibility of going years before Democrats ever win an election in many places again.  If they’re that stupid.

First, we know for a fact that impeachment would just be a symbolic gesture.  There is NO WAY they get 67 votes in the Senate to remove the President.  And if Indian imposter Elizabeth “Pocahontas” Warren thinks her call for impeachment will help her run for the Democratic nomination, we sure hope the Democrats ARE that stupid.

We’ll see.

Having spent 20 years of my life in Las Vegas, I wouldn’t put any money on either side of that proposition.

 

----

 

Fred Weinberg is a columnist and the CEO of USA Radio Network. His views and opinions, if expressed, are his own and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of GCN. Fred's weekly column can be read all over the internet. You can subscribe here at www.pennypressnv.com. His column has been reprinted in full, with permission. 

Published in Opinion

With Democrats winning a majority of seats in the United States’ House of Representatives and Republicans retaining a majority in the Senate, a Republican-controlled Congress with an approval rating of just 21 percent entering the 2018 Midterm Elections will be split when new members of Congress are sworn in on January 3. Here are some of the bipartisan issues a split Congress could address, in order of likelihood.

1) Impeachment of Donald Trump

It would be negligent not to acknowledge that Democrats now have the votes to impeach President Donald Trump. House Democrats already introduced five articles of impeachment in November 2017 and could again. Now that Trump has forced the resignation of Attorney General Jeff Sessions and replaced him with Matthew Whitaker, the man who on CNN floated the very idea of replacing Sessions with a temporary Attorney General who could cut funding to Robert Mueller’s investigation into the Trump campaign’s potential involvement with Russian meddling in the 2016 Presidential Election.

Sessions wasn’t well-liked by Democrats, but he did recuse himself from the Mueller investigation to the chagrin of Trump. A day after the 2018 Midterm Election, as to not adversely affect election results, Trump convinced Sessions to resign, but instead of promoting Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, to whom Mueller currently reports, Trump installed Whitaker, a Trump loyalist.

If Whitaker acts on the idea he floated on CNN, expect House Democrats to respond by filing articles of impeachment, eventually voting on those articles, and forcing Senate Republicans to decide between protecting their own political careers or that of their party’s President. Removing him would take two-thirds of all Senators.

FiveThirtyEight’s Nathaniel Rakich writes that Democrats would need to retain Doug Jones’s seat in Alabama, defeat both Susan Collins in Maine and Cory Gardner in Colorado, and pick up a seat in a red state. The best bets would be in Arizona, where Jon Kyl is not seeking reelection, and in Iowa, where Democrats flipped two House districts and came within 40,025 votes of installing a Democratic Governor. Of course, if Democrats win the Presidential Election, they’d need to win one fewer Senate seat for a majority, as the Vice President would break a tie.

2) Transportation and Infrastructure Reform

The issue upon which both Congressional Democrats and Republicans can most likely agree is the nation’s need of vast infrastructure updates. U.S. infrastructure was given a D+ grade by the American Society of Structural Engineers in its latest Infrastructure Report Card, and despite efforts to address this, America hasn’t come close to making up for the estimated $2 trillion in needs over 10 years.

New House Committee Leader for Transportation and Infrastructure, Peter DeFazio, appears to be willing to work with the President to rebuild America’s roads, bridges, and subways, and perhaps expand access to high-speed internet. A blueprint for doing so has already been provided by Senate Democrats, requiring an estimated investment of $1.6 trillion.

DeFazio has suggested raising the gas tax in line with inflation to pay for some of the updates. With gas prices at their lowest in six months despite sanctions limiting Iran’s oil exports, addressing America’s crumbling infrastructure could be a means to comfortably introduce new members of Congress to Washington politics, bridge the widening gap between the parties, and deliver a win for both parties, their constituents, and the President, who promised “the biggest and boldest infrastructure investment in American history.” If Democrats and Republicans are actually going to do what they said they will after the elections and work together, infrastructure investment is probably the best place to start.

3) Middle Class Tax Cut

One issue for which House Democrats could get enough support from Senate Republicans is a middle class tax cut that was mostly absent from the corporate tax cut Congressional Republicans passed. At the very least, House Democrats could use their newly won majority in the underchamber of Congress to force Republicans to vote on a middle class tax cut and show where Republicans really stand and whom they really represent when it comes to taxes.

Regardless, there are probably five votes Democrats could get from Senate Republicans on a middle class tax cut if it doesn’t also include an increase in taxes for the richest Americans and corporations. Any legislation passed by House Democrats will almost certainly include a tax hike on the richest Americans and corporations, however, so the Senate will have to draft legislation agreeable to Senate Republicans and appeasing House Democrats.

4) Ending Federal Cannabis Prohibition

Ending federal prohibition of marijuana does not require Congress, but it does require a U.S. Attorney General willing to initiate the process of executive reclassification. With Trump convincing Sessions to resign, the best opportunity for him to boost his approval ratings going into the 2020 Presidential Election might be by appointing an Attorney General willing to initiate this process so Trump can take all the credit for being the President who legalized weed...or at least tried.

Trump doesn’t seem to be considering his Attorney General appointment as an opportunity to improve his approval ratings via cannabis reform. Neither Chris Christie and Pam Bondi have expressed interest in ending marijuana prohibition, but Alexander Acosta as Labor Secretary urged employers to take a “step back” on drug testing so cannabis users could fill the many open employment opportunities.

Still, executive reclassification requires the approval of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which consults the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). This is where Trump’s self-proclaimed business acumen might have to reveal itself, because the DEA affirmed its hard stance against reclassifying cannabis in 2016, it seized $20.5 million dollars in assets through its Domestic Cannabis Eradication/Suppression Program in 2017. But it did loosen restrictions on cannabis with regards to research.

5) Gun Control

There was yet another mass shooting resulting in the deaths of 12 people in Thousand Oaks, California, this time by a war veteran whose very actions seemed motivated by Congress’s lack of action in response to gun violence in America. In a Facebook post prior to the attack, the mass shooter wrote “"I hope people call me insane... (laughing emojis).. wouldn't that just be a big ball of irony? Yeah.. I'm insane, but the only thing you people do after these shootings is 'hopes and prayers'.. or 'keep you in my thoughts'... every time... and wonder why these keep happening.”

Democrats elected gun control candidates throughout the nation, and with a majority in the House, can finally pass gun control legislation that would force a vote on gun control legislation by Republicans in the Senate, 20 of whom are up for reelection in 2020, and perhaps more pending results of runoffs and recounts.


If you like this, you might like these Genesis Communications Network talk shows: The Costa Report, Drop Your Energy Bill, Free Talk Live, Flow of Wisdom, America’s First News, America Tonight, Bill Martinez Live, Korelin Economics Report, The KrisAnne Hall Show, Radio Night Live, The Real Side, World Crisis Radio, The Tech Night Owl, The Dr. Katherine Albrecht Show

Published in Politics
Monday, 12 June 2017 18:47

Trump’s attorneys are staying busy

The State of Maryland and District of Columbia are suing the President for failing to divest his private businesses while in office. Unlike a similar suit brought by the watchdog organization Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), the plaintiffs in this case are actual governmental entities, which might have stronger standing in court. The plaintiffs are also demanding that Donald Trump release his tax returns.

The Emoluments Clause of the Constitution makes it illegal for anyone “holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them” from profiting off their position or accept gifts without the consent of Congress.

The Atlantic provided a comprehensive list of all the conflicts of interest that might motivate Donald Trump’s decisions as President through his pocketbook. Warning: there are a lot of them, and Senate Democrats have introduced legislation that would force Trump to divest his interests or face impeachment.

There’s no shortage of reasons to impeach Trump, and now members of his own party are admitting it. Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.) said that if Trump asked former Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Director James Comey to drop the bureau’s investigation into former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, then that would be grounds for impeachment. Firing Comey could be considered obstruction of justice, which was one of two charges used to impeach Bill Clinton and one of three that was recommended against Richard Nixon.

The American people seem to think the President should be impeached, too, as Trump’s approval rating is lower than people’s approval of impeaching him. With a Republican majority in both houses of Congress, though, starting impeachment proceedings doesn’t necessarily mean Trump would be removed from office. But about two-thirds of people are betting on Trump not finishing his first term in office, according to BetFair.com.

Impeachment aside, Trump received another blow in the court system, as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit upheld the freeze on Trump’s travel ban by unanimous decision. The three judges ruled that Trump’s travel ban lacked a sufficient national security or other justification that would make it legal. All three judges were appointed by Bill Clinton, and with a Supreme Court recess around the corner, the ban will likely expire before the Supreme Court rules.

--

If you like this, you might like these Genesis Communications Network talk shows: The Costa Report, Drop Your Energy Bill, Free Talk Live, Flow of Wisdom, America’s First News, America Tonight, Bill Martinez Live, Korelin Economics Report, The KrisAnne Hall Show, Radio Night Live, The Real Side, World Crisis Radio

Published in News & Information