The Full-Blown Democrat Psychosis

Newt Gingrich was live on Monday, posting a Facebook video entitled, “The Left’s Efforts to Destroy America.
“When a senior Democratic Congressman (Corey Booker), who would actually chair a committee if the Democrats took control, goes public and says, ‘Hunt down all the Trump supporters; hunt them down in gas stations, hunt them down in restaurants, drive them from stores, don’t let them appear in public,’ you know something is profoundly wrong.
 
“When you watch the very senior Democratic Senator Feinstein conspire — and there’s no other word for it but ‘conspire’ — in a deliberate manipulation of the Senate, involving hiding a letter for months, involving hiding the witness for weeks, involving a whole process totally at variance with the Senate rules, and then, apparently someone on her staff leaked the letter to make sure it got into the media so that it could become a media firestorm…”
 
“The fact is, the very defeat of Hillary Clinton and the election of Donald Trump broke the grip on reality of many, many left-wing Democrats.”

~    ~    ~

Mr. Gingrich is absolutely correct.  The left is not only flagrantly breaking the law, they’re calling on their constituents to break the law, as well.
The problem is, they erroneously believe that it’s within their rights to do so, to trample on the rights of honest, law-abiding citizens to get what they want, to advance their oft-chanted mantra, force their propaganda, not to mention their agenda, on the rest of us.  Some even think it’s within their right to use force to silence those who oppose their murderous, law-breaking mantra:

No, that’s not within their rights.
“The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government.” – U.S. Constitution, Article IV, Section 4. 
“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby.” – U.S. Constitution, Article VI
We the People of the United States of America have been guaranteed a law-abiding government, not a law-breaking one.  All states and their laws support law-abiding activities and criminalize those which break the laws.
Fortunately, the law-breaker in the video above was identified as one “Jordan Hunt” by determined Internet users, reported to his employer, and summarily fired.  Sadly, local law enforcement has failed to levy charges of assault and battery against him, despite clear and compelling video evidence.
I have observed statements and behaviors by many, many Democrats, online and in person, which are totally at odds with the fine people they used to be, the people of integrity I knew of them, of wisdom and objectivity they used to have.
 
A few have become full-on violent protesters. Far more have become highly antagonistic. Many simply refuse to acknowledge any of the many rock-hard and verifiable truths/facts surrounding the issues while regurgitating pieces of the thin veil that’s left of their rapidly crumbling and unrealistic idealism, even as our economy continues to improve, even as our international standing and progress with other countries continues to grow.
 
They grasp at every straw supporting their feeble position, but increasingly manufacture outright and flagrant lies, so unwilling they are to let go of their psychosis that they burrow ever deeper into its depths. Like they people of North Korea, they’ve been lied to for so long, believing the propaganda machine with reckless abandon until they’re living in a dream world, only partially supported by the real world, but supportable no longer.
 
Fortunately, many have woken up and changed sides.  “John Sides, a political-science professor at George Washington University, has estimated that 9 percent of voters who cast ballots for Mr. Obama ended up voting for Mr. Trump.” (Source)  Given the fact the popular vote was neck and neck once you discount all the illegals who voted their 3% input without having any Constitutional authority to do so, it’s clear these Democrats who have woken up, who refused to be saddled with another four and probably eight years of do-nothing Democrat lies from the White House, and in particular from a woman with a known criminal background and history of lying to pretty much everyone in her question for power and wealth.
That 9% woke up.
The rest continue on, their heads plunged deep into the sand, utterly unwilling to admit to themselves, much less others, they swallowed the lies of the Democrat party, that they’ve been hoodwinked all these years by criminals who lied to them for little more purpose than to separate them from their money.
The beliefs held by the left do not merely “border” on psychosis.  When the left elects leaders who flagrantly violate Senate and House rules, much less the law, calling on their constituents to commit heinous acts of violence, and such acts continue to increase in frequency, things have gone way beyond “borderline” into a full-blown mass psychosis.
The question becomes:  How do we, as a nation, cure their mental illness?
Like the old adage about how “they have to want to be cured,” there’s no easy fix.  It will take decades of education, and even that might fail if “educators” aka propagandists like Ford continue to indoctrinate students in the flawed thinking which shoehorns them into the Democrat psychosis.
Wake up, America.  We have only just begun crawling out of the political cesspool into which we have allowed our nation to fall.

The Ridiculous Stupidity of Internet Sales Tax

So… A store in another state that pays no rent in Colorado, no employee salaries or wages in Colorado, no State Unemployment Taxes in Colorado, no utilities in Colorado, and whose employees also have absolutely nothing to do with Colorado, but that does pay all of these expenses in another states (or country) must somehow cough up extra dough, which absolutely will wind up being paid for by the citizens of Colorado.

Huh.  Ok…  And local mudstream media everywhere have become shills for their blitheringly idiotic state governments.

Let’s see what NOLO has to say about this:

“On June 21, 2018, the United States Supreme Court fundamentally changed the rules for collection of sales tax by Internet-based retailers. In its decision in South Dakota v. Wayfair Inc., the Court effectively stated that individual states can require online sellers to collect state sales tax on their sales. This ruling overturns the Court’s 1992 decision in Quill Corporation v. North Dakota. The Quill case prohibited states from requiring a business to collect sales tax unless the business had a physical presence in the state.”

Looks to me like the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1992 decision absolutely nailed it whereas their 2018 decision cow-towed to unlawful pressure by the states.

By “unlawful,” I’m referring to this gem from the Sales Tax Institute:

“For many years, states argued that they were losing a lot of money by not being able to collect sales tax on Internet sales to customers located in their states.”

Combined with this consideration:

“For many years, states argued that they were losing a lot of money by not being able to collect sales tax on Internet sales to customers located in their states.”

State legislators are undoubtedly jumping up and down in greedy glee, thinking about all the extra money they’re going to receive, but when reality sets in, most will be weeping and wailing at the destabilizing effect they’ve created and the massive tax revenues they will soon LOSE as a direct result of their stupidity.

Very soon, states will be arguing that they are losing money by not being able to collect sales taxes on Internet sales by businesses located in their states. Not only is this robbing Peter to pay Paul, but it’s a tremendous setback for the greatest justification for Internet sales to begin with:  It’s far cheaper for customers to pay for shipping, whereby their item represents perhaps a tenth of a mile worth of travel for that FedEx, UPS, or USPS delivery van than for them to travel all over their own state’s roads trying to find items, travel that tears up those roads at SIGNIFICANT EXPENSE TO THE LOCAL MUNICIPALITY AND STATE.  Oh, those states who pushed for this failed to consider that one, huh…

Let’s look at this another way.

John lives in Colorado but travels to Wyoming to buy grass-fed beef, usually half or whole head that he’ll split with friends in his hometown.  He pays sales tax in Wyoming.  It’s not very economical to drive all the way to Wyoming so he and his friends jump for joy when the seller announces they’ll ship either frozen or refrigerated anywhere in the U.S.

But, oh, now John and his friends have to pay sales tax in Colorado?  What the hell?  Nothing has changed!!!  100% of the business remains in Wyoming, including state income taxes on the business, SUTA, workman’s comp, veterinary bills, etc.

The ONLY thing that changed is that instead John and friends supplying their own shipping, they hired a shipper.

So, instead of using the Internet, John and Friends are now phoning in their order and paying Wyoming sales tax like they were before.

Whoops!  What?  Yep.  John and friends now own the goods at the point of sale in Wyoming, and as private owners they have every right to bring their OWN PROPERTY across state lines, the same as if Dave moved from Wyoming to Colorado, driving his first car and shipping his second, brand-new car he’d just purchased the morning of his move.

Are you starting to see the full picture, here?  Are you beginning to understand why the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1992 was far better as it accurately reflected REALITY?  Whoa, what a concept, adhering to reality…

Here’s another scenario:

USAA Federal Savings Bank, headquartered in Texas, does a great deal of business with most people who are in the military or related to anyone in the military.  But those people are spread out all over the world.  In years past, if someone picked up the phone and made a trade with USAA’s brokerage services, taxes on the commission would be paid to the State of Texas.  But now, because that trade was placed through the Internet, Suzy in Cincinnati is now paying taxes to Ohio, who had absolutely NOTHING to do with that trade?  What?

And another:

State M is a high manufacturing state, but with a lower population, shipping 90% of products produced in that state all over the U.S.  Used to be, people placed orders through catalogs, with tax being paid to State M the same as if a person had driven to State M and purchased the goods in person.  I know, as I still have old copies of Popular Mechanics, which clearly state that if I buy that wood splitter, then I have to pay state sales taxes to New Jersey, even if I have that wood splitter shipped to Colorado.

Now, however, because a rather large number of blitheringly idiotic state legislators in most states convinced the U.S. Supreme Court to change their mind, New Jersey DIES for no other reason than people place their orders via the Internet instead of their Phone.  Speaking of which, my VoIP phone runs through the Internet, so if I place a phone order, is that really an Internet sale?

If you say, “Yes,” you’re completely missing the point.  The point is that our Constitution very specifically states the following:

Here’s another issue:

North Dakota passed a law in 1987 requiring out-of-state mail-order houses to collect and pay a use tax on goods purchased for use in the state. Quill Corporation refused to comply and the state of North Dakota took them to state court. The trial court ruled in Quill’s favor and found that based on Supreme Court precedent in a 1969 case (National Bellas Hess, Inc. v. Department of Revenue of Ill.) the law created an unconstitutional burden on interstate commerce based on the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause. In addition the Supreme Court found it conflicted with the commerce clause because, “The very purpose of the Commerce Clause was to ensure a national economy free from such unjustifiable local entanglements. Under the Constitution, this is a domain where Congress alone has the power of regulation and control.” – Source

Wait… What?  You mean this was decided before now?

Yes.  It DOES NOT MATTER whether a person places an order by mailing in a cereal box top, by phone, or by, well, smart phone.  The mode of communication DOES NOT MATTER.  All that matters is where the goods were produced, and to a lesser extent, if there were any intermediate supply chain staging within the state of delivery (nexus).

Bottom Line:  Tie the sales taxes to where the goods and services are PRODUCED, not where they’re sold.  Please note that wholesalers may produce in one state, ship to retailer in another state, who will then pay sales taxes to the state in which they’re sold.  The taxes paid by the wholesaler fall under net taxable income, not directly off sales.

In a similar vein, when I purchase directly from Sony, they’re the wholesaler, and I’m a retailer with a customer base of 1.

So, to all the stores who sell goods on the Internet, here’s how to beat it:  WRITE YOUR MEMBERS OF CONGRESS!!!  They have full Constitutional authority under Article. I., Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.”  Demand they DO SO, putting a stop to this incessantly stupid and economic throat-cutting practice of states trying to change taxes on goods produced totally outside their jurisdiction.  If it doesn’t cut the throats of the states implementing it thinking they’ll be raking in more money, it’s certainly cutting the throats of states which foster the efficient production of goods consumed by We the People in all 50 of these United States, not to mention around the world.

Internet sales taxes indirectly but greatly harm economies in which goods are consumed.

Internet sales taxes greatly harm economies in states where goods are produced.

Internet sales taxes eschew low carbon footprint online shopping and efficient many-item shipping in favor high carbon footprint physical shopping and personal SUV one- to few-item hauling.

Oh, and Colorado, although I am adamantly opposed to pot, one day the U.S. will legalize it, along with interstate Internet sales shipments, and you WILL LOSE BIG TIME.  You’ll produce it here, but won’t be able to collect any tax here.  Meanwhile, all those workers you attracted by legalizing pot will FLEE Colorado’s high cost of living and high taxes so they can get afford to get high more often anywhere it’s cheaper to live, which is most places, these days.

Way to bring back the Ghost Towns, there, dipshits.

RED FLAG on Red Flag Laws

The rising tide of red flag laws does not bode well for the United States of America.  Not only are they fraught with many potential avenues of failure and abuse, they’re also highly ineffectual, stopping less than 1/10th of 1% of their intended targets  — a statistically and absurdly tiny fraction of the problem.

For the first time in many years, I’m at a loss for world.  These proposals and the laws that have made the books are so ridiculously, unbelievably mind-bogglingly STUPID that I don’t know where to begin.

So, let’s begin at the beginning, with our United States Constitution.  Here’s a couple of key points:

THE BEGINNING

– The States were already in power at the time they agreed to join the Union.  They already had powers.  They still do.

– The Constitution specifically delineated a few key powers to the federal government and normalized relations between the States, primarily in the areas of commerce and common defense.

– Just in case anyone forgot that the people and the States retain the lion’s share of authority, our Founding Fathers included Amendments IX and X in our Bill of Rights:

Amendment IX:  The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X:  The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

– Amendments to the Constitution become integral parts of the Constitution itself.  As the Constitution itself declares in Article. V., “shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution.”

– Between December 7, 1787, and May 29, 1790, all thirteen states ratified the Constitution.

-Subsequently, whenever a territory has applied to become a State, they do so with the full knowledge of and consent to the U.S. Constitution.

– One of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights, proposed in 1789 and duly ratified by the states on December 15, 1791, is “the right of the people to keep and bear arms.”  Our Founding Fathers were so adamant about protecting this right they added an absolute:  “shall not be infringed.”  Moreover, this isn’t merely about restricting Congress from passing laws, as stated in the First Amendment.  Rather, it applies to the states, as well, and on December 15, 1791, all United States at the time become party to it, whereas all subsequent States became party to it when they applied for statehood.

WHERE WE ARE NOW

Sadly, instead of focusing on legitimate, science-based policing, these red flag laws throw that science out the window, criminalizing gun ownership itself, in a flagrant and very dangerous violation of the “shall not be infringed” clause of the Second Amendment i.e. the U.S. Constitution.

 

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.

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.