Comments

REFLECTIONS ON “THE WAR OF NORTHAM AGGRESSION” — 63 Comments

  1. Although thought provoking I would discourage the reference to a ‘war against northern aggression’. Makes it easy for our opponents to try and tie us to those despicable folks that are racist by referencing the Civil War. That just plays into their hands. Let there be no doubt this is a culture war – but between a culture who believes in freedom to defend one’s self and family and a culture who believes that state should and can solve all needs. But we must be very careful and precise in our messaging so as not to inadvertently provide the other side with ammunition.

    • “THE WAR OF NORTHAM AGGRESSION” , tossing red meat to our opponents? That’s good for a chuckle.
      Our side handed the enemy of our Constitutional rights a giant gold nugget when in the 1980s when some of our fellow enthusiasts bragged about their “assault rifles”.
      Did they get a thank you note from the Brady Bunch ?

    • Stop with the fears of being labeled racist by using the “Northam aggression” phrase. It is a catchy phrase that captures exactly what is going on. It seems a lot of folks are afraid to speak the truth today for fear of being labeled a racist. Truth doesn’t change. So, we need to face it and act on it.

    • quote: “t between a culture who believes in freedom to defend one’s self and family and a culture who believes that state should and can solve all needs”

      this is precisely the root of the conflict of the 1860’s. One faction imposed unconstituitional and unfair tariffs on the other. the other took to bypassing them, the first then blockaded the ports of their targets, and began to harry and destroy their shipping. at which point the aggressed against side decided to take their marbles and leave the game. Whereupon the aggressors staged a false flag event then used that as an excuse to invade and subsequent destruction.
      That’ll show THEM….” bringing in to the picture the pattern that trashing the Constitution is just fine IF yuo have more and better guns than your target do.

      THe aggressing Northam is following exactly that tactic today. The only difference is he has little to no authority (though far more influence than he should) outside the boundaries of his fiefdom, nown as the Commonwealth of Virginia.

  2. I wonder which would have the most positive impact on gun rights: a protester dressed in slacks and a polo shirt discretely carrying a Sig P365 under his shirt or an overweight SEAL wannabe with tiny peepee wearing 70# of battle dress (including body armor and a dozen standard-capacity magazines) carrying a PTR-91 rifle in the ready position and a Beretta 92 in a thigh holster.

    Maybe the latter should have simply shown up on election day so that none of this would be necessary.

    Gun owners are their own worst enemy.

  3. The wife and I were working the Hampton Gun show for VCDL the weekend before Lobby Day. On Saturday we sold more memberships (64) in one hour than we had sold the preceding year in Hampton. By noon when we finished our morning shift 9-12 we had sold of 350 memberships. Two things to take away from this. One people are energized and two they Are Angry. So we’ve all seen the VCDL map of the 91 counties out of 95 that are 2A sanctuaries in Virginia.. Just tell me were Gov. Blackface feels he has a mandate from?

    • “So we’ve all seen the VCDL map of the 91 counties out of 95 that are 2A sanctuaries in Virginia.. Just tell me were Gov. Blackface feels he has a mandate from?”

      Probably from the other 4 counties, which probably collectively outvote the rest of the state and are deeply blue (voting Democrat).

      I have seen stories about a movement to return the Virginia lands in the original District of Columbia back to the District, removing them from Virginia census and voter participation. That would reverse the “Retrocession of 1846”. I think the catch phrase is “Square the District”. I have searched, but not found the website.

  4. I see your point about the open carry not leading to mayhem. However, I believe our side gives the media too much material to work with when we show up open carrying long guns, and, in some cases, wearing body armor and tactical vests.
    It fits into the “gun owners are nuts and dangerous” narrative. I think we have to get smarter about the optics we are providing.

    • What they saw was an open display of firearms which DIDN’T Jump out of a holster or off a shoulder and shoot anyone! A large crowd of armed law abiding citizens, with no incidents and no shots fired or threatened.

      As a kid in middle school, in the Fall I’d get home from school. Drop my books and grab my dog and my shotgun. We walked with my gun over my shoulder to the open fields at the edge of the neighborhood. We returned in a couple of hours with neighbors commenting on the brace of quail or rabbits on my belt on. No police showed up. No SWAT teem dispatched to the neighborhood.

      People were not frightened of a 13 year old with a gun. Some neighbors engaged me in conversation about the Model ’97 that had been in my family since 1898! Some asked what shot I was using. Maybe with so many people with guns NOT violating any laws, people will maybe get used to and over unwarranted fears of armed citizens.

  5. @ Mas – “Some on our side feel the open-carried long guns were over the top.”

    I don’t agree. I was overjoyed to see it. I believe that it was a major factor in keeping the march peaceful.

    There is no doubt that the Antifa thugs would have loved to stir up trouble with the pro-gun crowd. If they could have provoked a few fist-fights and smashed a few windows and cars, then the Anti-American Media would have had all of the ammunition that it needed to declare another “Charlottesville”.

    However, the Antifa thugs are all cowards. They are ready enough to cause trouble in “Blue” cities, like Portland, where the people are unarmed and won’t fight back and the city government will just stand-by and allow it. However, confronted by openly-armed 2nd Amendment Supporters, they pissed their pants and then backed off.

    I believe that the open carrying of arms was a major factor in keeping the march peaceful and in preventing Antifa and the Media from smearing this protest with the labels of “Racist” and “White Nationalists”.

    • Trust me, the people of Portland Oragin ARE well armed, but we’re also wise enough to NOT go into that part of Portland that has been ceded to the knot-sees. To have a signficant shoot-em-up in that part of Portland would play right into the twisted mind of that city’s mayor and cohorts. He’d try and make carry in the city illegal. And the twisted governor that state sent for a second go-round would likely back her pal running Portland (into the ground).

      I carry everywhere in that state, discretely, and have never had a problem. Even so there are quite a few areas there where I simply do not go. The easiest way to win a gun fight is to just not show up.
      I have also sowed up for deminstratioins armed…. to make a pint htat needs making, politically, that is, to remind the powers that wanna-be that they are treading on valued and necessary rights.

  6. I to am glad it turned out as well as it did. A great stand of folks with a common meaning. Law abiding and pro gun folks are not the issue.
    This is the first explanation of who the 1 person was and in my local media world never said.

  7. As a routine matter, I think it’s kind of weird for people to walk around urban areas with long guns, but this wasn’t routine: it was a political demonstration, and long guns were intrinsic to the issue.

  8. What does the phrase “helicopter crash free” mean, Mas?

    I am very ambivalent about the open carry of arms. I wonder what you and other readers think.

    Let’s prescind, here, from the arguments about the effectiveness of open carry. (Doubtlessly, police who routinely open carry have considered the effectiveness consideration of faster draw. They aren’t doing so merely to intimidate the non-police). I’m not interested – here – in the danger of someone grabbing an open-carrier’s gun; that’s a different issue.

    We need to be sensitive to the argument that some open carry contexts antagonize far more voters than are desensitized and “normalized” to guns in polite company. There must be at least one venue where this is apt to be true; and if there is one, there must be several.

    Under what circumstances do we gain some positive attention and desensitization/normalization? To illustrate my question (in an amusing way) if I joined the gay pride parade in my town of current residence, openly bearing my M1 Garand or AR-15, dressed in my tighty-whities and a rainbow boa, I am sure that I’d accomplish some desensitization/normalization. Gun-pride ~ Gay-pride; or, at least, begrudging acceptance of another’s proclivities.

    I suspect that Lobby Day in VA is such a venue as I’m struggling to identify. I doubt that the gun-controllers scored many points as compared to the rights advocates gaining recognition that 20,000 heavily armed gun-nuts can surround a state capital, leaving neither blood in the streets nor empty coffee cups.

    How can we judiciously pick the venues where we could get open carry “parades” to serve our interests rather than against our interests?

  9. And gentlemen in Virginia now a-bed

    Shall think themselves accurs’d they were not here,

    And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks

    That fought with us upon MLK Day.

  10. Within the present circles of esteemed historians and political scientists the approximate date of the Democratic party’s shift from (generally) representing the wishes of middle and working class Americans, supporting U.S. manufacturing and union jobs, and expanding the government social safety net for all citizens is somewhat disputed, but it probably started in the early 1970s.

    Since that beginning, the Democratic leadership seems to have gone out of its way to alienate most Americans, that is, those who are not wealthy. Excessive gun control (yeah, I know, this is a hotly debated definition) is one of several undesirable (at least for many folks) platforms that the Dems continually foist into mainstream political discourse, even though many polls through the years have demonstrated the unpopularity of such thinking.

    Call it what you want, but to this reader, it appears that the Democratic party wants to lose political races. Their shrill, unwavering support of very restrictive gun laws (and other bizarre policies) almost guarantees it.

    • Unfortunately the Democratic party is NOT losing political races – at least in many states, counties, and cities. As an example, Washington State has an anti-gun Democratic Governor, anti-gun Democratic AG, and mostly Democratic Legislature. Seattle’s (Democratic) city council continually tries to pass (and sometimes succeeds in passing) anti-gun legislation, copying California. There are numerous anti-gun bills moving through the state legislature at this time. The wishes of the rest of the state don’t matter much because the votes aren’t there.

      • In my view, the 2018 Democratic takeover of the US House of Representatives and some governorships was the result of anti-Trump fervor, not any strong attraction to the Democrats’ corporate/Wall Street-friendly ideology and policies.

      • i”ve read, from someone whom I believe knows, that in this past elction wihch included the craming down our throats, enabled by Bloomie’s Billious Billions, the worst antigun set of laws (contra our State’s COnstitution) was not only enabled bu the BloomBux that flowed so freely, but by the FACT that only 23% of GUN OWNWES in Washington actuallly voted in that election. We have about 630,000 Mother May I Card holders in this state of about 5.25 Mn residents. Tht means we had 145.000 votes cast against that abomination of a gun bill. Had there been another 145K votes against, the percentage may have carried a rejectioin vote. That’s if only half of gun owners had bothered to open the ballot they got in the mail, make one small oval mark, reassemble the package and set it out for the postman to collect, taking all of about four point two seven minutes, we would not now be fighting this abomination in federal court. It would have died its well deserved death and given a pauper’s funeral. Dig a shallow hyole and toss it in. Done.
        Now our legislature, all D’s after that same election (several districts flipped with Bloomie’s help) are working double time to cram another half dozen antigun bills at least as bad as the one the voters approved.

    • “Their shrill, unwavering support of very restrictive gun laws (and other bizarre policies) almost guarantees it.”

      What you don’t understand is that the Democratic Party has an agenda. That agenda is as follows :
      “We, the Democratic Party, will take care of you from cradle to grave. All you have to do is give us your votes which we will convert into power to make laws that will make it difficult if not impossible to democratically remove us from office. Oh yeah, one more thing. We need to gather up everyone’s guns so that we have a true monopoly on violence so when you realize you cannot vote us out of power, you will not be able have another American revolution.”

      Simple isn’t it? Look at the newly elected Democrats in Virginia, who today are putting together laws to sanction any communication that makes fun of or denigrates an elected official (they want to stop the black-face jokes and memes, for example).

      They are also attempting to raise the number of signatures required for a recall election. They are throwing every road block into the way of a legal recall by the people.

      see http://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?201+ful+HB1627
      look at § 18.2-152.7:1. Harassment by computer; penalty.

      There goes free speech which we all knew would be the second casualty after the Second Amendment. I believe the law is unconstitutional, but who has the half million dollars needed for legal fees to contest it?

      The Democratic Party has become socialist and appears to be following the socialist playbook.

      It goes back to that old adage: “You can vote your way into socialism, but you will have to shoot your way out.” That is exactly what the left’s gun control agenda is attempting to prevent.

      • Actually I do understand the agenda of the Democratic party, as well as the agenda of the Republican party.

        My sense of the Dems is they pimp off weird social lifestyles to cover up their real mission, which is further enriching wealthy people and large corporations. The Republicans do this too, but they often slather their rhetoric with bumf that seems straight out of Mein Kampf.

        Neither party represents me.

  11. Was the light .50 over the top? Absolutely. But I have to defend it on two points. It is one of the biggest guns we as citizens can get legally on the market without going threw the ATF. So it is a symbol as much as a talking point. California banned it or restricted it if I recall. So a great amount of photos were taken of what exactly? A symbol being carried and never used in anger or a unlawful manor.
    Secondly, if you want to be as clear a supporter as possible. As over the top as packing a .50BMG statement can make. He is standing proud and loud. As a lawfully obtained and displayed (As far as i know from 2000miles away.) as a show of unified support in opposition to the new laws. And the new ones that are being shoved down law abiding citizens throats. He and his choice of tools for the day. He was the face of the common man In attendance.
    -I don’t know all of what happened there. I know what was covered in many different news outlets and a few lesser known. But the over all feel was a solid outcome of peaceful protest. As well as a show of faces behind the letters and calls and keyboards. Take the guns away and it doesn’t have the same affect. Having them can be viewed as overt threats of bullet exchanges. But the show of feelings and passions were the bigger force. At least that’s my take on the day.
    Could it have degraded into a very bad day? Absolutely but they knew better and showed control and respect. How much more does the government need to stop taking from them? Us?
    Their lack of knowledge or fear and disrespect for our rights do not have the capacity to affect us unless we allow their agendas and politicians to get into a position to do so. VOTE with knowledge. Or loose your rights. If you don’t vote you can’t complain because you did nothing to stop it!

  12. I initially misread your title because I’ve heard “The War of Northern Aggression” many times before.

    Your title is not only cleverly poetic, but entirely apropos because the principles are identical. The only difference is which and whose rights are being violated.

    Most notably, this is being perpetrated by people on the same side of the political aisle as almost all previous attempts to limit civil rights. Interestingly, it is being vociferously supported in the Main Stream Media and if upending the U.S. Constitution on this issue is a good idea on account of common sense, reasonable regulation, public safety, etc.

    I wonder how loyal the MSM would be to “the cause” if suddenly challenged with educational requirements, licensing, background checks, limits on word count, government review prior to publication, etc.

    For them, it all depends upon whose ox is being gored.

    For me, the Constitution is inviolable.

    For politicians, why do you swear an oath and then violate it?

  13. I would be more cautious to declare this a great success. I suspect very much that the reason why the masked woman was arrested is precisely because the entire event was nothing more than a mass cataloging by the state of exactly who has what, so when they pass their desired legislation in the coming year, the confiscation will go smoothly. There were spy planes mapping out the place days before reported by many blogs that follow that sort of thing (look it up if you don’t believe me), there is nothing to make me think that this wasn’t all a strategic trap and now every one of those citizens has been added to the facial registry.

  14. Hasn’t it been said that more guns make for a more polite society? I firmly believe that in addition to Antifa et al not wanting to risk coming home in a body bag, that so many armed and well behaved citizens actually lessened the chance for a false flag. Odds to me say that if the dems started an actual fight, the day might have ended with I’ll say ‘regime change’ and I think they know it. I also pray that all the local sheriffs stand their ground on sanctuary status, as these new laws won’t stand long. Using the left’s tactics against them is bound to bring success.

  15. If this situation teaches us anything it should be to vote! Ever election in this day and age is paramount. That’s ever swinging Richard and Ms. Richard period. It’s a fact Bloomberg paid for this crew of socialist rights destroying puppets. The real fight is coming when these laws become law and how the people respond. Non complaints of course is the best option of course the boating accident is still a great choice. It will be interesting to see how far they will push enforcement of these unconstitutional laws. This will be the real fight. And as I’ve stated the court system is not going to help us freedom fighting patriots. We need to stand together more than ever.

  16. As one Virginian who attended, I found the experience very positive. Can’t really speak to various estimates of crowd size, except to say there were a whole bunch of folks there, and a significant percentage those were openly carrying guns.

    Threading my way through the crowd, I found people to be very polite. I also didn’t hear any of the inflammatory comments that were made on some internet forums leading up to Lobby Day.

    At no point did I get the feeling that the crowd was going to turn ugly, or that something bad was going to happen. As a friend said, the energy was really good, and positive. My sense is that had someone tried to get out of hand, attendees and LE would have shut it down pretty quickly.

    Speaking of LE, your comment about them is spot on. I made a point of talking individually with almost a dozen, from simply asking directions to expressing my appreciation for their being there. One state trooper said we were all there for the same purpose.

    FWIW, I only saw one confederate flag, once, and then didn’t see it again. And I made the circuit through the crowd around the Capitol twice, before going it to the gun-free zone in front of the Capitol steps. I saw a few signs about gay rights and gun rights. Nobody heckled the folks carrying the signs. In fact, no one heckled anyone in the crowd, that I saw or heard.

    Some of the media tried to characterize it as a racist gathering. While it was a largely white male group, I was pleased to see a diversity of race, gender, and age that didn’t fit that characterization, at all. A pretty good cross section of society, really.

    Will it do any good? Obviously depends on your point of view, and how you measure such things, but I think it already has. It surprised a lot of people – including some those who should have known better – by not living up to the hand-wringing sense of dread making the rounds before the event. And thereby was a small step toward changing the narrative. Will it stop any of the proposed legislation? I doubt it. Unfortunately that will have to play out in the courts.

    But I’d wager a lot more gun owners will vote in November.

    We need more events like this. I’m sorry that they’re needed, but I am grateful to have participated.

  17. I believe it entirely appropriate to “bear arms” of all constitutionally protected types to make the point. As a single individual bearing an “unconcealed” firearm I get the point that it is possible someone will try to “snatch” it. As a military veteran, I have born arms “in public” with several of my closest friends (fellow soldiers) on may occassions. Only a suicidal fool attempts to disarm someone in a group of trained individuals. I never felt safer having dinner with my LFI class back in the 80s. No one was open carrying but it was clearly a group of observant and trained persons.

  18. I’ve heard from some folks who worked security at the Rally that several sections of attendees were ignored in the “official” count. Also, during hearings, some governmental types had to go out into the line of folks seeking admission and search out supporters of the Guv and move them up past many people already in line to provide a “balanced” attendance in the hearing room.

    Funny, I’ve seen pictures showing and heard that the crowd was ethnically diverse, but there was no mention of this in the MSM. OTOH, there weren’t any snarky quips about racial makeup.

    I’ve got mixed emotions about some of the folks who were kitted up sufficiently to patrol a war zone or other open carry. The line I typically use is that like riding a motorcycle while wearing a helmet, Speedo and flip-flops, it may be legal but it’s not real bright.

  19. Mas, in the light of Kobe Bryant’s death in the news, your “helicopter crash-free” quip sounds differently today. Do you want to add a footnote that you’re not actually making light of the sad news of the day?

    • You’re correct, Serge. It was posted before I learned of the tragedy in California, and probably before that crash itself.

  20. January 20th was a great day for the whole world. We saw at least 22,000 great American patriots send a clear message to a tyrant that they will not be tread upon. That is fitting, seeing as how Virginia has the best flag and motto of all the fifty states.

    I was reminded of the Japanese people peacefully lining up for water after their earthquake. A very positive reflection on them.

    I was waiting for George Soros to pay an Antifa member to shoot up the place, but it didn’t happen. Good for George and Antifa.

    Those who think open carry at this particular rally sends the wrong message may have been right in the past, but they are wrong today. Gun owners have been nice guys since 1968, and our politeness has been taken advantage of. The same thing happened in the 2016 election. Nice Republicans were not getting the job done, so we elected Donald Trump. He is trying to drain the swamp all by himself! The nice guys aren’t helping him.

    Alice Cooper was right, “NO MORE MISTER NICE GUY!!!”

  21. I liked everything about it as it showed solidarity as well as restrained power. I’m not generally an open carry guy but in this case it was called for. The question remains, how far will each side go?

  22. Gov. John Wentworth probably thought it was too much of a display when a crowd of angry New Hampshiremen rolled a cannon up to his front door and asked him to depart.

    He did, with his family, post haste

  23. God Bless our Western New York friend who had the balls to bring out his Barrett Light 50. Also the balls to bring it back into New York risking possible harassment from the NY State Police.

    • Barrett Guy looked like a stereotypical Chairborne Commando. But that rifle weighs about 30 pounds empty, and it’s awkward as heck to carry; a friend has one, and I often rag him about putting a wheel on the stock so he can tow it behind him.

      If that guy carried a Barrett for the whole event, he’s nobody I’d care to arm wrestle.

  24. Rabbi. As a rule I am against open carry in a city environment due to a concern police will very likely be encountering gang members with speed drawl handguns in part as fashion statements – making their jobs harder. Among the masses CCW has, and will work adequately. For this event however, US citizens quietly carrying an unloaded AR across the back – like some 30 year old Swiss on the way to a range – made a profound statement.

    • I don’t “open carry” . If Mr. Badguy wants a gun, take it from Mr. Opencarry.
      If they don’t see it they won’t kill you to take it.

  25. I noticed more than a few signs with “Texas” on them. I’m surprised not to have seen a cannon and the “Come and Take It” flag. Seriously, I’m glad it was peaceful and that AOC and the biggest shot was from AOC’s mouth wondering why there weren’t more police. My thought was that she probably didn’t want to know about officers not in uniform but in attendance to support the pro gun agenda. Finally, our side was shown in the news cleaning up after ourselves.

  26. I’m from VA and a vcdl member. I’ve been to a few lobby days in the past and they were small in comparison. I don’t carry long guns in public because they are just cumbersome and unnecessary. I do support the right tondo so and the lack of exercising rights will cause you to lose them. Since when did the left care about what people protesting look like? Go to a Pride parade and and see what you get and it ain’t hurting their rights as much as we hate seeing it. Folks it’s time we start playing the lefts game or we won’t have a game to play.

  27. I just love how Democrats embrace a guy who used to call himself “Coonman”, and dressed up in racially offensive attire.

    I guess it’s like Stalin or Lenin, or Mao. As long as the guy delivers politically, they can excuse anything.

    It’s why I have no respect for any of them.

  28. If this country wasn’t so full of ignorant, ill-informed, stupid voters, we could act like gentlemen and not threaten our governments by openly carrying long guns. The intelligent solution to bad government is to vote out the wrong people and put the right people in there to serve us by following the law of the land. That requires informed voters, not voters who believe in lies. We the people voted for this government, it is our fault, collectively.

    The following quote was spuriously attributed to Thomas Jefferson, but it is a great saying anyway;

    “When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is liberty.”

    Sadly, we have to make our government fear us, and the best way to do that was demonstrated in Richmond on January 20th. I wonder what the people of Hong Kong or Venezuela thought of those citizens, if the news even got to them. Imagine a peaceful demonstration with firearms in the Middle East. Could such a thing take place anywhere else in the world? What we saw may be a phenomenon which is “only in America.” We saw powerful people exercising self-control, on both sides. That demonstration plus the fact that we have so many immigrants, proves that the USA is still a great place to live……..for now. The Left is trying to kill America, but they haven’t done it yet.

    • According to some political pundits, the largest potential block of American voters is comprised of those who don’t vote. In my experience, many people in that very large group hold extremely bitter views on politics and politicians, yet those chronic non-voters choose not to participate–and then they howl about the election results.

      Does this sound like cognitive dissonance? And isn’t it time for mandatory voting like in Australia where voter turnout is high? (See https://www.aec.gov.au/faqs/.)

    • @ Roger Willco – “The Left is trying to kill America, but they haven’t done it yet.”

      It is probably more correct to say that the Left is trying to “transform” America. This does involve killing the idea of America as a Constitutional Representative Republic. Then resurrecting America as a left-wing Socialist State.

      This was made very clear by Leftist Adam Schiff during the Senate Impeachment Hearings. See this link:

      https://www.wnd.com/2020/01/adam-schiff-americans-stupid-decide-elections/

      Free and fair elections are the very core of a Representative Republic. By arguing against them, Adam Schiff makes crystal clear his Left-Wing Socialist Agenda.

      The left-wing abandonment of the U.S. Constitution is also shown by the Impeachment of President Trump itself.

      There are those who argue that the grounds for Impeachment are whatever the House of Representatives says they are. That Impeachment is so open that it is valid for the House to Impeach for any reason whatsoever. So, whether it be policy differences with the President, or anger over the President asserting Executive Privilege or even the President daring to eat oysters in a month that does not have an “R” in it, if the House wants to do it, then its OK.

      This is not only wrong but it is unconstitutional. The Constitution clearly says that Impeachment is to be for “Treason, Bribery, or other High Crime and Misdemeanors”. In my view, the things included in this new Impeachment, by the House, do not meet the above constitutional definition.

      So, what is a “High Crime and Misdemeanor”? Here is my definition:

      1) The alleged Impeachable Actions must be actual crimes. They cannot merely be alleged bad thoughts or bad intentions. They must be crimes that were carried out, by the Impeached Official (or by Subordinates or associates of the Official) to completion.

      2) Furthermore, the alleged crimes must be Malum in Se (Evil in itself). They cannot merely be Malum Prohibitum acts (criminal only because they are technical violations of the law).

      3) Finally, the alleged crimes must be directly related to the official powers of the Impeached individual’s Public Office. They should not be unrelated to his official duties.

      If ALL THREE of the above criteria are met, then the “High Crime and Misdemeanors” requirement is met and Impeachment is not only valid but is actually REQUIRED by the House.

      So, how do these criteria work? President Clinton was Impeached for (1) Perjury and (2) Obstruction of Justice in covering up his Perjury. Was the House correct to Impeach him?

      Well, Criteria (1) is satisfied since Perjury and Obstruction of Justice are crimes. Also, I would argue that Criteria (2) was met since Perjury (under oath) and Obstruction of Justice are Malum in Se. However, Criteria (3) was not met since the reason for his criminal acts was a personal weakness in his character rather than a misuse of his official position. In other words, his crimes were not related to his official duties.

      So, under my criteria, the House was wrong to Impeach President Clinton and that is why the Impeachment ultimately failed in the Senate.

      The Impeachment of President Trump fails for different reasons. The root alleged action (interference in the upcoming 2020 election) is Malum in se. Also, the root alleged action involved the official use of his position as President.

      This Impeachment fails, however, because criteria (1) is not met. No actual criminal acts were committed. Merely alleging that the President WANTED to break the law is insufficient. Actual laws must be broken and, in this case, they WERE NOT! Given that this foundational requirement was not met, then everything else (including Obstruction of Congress which is NOT Malum in Se) also fails.

      The Impeachment of President Trump, like the previous Impeachment of President Clinton, fails to meet the Constitutional definition. Therefore, I am certain that this impeachment, like President Clinton’s, will also fail (as it should) in the Senate.

      The fact that the Democrats are so willing to toss the Constitution out the window, for this Impeachment, is (however) yet another symptom of their attack on and rejection of America as a Constitutional Republic.

      • In regard to the ongoing Senate trial of our president, most nonpartisan academic legal experts–which I am not–lately have explained that:

        1. The Constitution allows even a “duly elected” president to be impeached by the House of Representatives. If impeached, it’s then up to the Senate to hold a trial, decide whether to convict the president, and if that’s accomplished, remove the president from office.

        2. Probably for legal and political wiggle room, the Constitution’s “High Crimes and Misdemeanors” definition is intentionally vague and does not require that a crime to have been committed by the president for the purpose of impeachment.

        3. The Constitution’s “Abuse of Power” definition likewise covers a lot of presidential misconduct and bad behavior, which can be interpreted by a sitting Congress in regard to possible impeachment–and eventual removal.

        4. The overwhelming evidence, much of it circumstantial, revealed during the House’s recent impeachment hearings demonstrated that our “perfect” president most certainly did try to bribe a foreign government in order to smear a political opponent so the president could win his 2020 reelection campaign. This ignominious conduct–a foreign intrusion into American sovereignty and democracy–is forbidden by the Constitution and is certain grounds for impeachment and removal from office.

        5. Not surprisingly, our “highly intelligent” president declined to testify before the House (leaks from some of his prior attorneys indicated that they considered him to be a pathological liar and counseled him not to agree to be deposed or testify) and release subpoenaed documents, and he also forbade anyone in the White House to testify about this matter and others. Of course, he and his lackeys continue to bray that he is being unfairly treated, that all investigations into him are “witch hunts,” all his accusers are liars, and has had “no due process.”

        6. If fact witnesses such as John Bolton are allowed to testify in the current Senate trial then we can reasonably expect them to confirm that the “best president in American history” was indeed guilty of the unsavory behavior noted above.

        7. Not for a second does any thinking person believe that our Republican-controlled Senate would ever convict our “wonderful” president and can him. Before the Articles of Impeachment reached the Senate, the Senate Majority leader, “Moscow Mitch” McConnell, declared that he was not impartial, would not allow witnesses and evidence to be presented, and would be working hand-in-glove with the White House to defend our Orange president. If any court in the U.S. were presented with these biased and ridiculous circumstances, the case would be removed from that court and transferred to another for a fair and legal trial.

        8. Still, our “stable genius” president was formally impeached, a badge of great dishonor in that he’s only the third U.S. president to be so disgraced.

        Although I should know better by now, it shocks me that so many Americans continue to support this mendacious, inept scofflaw of a president. Future historians, I predict, will not be kind to us and wonder just what in the hell we were thinking when our benighted country put such a monster (and his gangster family) in the White House–and wanted to keep him there.

      • @ Spencer – “Probably for legal and political wiggle room, the Constitution’s “High Crimes and Misdemeanors” definition is intentionally vague and does not require that a crime to have been committed by the president for the purpose of impeachment.”

        I disagree. Consider the plain language of your statement above. You are (literally) saying that the term “High Crimes and Misdemeanors” does not actually refer to crime. I submit that, if the Founders did want an “anything goes” position, they would not have included such language as “High Crimes” at all.

        Also note that the Founders gave us two examples of “Crimes” that would clearly qualify for impeachment. These were treason and bribery.

        Acts of Treason, by a Public Official, would clearly meet the three criteria that I proposed, in my previous comment, and would clearly be “Crimes”.

        By bribery, the Founders clearly had in mind the common understanding, of that term, of someone bribing a Public Official to use the Power of his Office to grant favors to the one paying the bribe. This type of bribery would also clearly be a “crime” and would also clearly meet the three criteria proposed in my previous comment.

        You are confusing the “Power” to do an act with the “Wisdom” of doing it. I have the power to load up one of my guns and then shoot myself in the head with it. It would not, however, be an act of wisdom to do so!

        So, yes, the House of Representatives has the “Power”, assuming that a majority will vote for it, to impeach a President for daring to eat oysters in a month that does not have an “R” in it or even for daring to wear white socks with black dress shoes. However, in the use of this power, the House would be wise to follow the three guidelines that I listed above.

        As for the validity of the current Impeachment, it is all in the eye of the beholder. People, like yourself, who intensely dislike this President are eager to believe the worst of him. They look at the case assembled by the House and see an “open and shut” case. I would only note that, if it was so “open and shut”, it is strange that not one single Republican, in the House, voted for it. This is the only completely partisan Impeachment in history. In fact, the bipartisan vote, in the House, was AGAINST this Impeachment.

        I have read the transcript of the questionable call and followed a lot of the arguments made by both sides. I don’t see any Impeachable crimes (and I DO BELIEVE that a crime is NECESSARY despite all opinions to the contrary). All I see is a partisan effort to overturn the results of the 2016 Election by any means necessary. The Democrats were talking about Impeaching President Trump before he even took the Oath of Office. That is the true reason for this Impeachment IMO.

        Sorry, I don’t believe that your points truly reflect the reality of the situation. In any event, we are close to another Presidential Election and President Trump will soon stand for re-election. I would suggest that we let the voters decide. Maybe that is why the Democrats, and people like yourself, are so HOT for impeachment RIGHT NOW! Are you afraid to face the American People? Are you afraid of how they will vote come November?

        I think the Democrats are afraid. I think that they are very afraid! 🙂

      • Spencer,

        Gentlemen were unable to fix America, so we voted for Trump. The billionaire who should be enjoying a plush retirement is trying to help everyday Americans. So, would you prefer that Hillary had won in 2016? Would Hillary have ended the Islamic State Caliphate?

  29. The most important thing to remember in all of this, regardless of optics, people took the time to show up. The people who appeared to be ready for battle (and did not cause trouble) made a statement as significant (if not more so) as those who carried a sub-compact gun under a polo shirt.

    Those of you who care to issue derisive opinions, please do so only if you were there. And then, realize that showing up is what matters, not what you think of the optics.

  30. No need to be sorry, TN_MAN, we just disagree. Nonetheless, I defer to the positions of the vast majority of Constitutional scholars and law professors who assert that in regard to the Ukraine/Biden matter our president committed a gross abuse of power and continues mightily to cover it up.

    By the way, this is not the worst thing this president has done. Coming up soon could be more House impeachment hearings in regard to other much more serious presidential violations, many of which are unquestionably crimes of the highest magnitude.

    • @Spencer – “I defer to the positions of the vast majority of Constitutional scholars and law professors who assert that in regard to the Ukraine/Biden matter our president committed a gross abuse of power and continues mightily to cover it up.”

      The vast majority of Constitutional Scholars and law professors are left-wing in their political ideology. Academia overwhelmingly tends to support the Democratic Party. Even the New York Times admits this truth. See this link:

      https://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/18/education/republicans-outnumbered-in-academia-studies-find.html

      So, it is hardly an unbiased opinion that you are listing here. I have no doubt that the majority of them intensely hate President Trump and would say that he should be Impeached for any reason whatsoever. This would even include his tweets (ignoring Free Speech) or even for having orange hair.

      In other words, you are correct that we disagree. I DO NOT defer to the positions of such politically biased members of Academia.

      I have no doubt that you are correct that the Democrats, in the House of Representatives, would like to manufacture yet another Impeachment Case against President Trump. They may well try to do so. However, it won’t be a “Slam Dunk” to do it a second time. A second Impeachment will be seen (even more) as an Act of Desperation by most Americans. It will be increasingly difficult to justify such an action as we draw closer and closer to the 2020 Election. Furthermore, it would put a number of Democratic House Members at risk of being defeated since they will be standing for re-election in November 2020 too.

      Also, getting back to the earlier discussion about whether a crime is required for Impeachment, I would like to refer you to the last paragraph of Article III – Section 2 of the Constitution of the United States of America. It says:

      “The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment; shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by law have directed.”

      The main point of this paragraph is to establish the venue for criminal trials. Impeachment is excepted because it had already been earlier specified (in Article I – Section 3) that Impeachment Trials are to be held in the Senate. However, a couple of other points can be understood from this paragraph which are:

      1) The Founders equated an Impeachable Act with a Crime. In effect, they considered that an actual Crime was, indeed, necessary to trigger an Impeachment.

      2) Like any other Crime, a Trial was needed for Impeachment. The difference being that, since the Crimes leaded to Impeachment were committed by High Public Officials, the Trial for Impeachment was to be held in the Senate instead of an ordinary Court of Law at the State Level.

      This is just one more indication that, despite whatever opinion or theory Left-Wing Constitutional scholars and law professors advance, an actual CRIME is, indeed, needed for an Impeachment to be truly valid. At least, if you read the “Plain Language” of the Constitution without trying to “Word-Smith” or “Twist” it.

  31. Well, we agree to disagree. Still, if more impeachment inquiries are forthcoming one should be aware that the Dems likely would push them hard (the current lickspittle Repubs wouldn’t dare), though they would have no hope that such motions would result in convictions.

    Instead, those actions would continue to expose the exponential filth of the current occupant of the White House, with all of that leaking out in the media well up to the November election. None of this would help our brilliant president’s campaign, nor would it bode well for Republican members of Congress whose seats are up for reelection. Just my opinion, of course; yours undoubtedly will differ.

  32. Here’s what I’d like to see. Trump gets impeached in the Senate and removed from office. However, he is still allowed to run for President and wins in 2020. So he becomes the first President to be impeached and still win an election.

    This would mirror the early 1990s. Trump was a millionaire then, and became $70 million in debt. He got busy, and came back as a billionaire. That comeback was the mark of a winner.

    I just looked it up and Trump can indeed run for re-election even if impeached. I was going to say if he was disqualified from running, then the citizens could simply make him King for four years. (I’m just kidding!)

    But seriously, we need to think about where this country would be if Donald was not President. Hint: Look at cities which have been run by Democrats for decades.

    • @ Roger Willco – “But seriously, we need to think about where this country would be if Donald was not President. Hint: Look at cities which have been run by Democrats for decades.”

      Not only cities. You can look at the entire State of California.

      Here, this video will prove to be an excellent “Visual Aid” in thinking about “where this country would be if Donald was not President”. Better watch it quick before YouTube takes it down! Enjoy! 🙂

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lK2Mc6mLCCY&feature=youtu.be

  33. TN_MAN,

    That was a great video! In 2024 the Republicans need to run a handicapped, wheelchair bound, female Eskimo or Inuit for President. The media would be afraid to criticize her. Democrats would feel ashamed if they did not vote for her.

    • Wishful thinking, Roger!

      If the Republicans did run a wheelchair bound, female Intuit for President, the Democrats would simply run a smear campaign against her to invalidate her with the voters.

      Let me see, what would it be? I have it! They would produce a witness (of the Christine Blasey Ford type) who would make allegations that, 30 years ago (prior to her being wheelchair bound), she had seen the Republican Candidate take part in a baby seal hunt. This witness would describe, in a hurt, little-girl voice, how she had seen the Republican Candidate club multiple baby seals to death with her own hands. She would describe how traumatized she was by this event and how she could still see, even 30 years later, the smashed and bloody heads of all those poor baby seals. 🙁

      The event would have been so traumatic, in fact, that the witness spent years undergoing psychiatric treatment afterwards. She would then produce some hand-written notes which, she says, are her doctor’s notes from the case and which document her claims.

      Outside of these unverified notes, there would be no other proof but, the news media would proclaim, that did not matter. What was really important was the “seriousness” of these new allegations.

      The resulting smear campaign would give all of the Democratic zombies all the justification that they needed to vote against the Republican Inuit candidate.

      Nice try but, because they own the media, we will never beat the Democrats at their own PC game. Instead of playing on their field, we need to make the Democrats play on ours!

      • TN_MAN,

        You are right. We are doomed to live in a Democrat Worker’s Paradise. Going downhill is easier than going uphill.

        I might as well learn the new Pledge of Allegiance. “I pledge allegiance, to the Democrat Party, and its spiritual parents Darwin, Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Gramsci, Soros, Lennon, Hoffman, Ginsberg and Chomski. And to their flag bearers in the media. I promise to render all obedience to their commands, to live my life according to their teachings, and to change my thoughts and ways the very instant they make a new pronouncement. I abhor and reject all other worldviews. Those who believe untruths about the party are racists who are not to be tolerated. I will work to make the whole planet one beautiful paradise for all Democrat Party members. One world, under Communism, from each according to her ability, to each, according to her needs, desires and wants.”

    • @ Roger Willco:

      I was not counseling despair in my above comment. Rather, I was trying to follow Sun Tzu who said, and I quote:

      “He who knows when he can fight and when he cannot, will be victorious.”

      The American Left will ultimately fail. How do I know this? Answer: Because the Left always fails. Their polices are incompatible with human nature and are, therefore, always doomed to ultimate failure. They have been tried in dozens of countries over the last 150 years (or so) without generating a single real success. Probably the most successful case has been China which retains the structure of left-wing leadership. However, please note that China’s economy does not follow left-wing Socialist/Communist principles. Once Mao died, the Chinese were wise enough to restructure their economy on Capitalism. By doing so, they managed to recover (somewhat) from the damage inflicted by Mao and his left-wing ideology.

      In fact, history teaches us that, when left-wing polices totally dominate a country, the result is a smashed and ruined country. Venezuela is but the most recent example on a long list.

      So, the ultimate failure of the American Left is guaranteed. The only real questions are: Can we trigger a premature failure of the American Left, thereby saving America from rack and ruin? Or will we let the cancer fully metastasize so that America gets the full “Venezuela” (or, maybe, California) treatment and suffers ruin before the Left’s failure becomes clear?

      A wise Doctor will try to catch and treat the disease early so that the patient will not have to endure great suffering as the disease runs wild.

      Ultimately, the Left-Wing Ideology is self-correcting (like the flu virus). It runs its course in one country then moves on to infect fresh victims elsewhere. However, the harm that it inflicts can cripple a nation for decades and, sometimes, it leaves a weakness that is almost permanent. Examples: Cuba and Vietnam.

      In other words, Socialism/Communism is an infectious, Ideological disease. It is highly contagious and previous outbreaks managed to kill over 100 million human beings during the 20th Century alone. Sadly, America has become infected with this disease. Can we quarantine and isolate this disease before it runs wild and the death count mounts? That is the question.

      Here, today, we are all worried about the new coronavirus when, in fact, the older and far deadlier disease of left-wing ideology is loose upon the land. I think we are worrying about the wrong disease!

      • TN_MAN,

        You are right as usual. Notice how Kim Jong Un is right there, China’s closest neighbor. He has seen the success China has had since it adopted state capitalism. He has seen how the wealth produced by the people can be used for military spending. And yet there is that tyrannical wretch, keeping his boot on the necks OF HIS OWN PEOPLE! Only he can be on top. Only he can be fat in North Korea, and only he gets to have his own way. He’s the living embodiment of Dr. Evil.

        You would think he would give his people enough freedom, so they could produce wealth, and then he could use that wealth to buy more toys (weapons). But he is such a jerk that he won’t even free his people when their freedom would help him. Sad. Imagine what he could do with a high-tech surveillance state and a military like ours. Sic Semper Tyrannis!