No Liberal Should Read This, No Kidding...
Feb 23, 2015 22:28:31 #
Don G. Dinsdale
Loc: El Cajon, CA (San Diego County)
43% of Democrats Believe Obama Should Have Right to Ignore the Courts
By Gary DeMar - Feb 23, 2015
Liberals have attacked Chief Justice Roy Moore for standing his ground against federal encroachment on the state of Alabama. Moore has made a constitutional case for his stand based on the fact that the federal constitution does not mention marriage, and what the Constitution does not mention, the courts have no right to regulate. In addition, the Tenth Amendment makes it clear that powers not enumerated in Constitution remain with the states:
Finally, marriage is a God-defined ordinance that should be protected and guarded by the civil magistrates.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
Moore is arguing constitutionally. Hes following the law as it is written. Hes functioning as a duly elected judicial representative of the state of Alabama that v**ed overwhelmingly (81%) to forbid same-sex marriage.
Read more: Alabama Governor Says He Would Never . . . Disobey a Federal Court Ruling
Now we learn that a good percent of likely v**ers . . . think that the President should have the right to ignore court rulings if they stand in the way of actions he feels are important. The numbers are higher when only Democrats are factored in:
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 26% of Likely U.S. V**ers think the president should have the right to ignore federal court rulings if they are standing in the way of actions he feels are important for the country
But perhaps more unsettling to supporters of constitutional checks and balances is the finding that 43% of Democrats believe the president should have the right to ignore the courts. Only 35% of v**ers in President Obamas party disagree, compared to 81% of Republicans and 67% of v**ers not affiliated with either major party
While 72% of GOP v**ers and 63% of affiliates believe it is more important to preserve our constitutional system of checks and balances than for the federal government to operate efficiently, Democrats are evenly divided
Women and younger v**ers feel more strongly than men and those 40 and older that the president should have the right to ignore federal court rulings. Black v**ers believe that more than w****s and other minority v**ers do.
While Roy Moore is following the law as written, a majority of Democrats have not offered a single constitutional justification for a president to ignore the decisions of the courts.
As long as their president is implementing their goals, they have happy with his unilateral executive decisions.
Its not enough to argue that president should have the right to ignore federal court rulings if they are standing in the way of actions he feels are important for the country. Adolf Hitler, Fidel Castro, and Josef Stalin believed that their actions were important for their country. Once in power, dictators can eliminate any checks and balances that were put into place in order to dilute the authority of a president. He can do this based on the operating premise that they would inhibit him from doing what he believes is best for the country.
Read more: Southern Baptist Leader Says Roy Moore Should Comply with Judges Order or Resign
The reason written constitutions were implemented was so the whims and fancies of political leaders would be stopped. As Raoul Berger has written:
Fearful of the greedy lust for ever more power, the Founders resorted to a written Constitution in order, Chief Justice Marshall stated, to define and limit the power they delegated, reflected in Jeffersons urgent admonition to bind the delegates down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.
If it was to serve its purpose, the Constitution had to be fixed, unalterable save by amendment, the more so because it expressed the consent of the people, who chose to be governed, in the words of a prominent Founder, James Iredell, under such and such principles. They have not chosen to be governed or promised to submit upon any other.
~ Barack Obama, Fabian Socialist ~
By Jerry Bowyer - February 23, 2015
Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani's comments about questioning President Obama's love for America are getting a lot of attention. While it's OK to question George Bush's patriotism, liberal presidents can never be questioned about their operating worldviews.
Jesus said, "No one can serve two masters; for either he will h**e the one and love the other, or he will be dev**ed to one and despise the other" (Matt. 6:24).
What master does Obama serve? That's the real question.
The following essay was written by Jerry Bowyer for Forbes in 2008. We were warned. -- Gary DeMar
_________________
Barack Obama is a Fabian socialist. I should know; I was raised by one. My Grandfather worked as a union machinist for Ingersoll Rand during the day. In the evenings he tended bar and read books. After his funeral, I went back home and started working my way through his library, starting with T.W. Arnolds The Folklore of Capitalism. This was my introduction to the Fabian socialists.
Fabians believed in gradual nationalization of the economy through manipulation of the democratic process. Breaking away from the violent revolutionary socialists of their day, they thought that the only real way to effect fundamental change and social justice was through a mass movement of the working classes presided over by intellectual and cultural elites.
Before TV it was stage plays, written by George Bernard Shaw and thousands of inferior realist playwrights dedicated to social change. John Cusacks character in Woody Allens Bullets Over Broadway captures the movement rather well.
Arnold taught me to question everyonemy president, my priest and my parents. Well, almost everyone. I wasnt supposed to question the Fabian intellectuals themselves. Thats the Fabian MO, relentless cultural and journalistic attacks on everything that is, and then a hard pitch for the hope of what might be.
Thats Obamas World
Hes telling the t***h when he says that he doesnt agree with Bill Ayers violent bombing tactics, but its a tactical disagreement. Why use dynamite when mass media and community organizing work so much better? Who needs Molotov when youve got Saul Alinsky?
So here is the playbook: The left will identify, freeze, personalize and polarize an industry, probably health care. It will attempt to nationalize one-fifth of the U.S. economy through legislative action. They will focus, as Lenin did, on the commanding heights of the economy, not the little guy.
As Obama said, the smallest businesses will be exempt from fines for not doing the right thing in offering employer-based health care coverage. Health will not be nationalized in one fell swoop; they have been studying the failures of Hillarycare. Instead, a parallel system will be created, funded by surcharges on business payroll, which will be superior to many private plans.
The old system will be forced to subsidize the new system and there will be a gradual shift from the former to the latter. The only coercion will be the fines, not the participation. A middle-class entitlement will have been created.
It may not be health care first; it might be energy, though I suspect that energy will be nationalized much more gradually. The offshore drilling ban that was allowed to lapse legislatively will be reinstated through executive means. It may be an executive order, but might just as well be a permit reviewing system that theoretically allows drilling but with endless levels of objection and appeal from anti-growth groups. Wind and solar, on the other hand, will have no permitting problems at all, and a heavy taxpayer subsidy at their backs.
The banking system has already been partially nationalized. Bush and Paulson intend for their share purchases to be only non-v****g preferred shares, but the law does not specify that. How hard will it be for Obama, new holder of $700 billion in bank equity, to demand accountability and a voice for the taxpayers?
The capital markets are not freezing up now, mostly because of what has happened, although community organizers multi decade push for affirmative-action mortgages has done enormous harm to the credit system. Markets are forward looking.
A quick review of the socialist takeovers in Venezuela in 1999, Spain in 2004 and Italy in 2006 show the same patternequity markets do most of their plummeting before the Chavezs of the world take power. Investors anticipate the policy shift in advance; thats their job.
Its not just equity markets, though; debt markets do the same thing. Everywhere I turn I hear complaints about bankers hoarding capital. Hoarding is a word weve heard often from violent socialists like Lenin and Mao. We also hear it from the democratic left as we did during the 1930s in America. The banks, were told, are greedy and miserly, holding onto capital that should be deployed into the marketplace.
Well, which is it, miserly or greedy? They're not the same thing. Banks make money borrowing low and lending high. In fact, they can borrow very, very low right now, as they could during the Great Depression.
So why dont they lend? Because socialism is a very unkind environment for lenders. Some of the most powerful members of Congress are speaking openly about repudiating mortgage covenants. Local officials have already done so by simply refusing to foreclose on highly delinquent borrowers. Then, theres the oldest form of debt repudiation, inflation. Even if you get your money back, it will not be worth anything. Who would want to lend in an environment like this?
Will Obamas be the strong-man socialism of a Chavez, or the soft socialism that Clement Atlee used to defeat Churchill after WWII? I dont know, but I suspect something kind of in between. Despite right-wing predictions that we wont see Rush shut down by Fairness Doctrine f*****ts. We wont see Baptist ministers hauled off in handcuffs for anti-sodomy sermons. It will more likely be a matter of paperwork. Strong worded letters from powerful lawyers in and out of government to program directors and general managers of radio stations. Ominous references to license renewal.
The psychic propaganda assault will be powerful. The cyber-brown-shirts will spew h**e, the union guys will flood talk shows with switchboard-collapsing swarms of complaint calls aimed at those hosts who go beyond the pale in their criticisms of Obama. In concert with pop culture outlets like The Daily Show and SNL, Obama will use his podium to humiliate and demonize those of us who dont want to come together and heal the planet.
Youve heard of the bully pulpit, right? Well, then get ready, because youre about to see the bully part.
By Gary DeMar - Feb 23, 2015
Liberals have attacked Chief Justice Roy Moore for standing his ground against federal encroachment on the state of Alabama. Moore has made a constitutional case for his stand based on the fact that the federal constitution does not mention marriage, and what the Constitution does not mention, the courts have no right to regulate. In addition, the Tenth Amendment makes it clear that powers not enumerated in Constitution remain with the states:
Finally, marriage is a God-defined ordinance that should be protected and guarded by the civil magistrates.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
Moore is arguing constitutionally. Hes following the law as it is written. Hes functioning as a duly elected judicial representative of the state of Alabama that v**ed overwhelmingly (81%) to forbid same-sex marriage.
Read more: Alabama Governor Says He Would Never . . . Disobey a Federal Court Ruling
Now we learn that a good percent of likely v**ers . . . think that the President should have the right to ignore court rulings if they stand in the way of actions he feels are important. The numbers are higher when only Democrats are factored in:
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 26% of Likely U.S. V**ers think the president should have the right to ignore federal court rulings if they are standing in the way of actions he feels are important for the country
But perhaps more unsettling to supporters of constitutional checks and balances is the finding that 43% of Democrats believe the president should have the right to ignore the courts. Only 35% of v**ers in President Obamas party disagree, compared to 81% of Republicans and 67% of v**ers not affiliated with either major party
While 72% of GOP v**ers and 63% of affiliates believe it is more important to preserve our constitutional system of checks and balances than for the federal government to operate efficiently, Democrats are evenly divided
Women and younger v**ers feel more strongly than men and those 40 and older that the president should have the right to ignore federal court rulings. Black v**ers believe that more than w****s and other minority v**ers do.
While Roy Moore is following the law as written, a majority of Democrats have not offered a single constitutional justification for a president to ignore the decisions of the courts.
As long as their president is implementing their goals, they have happy with his unilateral executive decisions.
Its not enough to argue that president should have the right to ignore federal court rulings if they are standing in the way of actions he feels are important for the country. Adolf Hitler, Fidel Castro, and Josef Stalin believed that their actions were important for their country. Once in power, dictators can eliminate any checks and balances that were put into place in order to dilute the authority of a president. He can do this based on the operating premise that they would inhibit him from doing what he believes is best for the country.
Read more: Southern Baptist Leader Says Roy Moore Should Comply with Judges Order or Resign
The reason written constitutions were implemented was so the whims and fancies of political leaders would be stopped. As Raoul Berger has written:
Fearful of the greedy lust for ever more power, the Founders resorted to a written Constitution in order, Chief Justice Marshall stated, to define and limit the power they delegated, reflected in Jeffersons urgent admonition to bind the delegates down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.
If it was to serve its purpose, the Constitution had to be fixed, unalterable save by amendment, the more so because it expressed the consent of the people, who chose to be governed, in the words of a prominent Founder, James Iredell, under such and such principles. They have not chosen to be governed or promised to submit upon any other.
~ Barack Obama, Fabian Socialist ~
By Jerry Bowyer - February 23, 2015
Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani's comments about questioning President Obama's love for America are getting a lot of attention. While it's OK to question George Bush's patriotism, liberal presidents can never be questioned about their operating worldviews.
Jesus said, "No one can serve two masters; for either he will h**e the one and love the other, or he will be dev**ed to one and despise the other" (Matt. 6:24).
What master does Obama serve? That's the real question.
The following essay was written by Jerry Bowyer for Forbes in 2008. We were warned. -- Gary DeMar
_________________
Barack Obama is a Fabian socialist. I should know; I was raised by one. My Grandfather worked as a union machinist for Ingersoll Rand during the day. In the evenings he tended bar and read books. After his funeral, I went back home and started working my way through his library, starting with T.W. Arnolds The Folklore of Capitalism. This was my introduction to the Fabian socialists.
Fabians believed in gradual nationalization of the economy through manipulation of the democratic process. Breaking away from the violent revolutionary socialists of their day, they thought that the only real way to effect fundamental change and social justice was through a mass movement of the working classes presided over by intellectual and cultural elites.
Before TV it was stage plays, written by George Bernard Shaw and thousands of inferior realist playwrights dedicated to social change. John Cusacks character in Woody Allens Bullets Over Broadway captures the movement rather well.
Arnold taught me to question everyonemy president, my priest and my parents. Well, almost everyone. I wasnt supposed to question the Fabian intellectuals themselves. Thats the Fabian MO, relentless cultural and journalistic attacks on everything that is, and then a hard pitch for the hope of what might be.
Thats Obamas World
Hes telling the t***h when he says that he doesnt agree with Bill Ayers violent bombing tactics, but its a tactical disagreement. Why use dynamite when mass media and community organizing work so much better? Who needs Molotov when youve got Saul Alinsky?
So here is the playbook: The left will identify, freeze, personalize and polarize an industry, probably health care. It will attempt to nationalize one-fifth of the U.S. economy through legislative action. They will focus, as Lenin did, on the commanding heights of the economy, not the little guy.
As Obama said, the smallest businesses will be exempt from fines for not doing the right thing in offering employer-based health care coverage. Health will not be nationalized in one fell swoop; they have been studying the failures of Hillarycare. Instead, a parallel system will be created, funded by surcharges on business payroll, which will be superior to many private plans.
The old system will be forced to subsidize the new system and there will be a gradual shift from the former to the latter. The only coercion will be the fines, not the participation. A middle-class entitlement will have been created.
It may not be health care first; it might be energy, though I suspect that energy will be nationalized much more gradually. The offshore drilling ban that was allowed to lapse legislatively will be reinstated through executive means. It may be an executive order, but might just as well be a permit reviewing system that theoretically allows drilling but with endless levels of objection and appeal from anti-growth groups. Wind and solar, on the other hand, will have no permitting problems at all, and a heavy taxpayer subsidy at their backs.
The banking system has already been partially nationalized. Bush and Paulson intend for their share purchases to be only non-v****g preferred shares, but the law does not specify that. How hard will it be for Obama, new holder of $700 billion in bank equity, to demand accountability and a voice for the taxpayers?
The capital markets are not freezing up now, mostly because of what has happened, although community organizers multi decade push for affirmative-action mortgages has done enormous harm to the credit system. Markets are forward looking.
A quick review of the socialist takeovers in Venezuela in 1999, Spain in 2004 and Italy in 2006 show the same patternequity markets do most of their plummeting before the Chavezs of the world take power. Investors anticipate the policy shift in advance; thats their job.
Its not just equity markets, though; debt markets do the same thing. Everywhere I turn I hear complaints about bankers hoarding capital. Hoarding is a word weve heard often from violent socialists like Lenin and Mao. We also hear it from the democratic left as we did during the 1930s in America. The banks, were told, are greedy and miserly, holding onto capital that should be deployed into the marketplace.
Well, which is it, miserly or greedy? They're not the same thing. Banks make money borrowing low and lending high. In fact, they can borrow very, very low right now, as they could during the Great Depression.
So why dont they lend? Because socialism is a very unkind environment for lenders. Some of the most powerful members of Congress are speaking openly about repudiating mortgage covenants. Local officials have already done so by simply refusing to foreclose on highly delinquent borrowers. Then, theres the oldest form of debt repudiation, inflation. Even if you get your money back, it will not be worth anything. Who would want to lend in an environment like this?
Will Obamas be the strong-man socialism of a Chavez, or the soft socialism that Clement Atlee used to defeat Churchill after WWII? I dont know, but I suspect something kind of in between. Despite right-wing predictions that we wont see Rush shut down by Fairness Doctrine f*****ts. We wont see Baptist ministers hauled off in handcuffs for anti-sodomy sermons. It will more likely be a matter of paperwork. Strong worded letters from powerful lawyers in and out of government to program directors and general managers of radio stations. Ominous references to license renewal.
The psychic propaganda assault will be powerful. The cyber-brown-shirts will spew h**e, the union guys will flood talk shows with switchboard-collapsing swarms of complaint calls aimed at those hosts who go beyond the pale in their criticisms of Obama. In concert with pop culture outlets like The Daily Show and SNL, Obama will use his podium to humiliate and demonize those of us who dont want to come together and heal the planet.
Youve heard of the bully pulpit, right? Well, then get ready, because youre about to see the bully part.
Feb 23, 2015 23:14:30 #
Read Rasmussen's article on this poll!
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/february_2015/should_obama_ignore_the_federal_courts
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/february_2015/should_obama_ignore_the_federal_courts
Don G. Dinsdale wrote:
43% of Democrats Believe Obama Should Have Right t... (show quote)
Feb 24, 2015 00:48:35 #
Don G. Dinsdale wrote:
43% of Democrats Believe Obama Should Have Right t... (show quote)
Two words.
Useful i***ts.
We'll see a dictatorship in my life time. Count on it.
Feb 24, 2015 03:06:26 #
Don G. Dinsdale
Loc: El Cajon, CA (San Diego County)
Raylan Wolfe wrote:
Read Rasmussen's article on this poll!
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/february_2015/should_obama_ignore_the_federal_courts
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/february_2015/should_obama_ignore_the_federal_courts
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Thanks I did... Don D.
Feb 24, 2015 06:07:30 #
OBAMA IS NOT AN EMPEROR.THESE R****DOCRATS NEED TO GO TO CHURCH EVERY NOW AND THEN THEY'LL LEARN THEREIS ONLY ONE GOD AND OBAMA ISN'T IT
Feb 24, 2015 06:11:34 #
Feb 24, 2015 07:29:09 #
BOHICA wrote:
Two words.
Useful i***ts.
We'll see a dictatorship in my life time. Count on it.
Useful i***ts.
We'll see a dictatorship in my life time. Count on it.
100% of the ELWNJS who post here believe he should be able to ignore laws and the Constitution.
Feb 24, 2015 08:00:31 #
robmull
Loc: florida
Liberty Tree wrote:
100% of the ELWNJS who post here believe he should be able to ignore laws and the Constitution.
Much the same as the % of Muslims who believe in Sharia law and that annihilating all other races and religions, Liberty Tree, is the "in stone" [Koran] demand of Allah.
Now that "ozombies" have joined with OWS and OWS has merged with MB, CAIR, ISNA, MOB, MPAC, MSA and the New [Muslim] Black Panther Party; overtly financed by the CPUSA and the SPUSA. Bad, bad move. Alinsky and Marx are turning-over in [their] graves. THIS time {it} was SUPPOSED to work!!!
Such a simple plan to o*******w Western civilization, and incompetence rules the day; again. Can't these "useful i***ts" do ANYTHING right??? Exposing the "movement" was not supposed to happen for years. Stupid, stupid, stupid.
Feb 24, 2015 10:14:08 #
Don G. Dinsdale
Loc: El Cajon, CA (San Diego County)
My numbers may be incorrect, but it seems to me about 3/4 of the people on OPP see Obama as some type of t*****r to either his oath of office or the Constitution or the Nation in general... And if these % hold true across the land with others, why haven't our Senators and Congressmen done something about it, like a censure at least??? So much "bull" going on I wonder if any of those jerks can be trusted to represent "We the People!"... Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr... Don D.
Feb 24, 2015 10:33:48 #
Don G. Dinsdale wrote:
My numbers may be incorrect, but it seems to me about 3/4 of the people on OPP see Obama as some type of t*****r to either his oath of office or the Constitution or the Nation in general... And if these % hold true across the land with others, why haven't our Senators and Congressmen done something about it, like a censure at least??? So much "bull" going on I wonder if any of those jerks can be trusted to represent "We the People!"... Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr... Don D.
The majority of Congress is made up of Democrats, RINOS who secretly agree with most of Obama's agenda, and Republicans with no backbone. The few who see the coming storms and try to speak out get hit from both sides.
Feb 24, 2015 13:54:20 #
Don G. Dinsdale wrote:
43% of Democrats Believe Obama Should Have Right t... (show quote)
This whole thing is ridiculous. 20 years there was no federal or state law dictating what marriage is. The only "laws" on the matter were in the church, where such laws regarding personal faith belong. So whether or not a gay or lesbian couple can be married has always been a matter of their own personal choice in faith... as in, freedom of religion... something the Christian Right seems to misinterpret as freedom to push their own religion on everyone else.
I have personal experience with this... My wife is RC and I am protestant. Because of this, the RC church refused to recognized our marriage. That wasn't a problem for us because we live in country that separates church and state and allows us to follow the rules of which ever religion we choose and my wife certainly had no problem renouncing the dictates of the RC church.
Since same-sex couples in Alabama were obviously doing the same thing my wife and I did, some people, whom I can only describe as religious tyrants, decided to write a new state law that never existed before. This law forces everyone to comply with the laws of THEIR religion. This is EXACTLY what the Pilgrims were escaping when they came to America. Religious tyranny enforced by the state. And freedom from religious tyranny is one of the pillars of the American ideal as ratified by the Constitution in the 1st Amendment.
It is my opinion that this alone makes the state law in Alabama unconstitutional AND grossly un-American.
It seems I am not alone. The U.S. District Court also judged the Alabama state law as unconstitutional and has issued a directive that the probate courts are not bound to it. Moore is arguing that the probate courts are not bound to the directive either until a decision is made by the Supreme Court. Obama is apparently saying Moore is wrong. Personally, I'm not clear on that technicality, but what I do know is that 48 out of the 62 counties in the state are taking advantage of federal judgement to ignore the state law and issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples anyway, which indicates a significant and understandable disrespect for that ridiculous state law.
Feb 24, 2015 14:08:52 #
Don G. Dinsdale wrote:
My numbers may be incorrect, but it seems to me about 3/4 of the people on OPP see Obama as some type of t*****r to either his oath of office or the Constitution or the Nation in general... And if these % hold true across the land with others, why haven't our Senators and Congressmen done something about it, like a censure at least??? So much "bull" going on I wonder if any of those jerks can be trusted to represent "We the People!"... Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr... Don D.
Thing is Don... that % does NOT hold true across the land. OPP is a gathering of politically opinionated people and like most gatherings one perspective or another tends to dominate. There are plenty of other sites where most of the people have liberal views and they don't represent a nation-wide ratio either. The closest indicator we have are the national e******ns, which tells us that most people who cared enough to v**e favored Obama in 2008 and again in 2012. I'm sure that if he were allowed to run again in 2016 we would see the same result.
Feb 24, 2015 14:44:41 #
Don G. Dinsdale wrote:
My numbers may be incorrect, but it seems to me about 3/4 of the people on OPP see Obama as some type of t*****r to either his oath of office or the Constitution or the Nation in general... And if these % hold true across the land with others, why haven't our Senators and Congressmen done something about it, like a censure at least??? So much "bull" going on I wonder if any of those jerks can be trusted to represent "We the People!"... Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr... Don D.
Also, any legal action that Congress can take would have to be based on matters of law, not the opinions of the largest mob. So even if 3/4 of the American public *did* share the opinion that Obama is a t*****r, Congress would still need to follow due process which means it would have to be legally proven, which no one has been able to do yet.
I guess that's the challenge of proving something that isn't true. And for those who want Obama to go down as a t*****r simply because they don't like him, I'm sure it's a frustrating experience.
Feb 24, 2015 14:48:33 #
Don G. Dinsdale wrote:
My numbers may be incorrect, but it seems to me about 3/4 of the people on OPP see Obama as some type of t*****r to either his oath of office or the Constitution or the Nation in general... And if these % hold true across the land with others, why haven't our Senators and Congressmen done something about it, like a censure at least??? So much "bull" going on I wonder if any of those jerks can be trusted to represent "We the People!"... Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr... Don D.
There is nothing that Obama could do that would cause the Dems in the Senate to convict him and he knows it.
Feb 24, 2015 14:52:36 #
Liberty Tree wrote:
There is nothing that Obama could do that would cause the Dems in the Senate to convict him and he knows it.
That doesn't matter. It's the House that has the power to impeach the president and despite the control the Republicans have had over the House for years now they STILL can't make a case.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.