“Merry Impeachmas!” A celebration of impeachment and Christmas?

That greeting, “Merry Impeachmas,” is a comment from a reporter at The Washington Post, celebrating either the impeachment of the president, or the end of a long day, depending upon whether you believe the Post VP’s explanation.

The impeachment process, so far three months long, is an exercise in futility, desperation, and division. The only good thing about this wasteful exercise is the embarrassing lack of evidence against President Donald Trump.

After the vote last week by the House of Representatives to impeach the president, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., still has not delivered the articles of impeachment to the Senate so it can do its part of the process. She didn’t do that, she said, because she is waiting to be sure the process in the Senate is a fair one.

How interesting. Fairness only became of interest to her after the House impeachment hearings broke records for unfairness. Due process — a major element of American jurisprudence where each side has the same rights — was happily shoved into the corner by the majority party. 

Republicans were denied being able to call witnesses, and Intelligence Committee Chair Adam Schiff, D-Calif., was not the least bit shy about telling witnesses not to answer questions from Republican Committee members.

But even though House Democrats denied due process to President Trump and House Republicans, Pelosi insists on fairness for Democrats in the Republican-controlled Senate phase, apparently believing that she controls the Senate, too.

It is appropriate to ask, if Trump is such a bad president, and if he has actually done anything warranting impeachment and removal from office, why wouldn’t Democrats make sure the process is excruciatingly fair and just to preclude claims of bias and discrimination? Because their case is paper thin. Due process was tossed out to make their job easier.

Contrary to Trump’s insistence, the phone call with Ukraine President Zelensky, a major focus of Democrats, was not perfect. But it was not a quid pro quo, nor was it bribery. Zelensky denies being pressured; he did not know the aid was being withheld until after the call; all of the aid was provided, and all but a little of it was provided on time.

The thing that got this case started, the so-called “whistleblower,” was not in on the phone call, and only knew what he/she heard about the call from others: hearsay. Most Democrat witnesses were unable to provide anything other than hearsay, deeply held hopes and wishes, exaggerations and no real or persuasive evidence. This explains why Democrat leaders are so afraid for the whistleblower to testify. 

They don’t admit that, of course. Instead, they say they don’t want him/her to become a target. However, a whistleblower’s identity is not protected; he/she is protected only from workplace retaliation, and is not protected from testifying, or from criminal charges, if appropriate.

Congress approved the foreign aid to Ukraine. However, most people understand the president has the duty to ascertain that the country receiving our money is behaving appropriately. 

Democrats allege that Trump held up aid unless Ukraine did certain things, including looking into possible corruption involving then-Vice President Joe Biden and his son, Hunter, who had an extraordinarily odd relationship with a Ukrainian company.

Using the fact that Joe Biden is a potential Trump opponent for the presidency, they assert that Trump wanted to investigate a political rival. However, at the time, Biden was just one of 24 Democrats seeking the nomination, not THE nominee, thus not yet really a political rival. Further, being a political rival does not immunize one from investigation of possible corruption.

Biden admitted — bragged about — withholding aid to Ukraine when he was Vice President unless a Ukrainian prosecutor, who was looking into the company that paid Biden’s son millions to be on its board of directors, was fired. The prosecutor was fired. The video of Biden telling this story has been played frequently, and that this occurred is not in question.

Biden actually issued a real quid pro quo, and bragged about doing so. And, the relationship between the Ukrainian company and the Vice President’s son was a legitimate focus of an investigation of corruption in Ukraine involving Joe and Hunter prior to the 2016 election.

This entire exercise appears to be a hard-feelings effort to undo the legitimate election of Donald Trump to the presidency. Its credibility is further damaged by talk of impeachment back when Trump was still a candidate, and again the day after the election, before he was sworn in.

Texas Democrat Rep. Al Green said, “I’m concerned if we don’t impeach this president, he will get re-elected.” The fear of losing again in 2020 is not grounds for impeachment. He also said that if Trump wins in 2020, he can be impeached again. And Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler, D-NY, said: “Our next election is at risk … That is why we must act now.”

Leaving aside for the moment the impeachment, things are going pretty well for our country. Even CNN, a ranking anti-Trump network, acknowledged that the US economy has earned its highest ratings in almost two decades. 

Too much success is bad for the Democrats, and demands impeachment.

Impeachment effort is falling short of Constitutional standards

Democrats have wanted to impeach President Donald Trump for a long time. Here is some background on the process.

Impeachment allows Congress to remove the President, Vice President or any civil officer of the United States. This is the fourth attempted impeachment of a president in our history. 

The Constitution says the House of Representatives may begin impeachment proceedings when it believes some official has committed treason, bribery, or a high crime or misdemeanor. Treason and bribery are well defined. However, high crimes and misdemeanors are not well defined.

After investigation the House may vote to impeach. If the measure passes, the U.S. Senate holds a trial, and if it convicts the accused, he or she is removed from office and may not hold any such U.S. office in the future. If the Senate does not convict, the impeached official remains in office.

In reality, the House can impeach an official merely by voting to do so, whether or not an impeachable offense has been proved, or even identified. All that is important is whether the vote to impeach passes. Such a situation, however, is not what the Constitution intends. 

Enemies of Donald Trump began calling for his impeachment immediately after he won the 2016 presidential election and before he had even taken the oath of office. Investigations of him and his campaign began in July 2016, when the FBI began investigating Russia’s attempt to influence the 2016 presidential election, including whether Trump’s campaign was involved in those efforts.

Investigations of one sort or another have been going on ever since. The House Judiciary Committee chaired by Rep. Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., is now holding hearings on impeachment, following the highly partisan, one-sided episodes in the House Intelligence Committee, chaired by Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif.

Conventional wisdom holds that the House Democrat majority will vote to impeach Trump, but that the Republican controlled Senate will not vote to convict. This means Trump will remain in office, and will run for, and quite possibly win, reelection.

Of the many Trump offenses, real and imagined, the one currently being pursued involves a phone call to Ukrainian President Zelensky. 

During the call, the official transcript shows Trump asking for help in investigating the election irregularities: “I would like you to do us a favor, though, because our country has been through a lot, and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine …”

And later, he asks for assistance with potential corruption on the part of former Vice President, Joe Biden. “The other thing, there’s a lot of talk about Biden’s son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that, so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution, so if you can look into it … It sounds horrible to me.”

Congressionally approved financial aid was put on hold prior to the phone call. Democrats think this indicates a “quid pro quo,” a “this for that” arrangement between Trump and Zelensky.

After the term “quid pro quo” failed to get adequate public interest, the charge was changed to bribery. However, in either case, Zelensky would have to be aware that the aid was on hold pending his assistance. For one to be bribed, one must know what the other party wants, and what it will pay for it.

Zelenskyy has at least twice said he was not aware of the aid being put on hold until long after the phone call. Further, the aid was provided, and the investigation of Biden was never done. Zelensky has also denied being pressured to do anything.

During the hearings, witnesses, many of whom had impressive credentials, testified. Like the infamous whistleblower, most were not on the call. Their testimony consisted of what someone told them about the call, or what they imagined had occurred. Two witnesses who were on the call essentially said they didn’t like the content, or were uncomfortable with it.

House Democrats want you to believe that Trump’s behavior as president is impeachable. 

However, a look a history shows that to be a gross exaggeration.

Examples of actual bad behavior include:

* John Adams and Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus, the latter without any congressional approval.

* Andrew Jackson ignored courts and laws and used his power to ethnically cleanse lands that he also sometimes happened to have a financial interest in.

* Teddy Roosevelt threatened American citizens with military intervention.

* Lyndon Johnson asked the FBI and CIA to spy on the Goldwater campaign in 1964, and lied about the Gulf of Tonkin, escalating the Vietnam War. 

None of these presidents faced impeachment.

Lifelong liberal Democrat, Constitutional lawyer and civil libertarian Alan Dershowitz said the following: “There is no case for bribery based on — even if all the allegations against the president were to be proved, which they haven’t been — but even if they were to be proved, it would not constitute the impeachable offense of bribery.”

Democrats, please give it up!

The stubborn and dominant “I” words: Impeachment and Immigration

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., uses the term “Formal Impeachment Inquiry” to describe the political exercise which currently consumes House Democrats. However, a cursory analysis of what is happening shows Pelosi’s term is incorrect.

Two House committees, the Committee on the Judiciary and the Intelligence Committee, are involved in this exercise, but the whole House has not voted to initiate a “Formal Impeachment Inquiry.” Thus, there isn’t one. 

What we have instead is a “Democrat Impeachment Extravaganza.” This term does not appear in the U.S. Constitution, nor in any House document, but it accurately describes reality. Technically, the House is holding a “legislative investigation,” and nothing more.

Recognizing the true state of what is taking place in the House, White House Counsel Pat Cipollone said, in essence, that the White House will not be providing any documents or information requested by the committees, since the investigation has not been formalized by a vote by the full House. 

The White House and others who do not share the impeachment fervor see this as purely partisan theater. As things stand, with Democrats in the majority in the House, Democrats control what goes on. Republicans can do little more than watch.

An actual formal impeachment process would be conducted by only one committee, the House Committee on the Judiciary.

The Lawfare website explains: “The impeachment proceedings against both Presidents [Richard] Nixon and [Bill] Clinton began with a vote by the full House of Representatives directing the judiciary committee ‘to investigate fully and completely whether sufficient grounds exist for the House of Representatives to exercise its constitutional power to impeach’ the president in question. In both cases, the resolution granted several specific powers to the committee for it to use in the course of completing the investigation with which it was charged by the full House.”

With this legislative investigation, only the majority party issues subpoenas and calls witnesses, but in actual formal inquiries “the Nixon and Clinton resolutions allowed subpoenas to be issued by the chairman and the ranking minority member ‘acting jointly.’ If either declined to act, the individual proposing the subpoena could issue it alone unless the other requested the issue be referred to the full committee for a vote,” according to Lawfare.

A 1998 report from the judiciary committee accompanying the authorizing resolution noted that “this approach balances ‘maximum flexibility and bipartisanship,’ both of which are lacking in the current investigation.

However, there is a reason why Pelosi and her party have not formalized the investigation: There are heavy risks involved.

By having members vote on a formal inquiry, newly elected Democrat members from states Donald Trump carried in 2016 would be shown in opposition to their constituents, risking their reelection in 2020, and perhaps turning the House over to a Republican majority. Or, they may vote against impeachment to protect their reelection, and put the impeachment inquiry in jeopardy. A positive vote also would provide Republicans some equality in the investigation process.

Those possibilities are unacceptable to House Democrats. They cannot afford to lose any element of control over this political exercise.

Showing how far back the impeachment obsession got started, on January 17, 2017 — three days before Trump was sworn in — California Democrat Maxine Waters suggested he should be impeached.

Since impeaching Trump likely will not lead to removing him from office, Democrats will keep throwing out accusations without proving them, hoping to weaken his support enough for the Democrat candidate to prevail in the 2020 election. Which means another year of investigation, and no legislation.

* * *

The way some Americans view the issues relating to immigration defies understanding. People generally want to protect their home and possessions. They don’t allow just anyone to come into their home, or invite just anyone to avail themselves of the goodies they have, give them money, or other desirable things. They don’t leave the doors and windows of their home open or unlocked 24-hours a day, unless they live in a place protected by a wall, security guards, or both.

But for some reason, many of our fellow Americans support doing such things to their country, by opposing immigration policies and providing incentives for illegal entry.

Some argue that “it’s not the same thing.” But why isn’t protecting the country and its citizens equal to protecting your family and your possessions?

Why would any true American:

·      not insist that all people wanting to come to the United States follow the long-established legal process for entry into America?

·      think it is wrong or unnecessary to control our borders by all means available and prevent illegal entry, by anybody, good or bad?

·      not understand that people who come here illegally are not deserving of any type of assistance from government at any level, short of very limited emergency assistance?

·      not oppose the things the country does that encourage illegal entry?

·      not want illegals deported?

·      want to defend criminal illegals and shield them from legal disposition, when defending illegal immigration puts Americans’ safety in jeopardy?

·      turn a blind eye to, or condone sanctuary jurisdictions which invite and protect people who have willingly entered the country, or deliberately over-stayed their visa? 

Democrats re-take the House: It is just as bad as we expected

She’s baaa-aaak! Imagining herself suddenly somehow equal to the President of the United States, Speaker of the House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi, D-CA, basked in the glory of getting the gavel returned, after Democrats won back control of the House in the mid-term election.

Anxious to get back control of the House and wallowing in the glory of things to come, prior to the opening of the 2019 Congress caucusing Democrats, led by Maxine Waters, D-CA were overheard singing: “Investigate! Salivate! Dance to the music!”

And right on cue, the political foolishness began. The bad ideas Democrats had been discussing and preparing to unleash were officially unleashed.

Barely after members were sworn in and the election of the Speaker was completed, Rep. Brad Sherman, D-CA, rushed forth to introduce articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump as his first order of business.

Not long after that, Rep. Steve Cohen, D-TN, introduced a few new bills, one of which proposes the elimination of the Electoral College.

They also introduced a bill that many people would support to fund government agencies affected by the shutdown. Too good to be true, however, the bill also contained a hidden element that would provide more than a half-billion dollars in pro-abortion funding, including repealing a provision implemented by the Trump administration that would not fund NGOs that engaged in pro-abortion activities.

On the matter of impeachment, freshman Rep. Rashida Tlaib, D-MI, wasted no time in calling for the impeachment of President Donald Trump just hours after being sworn in.

Speaking to a crowd of supporters Thursday night, Tlaib said: "People love you and you win. And when your son looks at you and says, 'Momma, look you won. Bullies don't win.' And I said, 'Baby, they don't, because we’re gonna go in there and we’re gonna impeach the [vulgarity deleted].'”

Where the comment immediately placed her high in the running for the “2019 Classless Congressional Comment” award, it also garnered her much attention, but also a little welcome Democrat criticism.

Defensively, Tlaib pointed out that her “colorful” language should not overshadow her message. Well, if your message is really important to you, don’t use colorful language that interferes with it.

While we are on the topic of newbies, the freshman Democrat Darling and self-described socialist and radical, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, has danced and talked her way into the limelight.

Her dancing may well be the strongest of her talents, with economic understanding bringing up the rear. The 29 year-old Representative has displayed a great lack of understanding of her country’s Constitution and government organization, characteristic of many others of her age.

She has expressed strong support for raising taxes on the highest wage earners to as much as 70 percent to pay for her list of socialistic freebies. As ridiculous an idea as this is, it wouldn’t make a dent in the costs of the programs she favors.

A 70 percent tax is punitive, and would shift a great deal of money to government use rather than use by those who earned it, and has very little support. It heaps unjust obligations on the top earners, who already shoulder a hugely disproportionate share of America’s tax bill.

Democrats apparently have been forbidden from discussing the death of Police Officer Ronil Singh, the most recent American to be killed by an illegal alien. Nancy Pelosi reportedly responded to a question about this senseless crime, “No comment.”

The ban on discussion is apparently complete, prohibiting even the expression of sympathy to Singh’s family and fellow officers, lest they admit indirectly that we have a true and serious illegal alien problem that includes sanctuary cities/fugitive cities. They didn’t even allow the automatic reaction to a gun death: the call for gun control.

As the 18^th partial shutdown of the federal government since 1976 continues into its second week, there is no agreement between Congressional Democrats and President Trump to end it, as this is written.

Ranging from a few days to more than a month, under six presidents, both Democrat and Republican – Ford, Carter, Reagan, Clinton, G.H.W. Bush and Obama – government shutdowns are not uncommon. The longest one lasted 32 days under Bill Clinton.

The responsibility for the security of the United States and its citizens falls upon the shoulders of the Executive Branch: the President, not the Speaker of the House or the Senate Minority Leader.

Following the advice – the sincere and desperation-prompted pleas – of the people who are on the border trying to secure it, Trump wants an impenetrable barrier along sections of the border.

Under those conditions, Congressional Democrats, who voted to fund a wall previously, are instead acting to support the status quo, which includes the horrible things illegal aliens have done and will do, while Trump is working to secure the border and improve the immigration process.

In 1986, Ronald Reagan gave amnesty to 3 million people in exchange for the promise of border security. But border security was not achieved. Reagan said that was his biggest mistake. Trump does not want to make that same mistake.

In other news, Sen. Ted Cruz, R-TX, introduced a Congressional term limits bill.

Someone needs to save Trump’s critics from destroying themselves

One of the favored attacks on President Donald Trump by his detractors is that he is mentally unstable and emotionally unfit for the office. This perspective has attracted quite a following, and has grown to include fears of doom and catastrophe. And, in order to protect the nation from the eventual horrible fate he will bring about, a few congressional Democrats have taken the unusual step of suggesting the invoking of the 25^th Amendment to the Constitution to remove Trump from office.

Surprisingly, some of these detractors are mental health professionals. In a book titled “The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump,” twenty-seven psychiatrists, psychologists, and other mental health experts – including Yale professor of psychiatry, Dr. Bandy X. Lee – argue that, in Trump’s case, their moral and civic “duty to warn” America supersedes professional neutrality, according to comments about the book on McMillan Publisher’s Website. They then explore Trump’s symptoms and potentially relevant diagnoses to find a complex, if also dangerously mad, man. 

Trying to provide some balance to this bandwagon rolling out-of-control downhill is Harvard Law professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz, who appeared on “Fox and Friends,” the Fox News Network’s morning show. Dershowitz, a long-time Democrat, termed the speculation about Trump’s mental state as “very dangerous.” "I have railed against the criminalization of political difference," he said.

"The psychiatrist-ization of political difference is much more dangerous,” he said. “It's what they did in Russia, it's what they did in China, it's what they did in apartheid South Africa. If you don't like a candidate, first lock them (sic) up. If you can't lock him up, commit him to a mental hospital.”

Dershowitz provided some badly needed instruction to the detractors, explaining that the 25th Amendment "is designed for when somebody has a stroke or somebody is unconscious, perhaps what happened when President [Woodrow] Wilson was president. He had a serious stroke. It's not designed for differences about a person's emotional makeup."

He also explained to them that since the vice president is the one to actually invoke the 25th Amendment, Vice President Mike Pence likely would not do so, and if he did and the president disputed the matter, which Trump undoubtedly would, then it would have to be supported in a vote by two-thirds of both houses of Congress.

"It would happen only if any president, I'm not talking about a particular one, had a major psychotic break," said Dershowitz. "Look, we once had a secretary of defense, his name is [James] Forrestal, he jumped out of the window of the Walter Reed Center. He thought the communists were coming after him."

No doubt some of the detractors imagine that Trump has similar visions, however, the product of their imagination about his imagination is well short of actionable evidence.

Regarding the armchair, arms-length diagnosis of mental instability by mental health professionals, the American Psychiatric Association has properly condemned it, and publicly admonished those who indulge in it.

"We at the APA call for an end to psychiatrists providing professional opinions in the media about public figures whom they have not examined, whether it be on cable news appearances, books, or in social media," the APA wrote. "Arm-chair psychiatry or the use of psychiatry as a political tool is the misuse of psychiatry and is unacceptable and unethical."

We should expect professionals to embrace the ethical demands of their profession, but alas, we now see that some mental health professionals have joined the parade of people who have abandoned professional ethics for political reasons.

This is not the first time for the mental health profession. Forty-five years ago, in 1973, the Goldwater Rule came was created. “The Goldwater Rule [Section 7.3 in the Principles of Medical Ethics with Annotations Especially Applicable to Psychiatry] ... makes it unethical for a psychiatrist to render a professional opinion to the media about a public figure unless the psychiatrist has examined the person and has proper authorization to provide the statement,” Dr. Saul Levin, the APA’s CEO and medical director, said in a statement. “APA stands behind this rule.”

And to add to the embarrassment of a public rebuke by the APA, the American Medical Association delivered a second scorching dressing-down. "A proper psychiatric evaluation requires more than a review of television appearances, tweets and public comments," the AMA wrote.

"Psychiatrists are medical doctors; evaluating mental illness is no less thorough than diagnosing diabetes or heart disease. The standards in our profession require review of medical and psychiatric history and records and a complete examination of mental status."

It appears more and more as if the worst thing about Donald Trump is his talent for creating enemies. A large number of people in government agencies and Congress, as well as people outside government, dislike him and/or his behavior, and they possess a low regard for their professional standards and ethics. They are ruled by their emotions, and that failure of character allows them to willingly destroy their professional credibility by going after Trump.

The 64-dollar question that now begs an answer is, exactly who really exhibits mental instability, Trump or many of his critics?

Is it desperation, OCD, or is there actually some “there” there?

Who dares to deny that the circus-like atmosphere surrounding the Trump presidency is the most unusual political phenomenon in recent memory?

There is a lot of true craziness among the anti-Trump crowd. They criticize him for virtually everything, or nothing. Like the non-story involving Poland’s First Lady, who set the anti-Trump world ablaze when, after her husband and Trump shook hands, she had the audacity to shake the hand of Mrs. Trump before greeting the president. Oh, the horror! And daughter Ivanka sat in for him briefly at the G-20 meeting wearing a pink dress with – gasp – bows on it!

Perhaps the best evidence of compulsive obsession and the Left losing its grip on reality was Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Cal., who wanted to impeach Trump before he was even sworn in.

Other evidence of the high degree of obsession comes from a survey by the drug and alcohol rehabilitation group Detox, which found that “Over 73 percent of Democrats would give up drinking for the rest of their lives if it led to the impeachment of President Donald Trump...” Teetotaling would be good for those Democrats, as well as the country, however the survey did not provide a mechanism for assuring allegiance to the pledge.

It is quite likely that many people who desire impeachment don’t understand what it is or how it works. Impeachment is a political remedy; it deals with breaches of public trust, or injuries done immediately to the society itself, by certain government officials, but not criminal activity.

The grounds for impeachment require the significant likelihood that "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors" (crimes by public officials against the government), have been committed, according to Article II, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution. It is not the appropriate solution for those dissatisfied with the results of an election, or the most fervent wish to be rid of a president some don’t like.

Impeachment does not remove a president from office. It is the first step in a two-step process; bringing formal charges against him or her, much like a grand jury indictment. Remember, Bill Clinton was impeached by the House of Representatives in 1998, but went on to serve out his term as president because he was not convicted in step two, the trial by the U.S. Senate, requiring the affirmative vote by at least two-thirds of its members.

The only other successful impeachment of a president was Andrew Johnson, who was acquitted by the Senate in 1868. Richard Nixon likely would have been impeached and convicted over the Watergate affair a few decades back, but avoided impeachment by resigning from office.

The record for presidential impeachment shows it is a difficult process without much success, as deliberately designed by the Founders.

Failures don’t impede Democrats in their efforts at futile goals, however. Obsession and compulsion are tough masters to defeat. Perhaps their real goal is just stirring up negative opinion among their faithful followers to interfere with the president’s agenda.

“If they had a good case based on real information, I think they would mention it by now and put their cards on the table,” said Ken Boehm, chairman of the National Legal and Policy Center, a conservative government watchdog group. He is also a former Pennsylvania state prosecutor and former counsel for the board of directors at the Legal Services Corporation. Talking with The Daily Signal, he added, “They don’t have high crimes and misdemeanors. They don’t have low crimes and misdemeanors.”

Despite any compelling evidence, or even evidence that isn’t compelling, those on the Left who have rallied to the idea include: MoveOn.org, Democracy for America, and other progressive or “resistance” groups, and a group of Congressional Democrats who either don’t understand the issues or the process, or just seek recognition.

This list includes the aforementioned Rep. Waters, along with Texas Rep. Al Green, California Rep. Jackie Speier, Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, New York Rep. Jerry Nadler, Maryland Rep. Elijah Cummings, Maine Sen. Angus King, Texas Rep. Shelia Jackson Lee, Minnesota Rep. Keith Ellison, and Connecticut Sen. Richard Blumenthal. And, let us not forget Virginia’s own Sen. Tim Kaine, who actually mentioned “treason.”

After admitting nothing has yet been proved, Kaine said, “We’re now beyond obstruction of justice, in terms of what’s being investigated. This is moving into perjury, false statements, and even potentially treason.”

California Rep. Brad Sherman actually has introduced articles of impeachment, although the House Democrat leadership hasn’t fallen in line with that move. The effort is almost certain to fail because only one Democrat, Al Green, has signed on to it, and based on known facts, it won’t go anywhere in a Republican-controlled Congress.

At some point, however, Democrats must chill down the rhetoric. Emotion and desire, however fervent and crushing they may be, must be put aside, an objective look at the actual case must be undertaken, and then they need get back to performing the national service for which they were elected. Fixing Obamacare and filling hundreds of government positions, for example, are important issues.

Obstruction of the nation’s business and deliberate clouding of the national narrative are harmful to the country.