The Big Reason President Trump cannot logically be impeached

Because the Far Left Mob was already calling for, and planning, Impeachment before he had even taken office!  The day after the 2016 Election, mobs of leftists had already brought out the metaphorical pitchforks, and called for him to be impeached.  How could he even have committed anything impeachable before he was President?

protests

He Will Overcome.

Did you know? Progressives support Slavery.

There have been many stories in the (so-called) Press in the past few years of small-business owners having their businesses destroyed because they would not engage in activities that violated their religious beliefs.  It seems that most states have “public accommodation” laws that forbid “discrimination” on the basis of race, religion, or “sexual orientation”.  These state laws have been used to deny business owners their religious liberty, by insisting that they cater, or bake cakes, or provide flowers, or create custom invitations for same-sex “weddings”.  Some businesses have literally had to close down their businesses, because they refused to violate their moral code.

Now, just think about it this way.  If the State can force a business to engage in any creative activity (and catering, baking cakes, providing flowers, and creating custom invitations are ALL creative activities) against its will, isn’t that tantamount to slavery?  Isn’t being forced to serve customers whose activity violates your own conscience, against your will, Slavery?

Funny, the Democrats and Progressives, who trumpet to the world how much they detest Slavery, turn out to actually advocate it.

What was that I said about Entitlement in Seattle?

Good grief!  The infamous “Tent City 3”, run by Seattle’s “Homeless-Industrial Complex” representative SHARE/WHEEL, had to make an “emergency” move. The article I read mentioned that this homeless camp has been in existence for 20 years!  Now, if the 60’s radicals who run Seattle tell you that they are working to end homelessness, please do NOT believe them!!

This homeless camp is such an institution that it has had its own insurance!  And its administrators complain that no one wants to insure them.  Gee, I wonder why that might be?

Blacklisted by Google! Whee!

It seems that the Great Internet Monopoly, AKA Google, has a list of web sites that they have “blacklisted”, to try and bury their content and prevent casual web-surfers from seeing what they deem “dangerous” writings.  Herewith, from a Ricochet post, is the Google list of dangerous sites that you should be discouraged from viewing.

Screenshot 2019-08-14 19.20.39

As provided by Project Veritas.

Well, RushBabe49 has been proud of being as incendiary as possible here on my personal blog.  I must say, I am proud as punch, as a Ricochet Member in good standing, to be in the hallowed company of my Hero, Rush Limbaugh, and Gateway Pundit, Glenn Beck, and LifeNews.

My advice to all my readers is to immediately patronize all the sites listed above, give them favorable comments, and get all your friends to do the same.  Also, while you’re at it, Drop Google, and use DuckDuckGo for ALL your Web searches!  Let’s do our part to Break the Google Monopoly Today!

Welcome Guest Author Richard Easton, and his Proposed New Format for Presidential Debates

This article was originally posted over at Ricochet.com, and I am happy to make Calling-all-RushBabes available to spread his wisdom.  Comments very welcome!

===========================================================================

There has been widespread dissatisfaction with previous presidential debates between the Republican and Democratic candidates. In 2012, Candy Crowley stated shortly before the second debate that she would not abide by the contract she signed. She then interfered in the debate on the side of Obama. In 2008, the vice presidential debate moderator, Gwen Ifill, was completing a biography of Obama. One can easily surmise that financial considerations alone gave her a bias favoring Joe Biden. Clearly, her book had the potential to sell more copies if Obama won the presidency. One may ask why the Republicans didn’t insist that these biased moderators be removed. This tacit agreement to participate in a process that was biased against them may partially explain why they lost both races.

How can you solve the problem of biased moderators? I suggest eliminating them and using the model of the 1858 Lincoln-Douglas debates. There were seven debates, one in each congressional district, each of which was three hours long. The first debater spoke for 60 minutes, the second spoke for 90 minutes, and the first responded for 30 minutes. Today’s Americans don’t have the attention span for an unstructured three-hour debate. I suggest that the candidates cover specific questions in fifteen-minute segments. A coin toss determines which debater speaks first for five minutes. The second debater then speaks for 7.5 minutes, and the first speaker responds for 2.5 minutes. There is a timer in place of the moderator. This allows for more time for speakers to talk without interruptions while also allowing them to challenge each other. In contrast to the behavior of Candy Crowley in the second debate, Jim Lehrer in the first debate asked general questions and let the candidates talk. My proposal codifies this by eliminating the moderators and putting the focus on the questions.

How are the questions determined? One possibility is to have a liberal and a conservative scholar each selecting half of them. Victor Davis Hanson would be a good choice for the conservative scholar. Another alternative would be to have each campaign select 25% of the questions, with the scholars picking the remainder. All of the questions would be known in advance to the public. The only unknown in advance of the actual debate is who speaks first on a question. This alternative is fair to both sides and removes the media from the debates.

The fall debates have recently been of two hours’ duration, including about twenty minutes of commercials. Using my proposed fifteen-minute segments, this would allow for six questions in a debate with ten minutes for closing statements. Recently, there has been both an opening and closing statement, but I suggest eliminating the opening segment to allow for more questions.

My unbiased proposal allows voters to understand better how the candidates think about issues than under the current process. It will be difficult to stall for 7.5 minutes. It will challenge candidates to speak intelligently for that duration and the debates will be improved.

How would this change be implemented? Currently, the Commission on Presidential Debates organizes them. One possibility would be to petition the members of the commission to make this change. Another alternative would be to bring this to the attention of the leading Republican candidates. Removing the press from the process eliminates the possibility for bias to affect the result. If the Democrats refuse to consider this change, the Republican candidate could refuse to participate in the debate. There is no reason to give one side an advantage in shaping public opinion.

The West Virginia GOP Has it Right

People seem to be getting all worked up and outraged at this poster that was displayed at a West Virginia Republican booth.

9-11Omar

They have the right idea, in my opinion.  As I recall at the time of the September 11, 2001 attacks, members of the rather-large “Somali community” in Seattle were seen rejoicing at the horror of the destruction of the World Trade Center in New York by a gang of Islamist Terrorists.  None of the terrorists was Somali, but they were all Muslims.

Islam is an Evil Religion.  The two Muslim women elected to congress from the states of Michigan and Minnesota have continually displayed their Muslim hatred of Israel and Jews.  They belong to Evil, and the one pictured above demonstrates it every day.