Connect with us

Opinion

DAVIDSON: Democrats Are Shamefully Subverting & Weaponizing Impeachment

Straight facts.

Jeff Davidson

Published

on

Impeachment was supposed to be a vital and rarely used mechanism used by Congress, for the protection of the people, in response to egregious acts committed by the U.S. president or others in government. Instead, Nancy Pelosi, Adam Schiff, Chuck Schumer, Jerry Nadler, and all the rest of the vicious Democrats in Congress, as well as six RINOs have used it as a convenient weapon of choice against Donald Trump because they hate him with a passion that exceeds all rationality.

Note to Democrats and RINOs: Hatred is insufficient grounds for drafting articles of impeachment. If so, impeachment proceedings for Obama would have been initiated ASAP.

Bogus from the Start

The first Trump impeachment over a phone call, which was part of the public record, had numerous people on line at the same time. Donald Trump had no quid pro quo with the Ukraine government. Former Vice President Joe Biden did. He and his family pocketed millions from his pay-for-play schemes with Ukraine, Russia, Kazakhstan, Romania, and China.

take our poll - story continues below

Did SCOTUS make the right decision on medical mandates for large businesses?

  • Did SCOTUS make the right decision on medical mandates for large businesses?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Flag And Cross updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

The Democrats all knew this, but they didn’t care. Impeachment was a ready made tool, sitting there, ready for their use. Never mind that their bogus assault upset 244 years of American governance. Never mind that it contorts the effectiveness and reputation of Congress, the trust of the people, and centuries old protocols.

The venal, vindictive Nancy Pelosi chose to proceed anyway, because after all, Donald Trump must be stopped, right? He only created the greatest economy that the country had seen in decades, increased minority employment and home ownership in unprecedented ways, stopped ISIS dead cold in their tracks, helped peace break out in the Middle East, promulgated an endless supply of energy so that we became not only independent, but an energy exporter, and so on.

One could fill an encyclopedia with what Donald Trump accomplished in four years. None of that matters to Nancy Pelosi and Company; they need to permanently harm Trump politically. So, following the Capitol riot which, has repeatedly been proven that Trump did not incite, she invoked impeachment once again.

The Theatre of the Absurd

Here in February, we have Donald Trump ‘voted’ out of office as a result of massive fraud and being accused of something that he did not do. Make no mistake, Pelosi’s intent as dangerous to the country as anything that we’ve witnessed since our founding. She’s using impeachment as a weapon to punish an adversary, devoid of evidence, fairness, and any semblance of ethics.

Contemplate this: If Donald Trump or anybody else in America, for that matter, plans to give a public presentation at a rally or protest, and people infiltrate the event are we to hold responsible those sponsoring or speaking at the event? In Washington, on January 6th, President Trump’s rally was infiltrated by members of Antifa, as well as several right-wing groups. It has been proven that in advance these groups intended to disrupt the day’s proceedings, in one way or another.

Correspondence and communication between group members show that they intended to march on the Capitol, and cause whatever disturbance they could. If we blame Donald Trump for these intruders, and their criminal actions, and decide that he is liable, we are taking a path unlike any other taken before: There is no way to protect our First Amendment rights after.

All speakers, at all times, forevermore, could be subject to prosecution as a result of the behavior and activities of those who show up at an event, and, most chillingly, as a result of the behavior and activities of those otherwise seeming to have been influenced by the speaker at any time.

Raindrops Falling on Everyone’s Head

Not surprisingly, when you unleash a storm as Nancy Pelosi and company have, and overturn centuries of precedence, be prepared for what happens thereafter.

Only a single day after Biden was sworn into office, Congresswoman Marjorie Greene (R-Ga.) filed articles of impeachment. And why not? Joe has a long, slimy history of corruption while in office. As vice president of the United States, he besmirched the responsibilities and protocols of his office. The numerous times he engaged in pay-for-play schemes, with his son Hunter as a front man, has been well documented.

As President, however, Biden would have to make some kind of huge, instantaneously transgression to justifiably be impeached.

Pelosi and the Democrats, suffering from a totaling crippling case of Trump Derangement Syndrome, can’t see past their own hatred as to the long-term harm they do to America.

Opinion

Biden Mandate Busted Again, This Time in Lone Star State

It was a BRUTAL smackdown at that!

Published

on

From the very moment that Joe Biden began to speak about a federal vaccine mandate, there were concerns about its constitutionality.  You see, this is a nation founded on the ethos of freedom, and there is nothing more authoritarian than forcing a population to undergo unwanted medical procedures.

And, thusly, in the weeks following the Commander in Chief’s declaration, a number of judicial bodies took up the argument, and with devastating results for the White House.

The latest smackdown comes to us from Texas.

A federal judge in Texas Friday blocked the federal government from enforcing President Biden’s vaccine mandate for federal employees, arguing that he didn’t have the authority to do so “with the stroke of a pen and without input from Congress.”

take our poll - story continues below

Did SCOTUS make the right decision on medical mandates for large businesses?

  • Did SCOTUS make the right decision on medical mandates for large businesses?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Flag And Cross updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Biden has pushed several different iterations of vaccine mandates in recent months, including one for large businesses which the Supreme Court blocked and another for healthcare workers which it allowed to go into effect.

There was no beating around the bush, either.

Judge Jeffrey Vincent Brown of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas Friday ruled against the administration on a separate mandate generally applying to federal employees.

“While vaccines are undoubtedly the best way to avoid serious illness from COVID-19, there is no reason to believe that the public interest cannot be served via less restrictive measures than the mandate, such as masking, social distancing, or part- or full-time remote work,” Brown wrote. “Stopping the spread of COVID-19 will not be achieved by overbroad policies like the federal-worker mandate.”

And, given the narrowest of margins in Congress, there is little doubt that any attempt to ratify this mandate legislatively would fail.

From the very moment that Joe Biden began to speak about a federal vaccine mandate, there were concerns about its constitutionality.  You see, this is a nation founded on the ethos of freedom, and there is nothing more authoritarian than forcing a population to undergo unwanted medical procedures. And, thusly, in the weeks following the Commander in Chief’s declaration, a number of judicial bodies took up the argument, and with devastating results for the White House. The latest smackdown comes to us from Texas. A federal judge in Texas Friday blocked the federal government from enforcing President Biden’s vaccine mandate for federal employees, arguing that he didn’t have the authority to do so “with the stroke of a pen and without input from Congress.” Biden has pushed several different iterations of vaccine mandates in recent months, including one for large businesses which the Supreme Court blocked and another for healthcare workers which it allowed to go into effect. There was no beating around the bush, either. Judge Jeffrey Vincent Brown of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas Friday ruled against the administration on a separate mandate generally applying to federal employees. “While vaccines are undoubtedly the best way to avoid serious illness from COVID-19, there is no reason to believe that the public interest cannot be served via less restrictive measures than the mandate, such as masking, social distancing, or part- or full-time remote work,” Brown wrote. “Stopping the spread of COVID-19 will not be achieved by overbroad policies like the federal-worker mandate.” And, given the narrowest of margins in Congress, there is little doubt that any attempt to ratify this mandate legislatively would fail.

Continue Reading

News

Fact Checkers Make Exception for Liberal-Leaning News Outfit

Perhaps one of the several other “fact checking” corporations would like to take a stab at it?

Published

on

If there was ever a reason to doubt the authority and authenticity of the mission of the so-called “fact checker” organizations it is this:  There are more than one of them.

You see, if “facts” and “truth” were binary, there wouldn’t be a glut of competing companies out there attempting to sell their services to social media corporations and other media outlets.  We wouldn’t have any disparity whatsoever.  There would be one fact-checking group because, as stated in their creeds, there should be but one set of “facts”.

The entire industry is a bit of a scam, if we’re ready to be that honest with ourselves.  And, if we’re not, there are plenty of examples out there of these companies massaging the narrative in order to maintain their lucrative contracts.

NewsGuard, the establishment “news rating” project that claims to fight untrustworthy media outlets, is cautiously defending NPR as the establishment media outlet continues to claim that U.S. Supreme Court justices Neil Gorsuch and Sonya Sotomayor are at odds over masks, even after a statement from both Justices and Chief Justice John Roberts debunking the story.

take our poll - story continues below

Did SCOTUS make the right decision on medical mandates for large businesses?

  • Did SCOTUS make the right decision on medical mandates for large businesses?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Flag And Cross updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

On Tuesday, NPR released a story claiming that Justice Sotomayor had opted to work remotely after Justice Gorsuch refused a request from Chief Justice Roberts that all justices mask up when on the bench.

Later in the day, a Supreme Court source told Fox News that neither Justice Roberts nor Justice Sotomayor had made any such request.

But then:

Despite the total breakdown of the initial story, Newsguard refuses to make any judgments on NPR’s reporting, arguing that the situation is still unfolding.

Prior to the statement from Chief Justice Roberts, Newsguard maintained that the facts of the story were still unclear.

“There are two conflicting reports, one from NPR and one from Fox News, both citing anonymous sources,” said Matt Skibinski, general manager of Newsguard. “It’s hard to say anything definitive about either report without more information.”

But Newsguard cannot hide from this fact:

However, even after all three Justices named in the story – Gorsuch, Sotomayor, and Roberts – made public statements debunking it, while NPR refused to issue a correction, Newsguard maintained that the story was still unfolding.

Perhaps one of the several other “fact checking” corporations would like to take a stab at it?

If there was ever a reason to doubt the authority and authenticity of the mission of the so-called “fact checker” organizations it is this:  There are more than one of them. You see, if “facts” and “truth” were binary, there wouldn’t be a glut of competing companies out there attempting to sell their services to social media corporations and other media outlets.  We wouldn’t have any disparity whatsoever.  There would be one fact-checking group because, as stated in their creeds, there should be but one set of “facts”. The entire industry is a bit of a scam, if we’re ready to be that honest with ourselves.  And, if we’re not, there are plenty of examples out there of these companies massaging the narrative in order to maintain their lucrative contracts. NewsGuard, the establishment “news rating” project that claims to fight untrustworthy media outlets, is cautiously defending NPR as the establishment media outlet continues to claim that U.S. Supreme Court justices Neil Gorsuch and Sonya Sotomayor are at odds over masks, even after a statement from both Justices and Chief Justice John Roberts debunking the story. On Tuesday, NPR released a story claiming that Justice Sotomayor had opted to work remotely after Justice Gorsuch refused a request from Chief Justice Roberts that all justices mask up when on the bench. Later in the day, a Supreme Court source told Fox News that neither Justice Roberts nor Justice Sotomayor had made any such request. But then: Despite the total breakdown of the initial story, Newsguard refuses to make any judgments on NPR’s reporting, arguing that the situation is still unfolding. Prior to the statement from Chief Justice Roberts, Newsguard maintained that the facts of the story were still unclear. “There are two conflicting reports, one from NPR and one from Fox News, both citing…

Continue Reading
The Schaftlein Report

Latest Articles

Best of the Week