Nikolas Cruz – Another Mass Shooting

Despite the fact that an article entitled, “Antidepressants Are A Prescription for Mass Shootings” first appeared in November of 2012, five years ago, as part of CCHR* Florida’s efforts, now we have a shooter, Nikolas Cruz, with a 7-year history of calls to 911, FBI involvement, and repeated evaluations by licensed therapists, all of whom deemed him not to be a threat.  Here’s another salient article.

The fact they were all wrong is undeniable.

I’m a data/systems analyst. In 2012, shortly after the Newton shooting, I located, downloaded, and began analyzing a very detailed set of data on mass shootings between 1981 and 2011. That’s 30 years of mass shootings.

There are only two substantial conclusions one can draw from the data:

1. Even the best psychological practitioners cannot successfully identify everyone who might prove harmful to themselves and others. Many mass shooters had been evaluated by psychologists or trained/licensed therapists who failed to identify them as a threat. Deeming everyone who passes through their doors as a threat, however, is not the answer. Less than 1 out of 10,000 subjects evaluated for potential harm, yet dismissed as non-harmful, ever go on to engage in a mass shooting. You cannot deprive the other 9,999 (actually, a lot more) of their own rights.

2. So-called “gun-free” zones occupy less than 10% of the physical space frequented by the general public, yet are where more than 80% of all mass shootings occur. In fact, more than one mass shooter has confessed they targeted a gun-free zone precisely because it was a gun-free zone so as to minimize the likelihood anyone would be armed and could shoot back.

Based upon the indisputable facts communicated by the objective data itself, along with 27 years of military and civilian education and experience in the use of firearms, here are my recommendations:

1. Stop designating areas as “gun-free” zones. Not only is that a wide open invitation to mass shooters, but it also denies the lawful general public their Constitutional right to defend themselves. Given the undeniably clear data and findings, the so-called “gun-free” zones are pathetically stupid. Stop designating zones as “gun-free.”

2. For areas where you really do not want firearms, such as K-12 schools, courtrooms and prisons, authorities bear the responsibility of protecting those who must be there. Secure the physical facility from unauthorized entry. Employ well-trained armed guards to stop unlawful armed intruders. Single point of access. Controlled entry. We do a very good job of this with courtrooms and prisons. Some municipalities do a very good job of this with schools. Take heed. Learn. Do. Protect our kids.

3. For more adult areas like malls and movie theaters, stop preventing law-abiding adults from defending themselves. Law-abiding citizens use firearms somewhere between 650,000 to 800,000 times each and every year to defend themselves against violent crime, usually without having to fire a shot. I’ve been involved in three such incidents. No shots fired, but the attack was stopped. In fact, because armed, law-abiding citizens are not cops, they invariably hold their fire until it becomes absolutely necessary to stop the attack. Error rates are only 2% for armed citizens, but 11% for law enforcement officers. Thus, disarming law abiding citizens is pathetically stupid.

4. Don’t touch the current psychological evaluation programs in place. Although it’s not an exact science, they do a very good job, with a very low error rate, in terms of identifying those who are a threat to themselves and others.  Trying to monkey with that from a legislative perspective would be a pathetically foolish thing to do.

5. Stop politicizing the issue. It’s not Trump’s fault. It’s not Hillary’s or Obama’s fault. It’s not the fault of Democrats or Republicans. In fact, most of the “solutions” proposed by politicians would greatly exacerbate the issue. Stop it. Knock it off. Do the research and find out what really works. Limits on magazines? Caliber? Number of guns one can buy during any given time period? Absolutely none of these foolhardy measures has ever stopped a single mass shooting. What HAS stopped mass shootings is when either a law-abiding citizen or law enforcement officer at the scene SHOT the mass shooter before they could continue. Securing places where people who must attend are disarmed, like students in schools, is the best way to deter such shootings in the first place.

6. Stop the blitheringly idiotic headlines. Mainstream media bears a huge responsibility to print the truth, instead of sensationalism like, “No other country has these types of…” Phooey. I can name thirty countries off the top of my head where such shootings are far worse than they are here in the United States of America.  Fact-checking is a basic yet critical responsibility of all journalists.  Those who fail to check their facts make the problem much worse.

7. Investigate the relation between mass shootings and psychoactive drugs. When a mother of four on psychoactive drugs drowns all four kids in a bathtub as her very first indication she has any violent tendencies, it’s a statistical anomaly. When similar events, including mass shootings, are repeated thousands of times over thirty years, you’ve got a real problem, and the drugs are highly suspect.

Yes, mass shootings are a tragedy. Let’s not create further tragedy by resorting to knee-jerk gun control that has not nor will ever stop mass shootings and is likely to make them much worse by progressively disarming law-abiding citizens who can and do protect themselves and others.  Instead, let’s secure certain facilities and respect the rights of all citizens to defend themselves in accordance with our Constitution.

*Citizens Commission on Human Rights

Madam Secretary, the 25th Amendment and the Removal of Donald Trump

Washington Post headlines read, “We really do need to deploy the 25th Amendment.”  “The fictional White House in “Madam Secretary” will provide viewers with a crash course in the implementation of the 25th Amendment — the mechanism for removing the president from office — in the CBS drama’s next episode, titled “Sound and Fury.”
 President Trump and Vice President Pence
They’re absolutely certain to get it wrong, as all the talk I’ve seen to day fails to mention the fact that only Vice President Pence can invoke Section 4 of the 25th Amendment.
I’ve provided a short outline, below, taken directly from the 25th Amendment. I highly encourage you all to print it out, watch the episode, and see how close to (or far away from) reality the writers, directors, actors, and producers actually come.
My contention is that the 25th Amendment is NOT “the mechanism for removing the President from office” as stated by the producers of Madam Secretary.  More specifically, the 25th Amendment is not the mechanism by which anyone who dislikes the President could remove him from office.  That venue lies with impeachment, not the 25th.
Before we continue, let’s examine the 25th Amendment to the United States Constitution in its entirety, as preserved and reported by our nation’s Library of Congress:
Amendment XXV - LOC
 Sections 1, 2, and 3 simply confirm that it is the Vice President, and no one else, who assumes the duties and responsibilities of the President if the President should the latter no longer be able to do so due to death, illness, injury, or mental incapacitation. Obviously, the line of secession is much longer, but that’s Congressional legislation, not the 25th Amendment.
Section 4 is where the VP and a majority of either:
– a majority of the principal officers of executive departments (cabinet)
– majority of the principle officers of Congress
may declare in writing that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, and present that declaration to both the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives.
Upon such declaration, the Vice President shall immediately assume assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.  The key, however, is that those other entities cannot accomplish this on their own.  It absolutely requires the Vice President’s complete and unreserved involvement.
Here’s where it gets a little sticky.
The elected aka original President can then write a counter-declaration to the same two heads of Congress saying that no such inability exists, at which point he shall immediately resume the powers and duties of his office.
So, here’s what we have so far:
VP and either cabinet or Congressional officers declare the President is unfit to the two head of Congress. VP assumes the office.
But if the President counter-declares, then he resumes his office.
Are you with me so far? Ok. Now it gets even stickier:
If the VP still thinks the President isn’t fit, then he, along with a majority of the cabinet or officers of Congress can, within 4 days, present their case again, at which point all of Congress assembled within 48 hours and makes a decision within 21 days to decided who either remains or becomes president: The original President or the Vice President. If they fail to make a decision, the powers and duties remain with the original President.
Did you notice what’s required throughout this scenario? That’s right: The VICE PRESIDENT, the President’s right-hand man. Without the VP, NONE of this happens. Congress cannot initiate this action. The cabinet cannot initiate this action. The Supreme Court cannot initiate this action. CNN cannot initiate this action, and neither can the Demoncraps or a TV show named “Madam Secretary.”
In fact, Rolling Stone magazine reaffirmed this finding in their excellent article covering this very issue.  They even provided a handy graphic Rolling Stone Graphicshowing how many entities must concur before it’ll happen.
I find the claim that “The fictional White House in “Madam Secretary” will provide viewers with a crash course in the implementation of the 25th Amendment — the mechanism for removing the president from office — in the CBS drama’s next episode, titled “Sound and Fury” “to be dubious, if not spurious, and highly misleading of the public.
In fact, it borders on,  if not crosses, the line of “inciting a riot.”
Rather, they will probably paint a very false picture about how, if enough Demoncraps raise hell, and infuriate Congress enough, then Congress can *SOMEHOW* make the decision, even without the VP’s input, a point which I hope the 25th Amendment itself has made abundantly clear simply cannot happen.
In other words, “wrong,” so sayeth our Constitution, “the supreme Law of the Land.” – Article VI.  Clause 2.
That’s just not reality, there, Hollywood.  The reality is that it’s an AMENDMENT, not merely federal law, and the 25th Amendment DEMANDS the Vice President’s concurrence. Furthermore, as an Amendment, no emergency session of Congress, even with the three-quarters vote required for repealing an Amendment can overturn it, not without first being properly ratified by three-quarters of the States, which will take several years.
So, Demoncraps and libtards, if it makes you happy to keep barking up that dead tree, be my guest.  Go ahead and waste your time.  I think the rest of America, however, might not consider you to be so blitheringly idiotic if you simply read the Constitution, including, in this case, the 25th Amendment itself.

Is a Constitutional Convention Feasible?

A friend mentioned using a “Constitutional Convention” to overturn Obamacare. Is this feasible?
My answer: I don’t think a “Constitutional Convention” is anywhere near as easy as people think. But let’s take a closer look at it, to see what it says, as well as how best to make one happen should we need it. First, let’s take a look at the Source Document i.e. Article V of the U.S. Constitution:
“The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress…”
This is beautifully written.  The only problem is that it’s horribly misunderstood.
For example, here’s a graphic that flat out gets a key element wrong, by giving power to Congress that the U.S. Constitution actually denies, and for very good reason:
Amending the Constitution - Wrong
Here’s another one that just flat out gets it wrong.  When you re-read Article V again, can you spot the error?
amending the constitution - also wrong
Here’s a far more accurate graphic.  In fact, it matches the text in Article V exactly, except for one minor point:
Amending the Constitution - Nearly Correct
In summary, Amendments to the U.S. Constitution can be initiated and ratified by one of two means:
– When initiated by Congress
– – Initiation requires 2/3 vote from BOTH Houses
– – Ratification – See Note 1
– When initiated by the States
– – Initiation requires 2/3 of the legislatures of the states via Conventions
– – Ratification – See Note 1
Note 1: Ratification requires 3/4 of legislatures of the states or by Conventions in 3/4 of the states, as proposed (but not mandated) by Congress.
In other words, while the initiation may originate from two different sources (Congress and the State legislature Conventions), the ratification is always performed by the States.
Thus, there is a means by which the States can not only resist, but actually steamroll over a wayward, do nothing or even a bad Congress. If 3/4 of the state legislatures are willing, they can pass a Constitutional amendment repealing the Affordable Care Act (ACA), if not outlawing federal involvement in health care altogether, and they can do it even if 100% of all members of both the House and the Senate oppose it.

Oath of Office in the United States of America

One’s oath of office is not to be taken lightly. It forms the cornerstone upon which our Constitution, “the supreme Law of the Land,” sustains our nation.
The United States of America has seven federal uniformed services that commission officers as defined by Title 10, and subsequently structured and organized by Title 10, Title 14, Title 32 and Title 42 of the United States Code.
The seven uniformed services are defined by 10 U.S.C. § 101(a)(5):
The term “uniformed services” means—
(A) the armed forces;
(B) the commissioned corps of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; and
(C) the commissioned corps of the Public Health Service.
The five uniformed services that make up the United States Armed Forces are defined in the previous clause 10 U.S.C. § 101(a)(4). The term “armed forces” means the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard.
As a member and commissioned officer of the United States Armed Forces, specifically the U.S. Air Force, I took the following oath of office in 1989:
I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.
One’s oath of office contains no expiration date.  Like my commission, conferred on me by President George H. W. Bush in 1989, my oath of office never expires.
Four other groups of people take precisely the same oath: Law enforcement officers, civil officers, judges and Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court, and the President of the United States of America.
The oath of office for law enforcement officers and civil officers, including every executive, legislative, and judicial officer, regardless of whether they serve at the local, county, state, or federal level, is the same as that for the federal uniformed services.

Furthermore, each justice or judge of the United States takes an additional oath commensurate with their special authority, specifically, the following oath or affirmation before performing the duties of his office:

“I, ___ ___, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as ___ under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.” – 28 U.S. Code § 453 – Oaths of justices and judges

Finally, the President of the United States of America:

“Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:—”I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” – Article II, Section 1, Constitution for the United States of America

As to what all this means, how and why one’s adherence to one’s oath of office is the glue of loyalty which holds our nation together, merely type “oath of office” into the Search window on this website.  🙂

The short version, however, is that when everyone in a position of authority who takes an oath of office actually follows their oath of office, including taking the steps to ensure they know the U.S. Constitution through and through, as well as all application local, county, state, federal, and military law germain to their duty and position of responsibility, then you have a country that is united behind a single, common, purpose, standing firm on a 200+ year old foundation of law respected around the world.

There is no firmer nor finer place to be.

Obama Voters – Treason or Stupidity?

After reviewing the Constitution’s definition of treason (Article III, Section 3), as well as Obama’s record of treasonous acts against the United States of America alongside the tenets of Complicity Law, I realized there is only one legal, sane, rational conclusion to be reached, here:
Those who voted for Obama are either complicit in his treason or they’re sublimely stupid, in which case they shouldn’t be voting at all.

There’s no middle ground, here, people!  No wiggle room.  All possible categories can be boiled down to the following five:

  1. You were fully cognizant of Obama’s treason and voted for him anyway, in which case you were fully complicit in his treason.
  2. You were somewhat aware of Obama’s treason but voted for him anyway, in which case you were at least partially complicit in his treason, but you were also either lazy, stupid, treasonous yourself (or some combination thereof) because you were somewhat aware that something nefarious was afoot yet you failed to exercise your due diligence as a voter to determine whether Obama had committed treason or not.
  3. You weren’t aware of Obama’s treason, in which case you were undoubtedly either voting for him for no other reason than he was a Democrat, black, or both (willfully ignorant), and/or you were drinking the liberal Kool-Aid* of the mainstream media (unknowingly being kept ignorant).  Regardless, either way you were completely and utterly stupid.
*”Drinking the Kool-Aid” refers to the 1978 Jonestown Massacre, where the phrase suggests that one has mindlessly adopted the dogma of a group or leader without fully understanding the ramifications or implications.
At this point, one might ask, “Is it really treason to knowingly vote for someone who committed treason?

Here’s why:
“Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.” – Article III, Section 3, U.S. Constitution
Thus, if someone joins ISIS or al Qaeda, fighting alongside them against U.S. troops, that’s treason.
When someone holds fast to, gives support, or maintains loyalty to an enemy of America, that’s “adhering.”  That’s treason.
When someone provides “beans and bullets,” logistical support (transportation), intelligence (spying), or refuge, that’s “aid and comfort.”  That’s treason.
But what about when a person doesn’t directly engage in these activities themselves, but merely votes for a treasonous person or supports them monetarily or in some other way?
Great question!  Let’s look at what the law has to say about this:
Complicity in criminal law refers to when someone is legally accountable, or liable for a criminal offense, based upon the behavior of another. Criminal complicity may arise in the following situations.  With the intent to promote or assist the commission of the offense:
1. a person procures, induces or causes such other person to commit the offense; or
2. a person aids or abets such other person in committing the offense; or
3. having a legal duty to prevent the commission of the offense, a person fails to make an effort he is legally required to make.
As you review both the U.S. Constitution’s definition of treason and Complicity law side by side, you will see that the Constitution included complicity in it’s definition.  In fact, the Constitution contains three phrases of treason in its definition, yet only the first one addresses open acts of war or aggression against the United States.  The second and third phrases directly address complicity, those things people do to help America’s enemies.  Thus, “the supreme Law of the Land” considers complicity in a citizen to be just as much treason as when a citizen levies war against the United States itself.
Let’s review these three elements of complicity one by one to see what such acts of complicity might entail:
1. a person procures, induces or causes such other person to commit the offense; or
The Democrat Party procured Obama as a candidate.  Either they, George Soros, corrupt politicians, or some combination thereof induced or otherwise caused Obama to commit his many acts of treason, either monetarily, by means of party pressure, offering political “guidance,” feeding him incorrect information, exchanging political favors, or providing promises of some future reward.  Regardless of the means, Obama remains fully guilty of all offenses of treason.
2. a person aids or abets such other person in committing the offense; or
This category includes all Obama voters, along with those who made contributions to the Democrat party or Obama’s election in the form of money or value, and even the hourly efforts of those who worked in various party offices, organized meetings, created Obama buttons, or campaigned door to door.  But it also includes those who carried out Obama’s orders, knowing they violated the U.S. Constitution.
3. having a legal duty to prevent the commission of the offense, a person fails to make an effort he is legally required to make.
Most of Congress falls into this gaping hole.   I say “most,” because nearly all Democrats fell lock-step behind Obama in his many illegal and sometimes treasonous actions.  Furthermore, a number of Republicans did, as well.  As such, they are equally guilty of treason.   On top of that, every aid, administrative assistant, attorney, cabinet head, and White House staffer who blinked and did nothing to stop Obama’s treasonous actions is complicit.  This is really where the oath of office comes into play.  When a military, law enforcement, or civilian officer (executive, legislative, judicial) agrees to “solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same…” they are committing themselves, their persons, to one of the highest and most noble causes in our nation, to serve our country.  The oath of office isn’t a formality.  It forms the cornerstone of our duty, our loyalty to our nation above and beyond any loyalty to anyone or anything else.
Since complicity requires “intent to promote or assist the commission of the offense,” the ONLY defense under complicity law against treason for those who voted for Obama involves being too STUPID to know what he was up to.
However, there’s no such defense under the United States Constitution, as it doesn’t differentiate between “knowingly” and “unknowingly.”  It assumes, and rightly so, that this is serious enough stuff that people aren’t going to take it lightly, that they’re going to exercise caution and due diligence to make dang sure they don’t cross the line.  Only someone who is either knowingly complicit or really stupid would ever cross that line, hence the reason why I use the term “Demoncraps.”  If they were knowingly complicit in Obama’s treason, then they’re demonically opposed to the United States.  If the were just too stupid to know the difference…
Demonically opposed + stupid as shit = Demoncraps

LGBTQ – Should We ‘Live and Let Live’ or Should We Stand Firm?

A friend of mine stated this morning on Facebook, “As for the LGBTQ crowd, I have a ‘Live and Let Live’ policy.  We all should follow that.”
I’m sorry, my friend, but I follow God of the Bible, and Jesus Christ, who showed us the way. In particular, with the adulteress at the well, he loved her (saved her from being stoned to death, no less!), but he did not allow her to persist in her sin: “Go, and sin no more.” Our Bible: “Male and female he made them,” yet the LGBTQ crowd wants us to believe there are a dozen or more genders? Phooey. I do not accept that because God’s word says that’s false.  It also says homosexuality is a sin, an “abomination before the Lord” in Romans chapter 1, clear as day.  Unless, apparently, you’re blinded by sin.
I accept the Bible.
Along with the Bible, I also accept the Constitution: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”
In highlighting and denouncing the sins of this small segment of society who demands that We the People pay for their elective medical care, I am freely exercising my religion, one which God’s word clearly indicates what we all are to do:
“In the first four chapters of 1 Corinthians, Paul introduces a shameful problem in the church. The Corinthians proudly attach themselves to certain leaders, whose teaching seems to disclose a “wisdom” not known or taught by other teachers, and certainly not by Paul or his fellow-apostles. These cliques and factions are undermining the unity of the church and are a denial of the gospel of Jesus Christ. In chapters 5 and 6, Paul calls attention to two other problems plaguing the church: immorality and lawsuits.
“Chapter 5 is not actually about the immorality of one church member, as much as it is about the pride and passivity of the entire church in response to this sinner. It is not until the end of chapter 6 (verses 12-20) that Paul exposes the evil of immorality.”
“Live and let live” is a secular — and sinful — approach to the problem, which is the fact that that the LGBTQ group not only wants everyone to adopt the “live and let live” mentality towards them, but they want us to believe that it’s somehow good.
It is not good. Adultery is not good. LGBTQ is not good. Abortion is not good. Murder is not good. They are ALL SIN.  Not only does the Bible state, “hate that which is evil; cling to that which is good,” but I refuse to allow my tax dollars to pay for evil i.e. their indulgence in sin.
“Live and let live?” Phooey! That’s how Rome fell. I worked too hard supporting and defending my Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic to allow America to fall to either class of enemies, especially while being being aided and abetted by foolish Americans who are suckered into a “live and let live” attitude, much less an, “Oh, let’s help them!” attitude.
True, this is America, and people are free to sin against themselves and god it they want to, even with other consenting adults. If they want to engage in evil, then they can damned well create pools of funds out of their own pockets to pay for their sin, but I’ll be damned if I’m going to allow them to further their evil with my tax dollars or parade their sin around our nation’s public schools as “good” when God Himself says “sin is evil.”
That’s not only foolishness, but it’s how countries fall, how they are rotted from within.
Not on my watch.

Why “Impeach Trump!” People are Blithering Idiots

Impeachment headlines are all the rage these days, and Google images is fully of all sorts of Impeach Trump buttons, banners, and bumper stickers, but it’s an utterly mindless rage, one fueled by hate and ignorance, not rationality, sound reasoning, or understanding of the law.

People, listen up!  Please get an education so you know what you’re talking about.

Speaking of impeachment (and education):

“The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.” – Article I, Section 2.

Do you really think a House controlled by conservatives/Republicans will impeach Donald Trump? No more than a House controlled by liberals/Democrats impeached Obama for his impeachable offenses.  Unlike Trump, Obama actually committed impeachable offenses.

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

Do you really think you will ever be able to get a two-thirds majority of the Senate to rule against President Trump with more than half the Senate is conservative/Republican? Good luck with that…

“Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States…” – Article I, Section 3

Hillary stepped down so that she wouldn’t be impeached over Benghazigate. Had she been impeached, she would have been ineligible to run for President.  The Demoncrap party saw the handwriting on the wall and chose the lesser of two evils so that she might actually have a shot at the Presidency in 2016.  It was clear she was being groomed for that very role for a long time.  Thankfully, enough voters recognized her for the crook she is.

“The President … shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.” – Article II, Section 2

When Obama pardoned over 2,000 criminals, he grossly violated Constitutional authority as most of those criminals had not committed any crimes “against the United States.”  Rather, most of them had violated various state laws, over which Obama had ZERO authority to grant either a reprieve or pardon.  That state’s governor, yes.  Obama, no.

“The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” – Article II, Section 4

President Donald Trump has committed absolutely zero instances of treason, bribery, high crimes, or misdemeanors. In fact, he personally hired a rather large legal team in order to prevent any such discretion.

BOTTOM LINE: President Donald Trump will NEVER be impeached, and for some very sound reasons:

1. He’s never committed any impeachable offences as defined by and required by the Constitution in order to be impeached.

2. You’ll never get a conservative/Republican House to impeach a Republican president.

3. You’ll never get a conservative/Republican Senate to cough up the two thirds votes required to convict.

Our Founding Fathers knew that one day, there would be a bunch of blithering idiots throughout our land who would incessantly cry “Impeach Trump! Impeach Trump! Impeach Trump!” They made impeachment difficult for precisely that reason, to prevent blithering idiots from disrupting the normal operations of government on the basis of nothing other than mob rule.

Now, while libtards and Demoncraps have every Constitutional right to continue blathering on about this issue if it makes them feel better, much like all babies need a good cry every now and then, it’ll never happen, because of the aforementioned reasons, unless Donald Trump actually does, one day in the future, commit a clearly impeachable offense.

And no, you cannot make this happen simply by whining about it louder, longer, harder, or by throwing more money at it.  The U.S. Constitution is “the supreme Law of the Land” for a reason, and We the People are going to follow it, whether you like it or not.