Saturday AM ~ thefrontpagecover

~ Featuring ~  
Abusing the Impeachment Process
Hans von Spakovsky  
Israel to bar US Congress members 
worthless-Omar, worthless-Tlaib from visiting 
by ~ Israel has decided to bar US congresswomen worthless-Ilhan Omar and worthless-Rashida Tlaib from entering the country... following fierce debates on the matter in the Prime Minister’s Office, Channel 12 reported on Thursday. The unconfirmed report, which did not cite a source, said the final decision was being drafted and passed around for revisions before the move is publicly announced. The reason cited for the move is reportedly “suspected provocations and promotion of BDS,” a reference to the anti-Israel boycott movement. Meanwhile an unnamed government official told AFP that was “a possibility that Israel will not allow the visit in its current proposed format.” The official said “Professional teams and legal counsel in various government ministries are continuing to examine the decision. According to Israeli law, the authority lies with the minister of the interior.” The official, however, added that “if Congresswoman worthless-Tlaib makes a humanitarian request to visit her family, the decision on her matter will be considered favourably.” The planned visit of the two controversial freshman lawmakers has made headlines in recent days after it was reported that US President Donald Trump was disappointed by Israel’s decision not to bar them from coming. Israel’s laws allow border authorities to turn away supporters of the anti-Israel boycott movement...
A Fourth ICE Facility Has Been Attacked
by JOHN JIANG } ~ Democrats’ rhetoric on Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has come under increasing scrutiny following attacks across the United States against facilities associated with the agency... The latest attack came early Tuesday morning, when armed perpetrators shot at ICE offices in San Antonio, Texas, in what the FBI has described as a “targeted attack.” Though no one was injured, FBI Agent Christopher Combs said in a news conference that “had the bullets gone two inches in another direction, we could be here today talking about the murder of a federal official.” The number of perpetrators, their identity, and their motives are all currently unknown. According to Combs, however, all of the fired shots were directed at floors of the office complex allotted to ICE, indicating that the perpetrators had done research beforehand. The timing of the attack also suggests that it may have been intended to intimidate, rather than harm, ICE employees. This incident is only the most recent entry in a growing list of direct actions against immigration enforcement officials. A similar attack occurred on July 14, when a man associated with Antifa attempted to assault an ICE detention center in Tacoma, Washington, while armed with a rifle and “incendiary devices” and was fatally shot by police. The episode came just over a day after a mob of protestors descended on another ICE facility in Aurora, Colorado, on July 12, pulled down an American flag, and raised a Mexican one in its place. Then, on July 16, ICE headquarters in D.C. was the site of a large protest in which 10 people were arrested for unlawfully entering the building. It has become fashionable again, in the aftermath of the mass shooting by a white separatist in El Paso, Texas, to ascribe blame for political violence to President Trump and his allies. The knife cuts both ways. The national conversation has been awash with talk of “concentration camps” ever since the members of “the Squad” were elected to Congress, transforming a comparatively sedate status quo on immigration into hysterics about fascism and genocide. No doubt some of the ICE employees targeted by these attacks have been with the agency since the Bush presidency or the scumbag/liar-nObama era, when record numbers of immigrants were deported and children were kept in cages. Yet it is only now that the life and limb of these public servants are threatened, having been compared to Nazi camp guards by elected officials on Capitol Hill...  
It’s Time To Officially Acknowledge That
Qatar Is A State Sponsor of Terrorism 
By Jordan Cope } ~ Qatar boasts the world’s second-largest gross domestic product per capita. The wealthy oil emirate operates Qatar Airways, one of the world’s largest airlines... It hosts one of the world’s most influential state-sponsored news sources, Al Jazeera, and maintains significant influence in higher American education, donating more than $1.5 billion to some of America’s most well-known universities: the University of Michigan, the University of North Carolina, Northwestern, Texas A&M, and Cornell. For all its “contributions,” however, Qatar also has a dark side. It openly supports and harbors terrorists to a disproportionate and unparalleled degree for its size. Qatar’s actions prompted President Trump to recognize Qatar’s terror funding as being “on a very high level.” Despite this recognition, American administrations, even those as critical as Trump’s, have sidestepped the truth about this terrorism-sponsoring country. Instead, they have tended to celebrate the tens of billions of dollars that Qatar spends on American military and commercial equipment, as well as Qatar’s hospitality in allowing the stationing of thousands of U.S. troops. Regardless of its economic and military incentives, Qatar has long challenged American security interests, sustaining Hamas and other terrorist groups. In response to this reality, the State Department must finally designate Qatar as a state-sponsor of terror, as it has done for others that have “repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism.” First and foremost, Qatar’s ties to Hamas, a U.S.-designated terrorist group that avows Israel’s destruction, are overwhelming. As one of Hamas’s largest funders, Qatar has provided the terrorist organization more than $1.1 billion since 2012. While Qatar often justifies its funding as humanitarian, the course of its funding, as well as the current emir’s statements, suggest different true motives. Qatar’s emir refuses to regard Hamas as a terrorist organization and supported Hamas on the record. During a CNN interview, Emir Tamim bin Hamad Al-Thani proclaimed, “Qatar supports ‘all Palestinian people. We believe Hamas is a very important part of the Palestinian people.’” Considering its support for Hamas, Qatar has often digressed from its supposed humanitarian cause, having explicitly funded the Hamas hierarchy...  
US makes last-minute move to seize Iranian supertanker detained in Gibraltar
By Greg Norman } ~ The U.S. has a made a last-minute move to seize an Iranian supertanker that was captured in Gibraltar last month by authorities... who suspect the vessel was trying to provide crude oil to Bashar Assad’s Syrian regime in violation of European Union sanctions. Gibraltar’s government announced Thursday that its Supreme Court adjourned a scheduled decision on whether to release the Grace 1 ship until later in the day after it received notice that the U.S. Department of Justice is seeking to extend its detention. The Iranian vessel has been held in the British territory since July 4 and officials from the Islamic Republic have been demanding its release, signaling that if Gibraltar parts with the ship, they may free the U.K.-flagged Stena Impero – an oil tanker captured in the Strait of Hormuz two weeks later. "The U.S. Department of Justice has applied to seize the Grace 1 on a number of allegations which are now being considered," the Gibraltar government said in a statement, adding that the matter would be reviewed by the court at 4 p.m. local time (10 a.m. ET).The Gibraltar government has said it was seeking to "de-escalate" the situation over the Grace 1, the Associated Press reports. Signaling preparations for the expected release of the ship Thursday before the U.S. intervened, the captain, an Indian national, and three officers of the Grace 1 had been released from detention, a Gibraltar government spokesman said...  
Angela Merkel ignores NATO defense pledge, snubbing U.S. demands to spend more GDP
by Benjamin Weinthal } ~ The leader of Germany, Europe’s wealthiest country, has once again rejected U.S. requests to keep a promise to spend 2 percent of its GDP on defense to ensure the continued viability of the NATO alliance... Chancellor Angela Merkel’s alleged freeloading on the backs of the U.S. and other NATO member states that have contributed the 2 percent of gross domestic product might cause the U.S. to relocate its troops stationed on German soil to Poland. “We said we want to achieve 1.5 percent by 2024. And that is our common will,” Merkel said on Wednesday, according to Reuters. U.S. Ambassador to Germany Richard Grenell told Fox News on Wednesday: “The Wales Pledge was made in 2014 and it gave a 10-year runway to get to 2 percent by 2024.” In 2014, members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization pledged, at the Wales Summit, to spend 2 percent of GDP on defense. Merkel has indicated, however, that her interpretation of that is “toward 2 percent,” not an obligation. Speaking on Tuesday in Stralsund, Germany, she said: “So this means in the direction of 2 percent, and we will continue to go in this direction also after 2024.” Critics see Germany playing with semantics regarding its obligation. Last week Grenell suggested the U.S. should pull its troops from Germany if the country does not increase its required spending...   
Abusing the Impeachment Process

Hans von Spakovsky

On three separate occasions, Rep. Al Green, D-Texas, has introduced a resolution to impeach President Donald Trump. Each time, the House of Representatives has voted it down.

And with good reason. Consider Green’s latest resolution. No matter how much one opposes Trump, it would have been a serious misuse of the House’s impeachment power. The 95 members who voted for it either do not understand or do not care about the purpose and proper use of this procedure.

Green’s resolution said that the president should be impeached because he is “unfit to represent” American values of “decency and morality” and “respectability and civility.” It also cited Trump’s criticism of four Democratic House members.

There is no doubt that Green deplores Trump and disagrees with his policies on many important issues. The question, however, is whether such matters are properly the basis for seeking to nullify the last election by removing the president from office. They are not, as we explain in a new research paper on the history of impeachment.

In drafting the Constitution, America’s founders provided for impeachment not as a partisan political weapon, or as an alternative to elections, but as a way to address serious misconduct by the president or other federal officials — conduct that betrays the public trust, breaks the law, or otherwise renders them unfit for office.

The 1787 convention that produced the Constitution carefully defined the conduct that warranted impeachment. The delegates rejected broad, vague language such as “malpractice or neglect of duty” as well as a narrow category limited only to treason and bribery. Instead, they chose the phrase that appears today in Article II, Section 4: “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

This phrase had been in English law for centuries, and the founders knew what it meant. It designates behavior that, as Professor John McGinnis puts it, is “serious objective misconduct that bears on the official’s fitness for office.”

To date, neither Green nor any other representative has made the case that the president has engaged in such misconduct. In fact, Green’s resolution doesn’t attempt to do so. It is simply an expression of outrage at the personality, character, behavior and speech of the president.

America’s founders were clear about the meaning and proper use of impeachment, and American history counsels against abusing this power. In the 19th century, radical Republicans impeached President Andrew Johnson because they disagreed with his plans to implement President Abraham Lincoln’s conciliatory policies towards the Southern states. The impeachment articles claimed that even Johnson’s speeches amounted to “high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

Historians have condemned the Johnson impeachment as rash, reckless, and unwarranted. House members improperly turned Johnson’s legitimate decisions as president into impeachable offenses simply because they disagreed with those decisions. With rhetorical excesses similar to those directed today against Trump, radical Republicans tried to portray Johnson as a “wild-eyed dictator bent on overthrowing the government.”

Shortly before the Johnson impeachment, C.M. Ellis addressed “the causes for which a president may be impeached.” Neither the House nor Senate, he wrote in The Atlantic, may act arbitrarily. Rather, they must be guided by rules about the proper purpose and use of impeachment. That counsel is needed just as much today as it was in 1867.

The arbitrary, partisan use of impeachment represented by the Green resolution is at odds with the nature of impeachment as it was practiced in England and understood by those who drafted and ratified the Constitution. It is incompatible with the republican form of government guaranteed by the Constitution. It would allow 285 members of Congress — a simple House majority and two-thirds of senators — to remove a duly elected president for partisan reasons or over matters of personality and style.

This should not be laughed off as just partisan fun and games. It’s a dangerous, anti-democratic maneuver that flouts the principles on which our republic was founded and threatens its stability.  ~The Patriot Post  

E-mail me when people leave their comments –

You need to be a member of Tea Party Command Center to add comments!

Join Tea Party Command Center