Featured Impeach? Run for ReElection? Hodge Podge Poll....

Human governments are allowed by God to maintain order after man rejected God’s government in the Garden of Eden. And a case can be made, not that I fully agree with it, that Christians should not be involved in politics at all.

David Lipscomb quoting B.U. Watkins in Lipscomb’s book, "On Civil Government: Its Origin, Mission, and Destiny, and the Christian's Relation to It".

“One of the signs of the great Apostacy, was the union of Church and State. Its chosen symbol was a woman upon the back of a seven headed and ten horned beast. It is almost uniformly admitted, among American Protestants, that this is a well chosen symbol to represent the absurd, and unnatural union of Church and State. It is generally conceded, that the woman represents the Church, and the beast the old Roman civil government. This being true, it would appear far more natural for her to be riding the beast, than for him to have his locomotion promoted by the help of the woman! When the State comes forward and proffers its assistance, and the Church voluntarily accepts of such help, it might be a question, which would be the most to blame; the Church for accepting, or the State for offering such assistance. But when the Church gives, unasked, her power to the beast, no excuse can reasonably be pleaded. If the State supporting the Church, is called an adulterous union, I am unable to see, why the union is not equally intimate, and criminal, when the Church supports the State, by participating in all its responsibilities. When the Church offers her fellowship, and co-operation in framing all the laws of the land, and in choosing its judicial and executive officers - when even her members refuse not to become legislators, and are even forward to fill all the offices of human governments, I cannot see, but the relation between church and State, is as intimate as ever, and just as illegal. Ezekiel chided the ancient Hebrews for seeking such union with the nations; and he compares Israel to a woman of the lowest infamy. It is exceedingly painful to me, to see how aptly these symbols of John and Ezekiel apply to modern professors. But how greatly would I rejoice, if the reformation of the 19th century would arise and put on her beautiful garments, and show herself to be the true spouse of Christ. May the good Lord grant that this noble brotherhood, that I so dearly love, may soon see the whole truth! But here, I am met with the objection, that these institutions are ordained of God. And he who resists them resists an ordinance of God, and shall receive punishment. Let me here pause, and remark, that I would sooner be understood as taking the popular view of this passage, rather than appear to countenance any kind of war. Nothing is further from my intention. But the fact of civil government being ordained of God, is no proof of Divine approbation. So long as it can be clearly shown that he has ordained that one sinner should punish another, so long as we read in Isaiah, that Cyrus was sent against Babylon, although he knew not God, so long as we find it not difficult to admit the application of the above passage, to civil government, whether such be its meaning or not. To make the admission saves much time, and leaves the argument much more compact. Something is gained and nothing lost by granting all we can to our opponents. That God can overrule sin, without being responsible for its commission, and without having any complicity with it, is a thing so plain, that to turn aside to explain it would almost be an insult to those for whom these columns are written. Let a hint suffice. Pharaoh was raised up by God for a certain purpose, although his behavior was far from being approved of God. With a few axioms I will close this article. Axiom 1st, No man has the right of making laws for his own government. For such a right would include the double absurdity of making him independent of God, and responsible only to himself! Axiom 2nd. A republican government is one in which power is thought to be delegated by the people to their rulers, in their act of voting. Axiom 3rd. But a man cannot delegate a power he himself does not possess. Hence, INFERENCE 1st. As man has no inherent legislative power, he cannot transfer it to another. Hence, INFERENCE 2nd. Voting is therefore a deception, and a sham, making a deceiver of him, who votes, and a dupe of him who fancies himself the recipient of delegated power.”

 

So what if abortion reverts back to States Rights, that's my next task - eliminate abortion from each state.

 

Considering the state of civics education in the United States nowadays, I wonder how many people understand that.

 

Sure states should have the right to legalize murder.

 

Debate it with the Founding Fathers. They set up our federalist system in the U.S. Constitution. Even when abortion was largely outlawed in this country a hundred years ago it was handled by the states.

 

I will teach them.

there are lists of email addresses of congresspeople and senators on the web.
In fact I sent an email yesterday to one of my senators.

 

Right now, an impeachment vote would fail in the Senate.

Remember, Clinton very-obviously lied to Congress about Paula Jones & Monica, but the Senate failed handily to remove him.

Also, remember, those Senators are looking at re-election, not actually doing justice. Take WV's Sen. Joe Manchin, for instance. He's a Dem, & popular in WV, but WV is heavily pro-Trump, so it's unlikely Manchin would vote for removal.

The vote will be, "Evidence, Schmevidence! What's gonna keep my fanbase happy ?" Remember, it takes 67 "Guilty" votes to prmove a POTUS, & there's no way that could happen now.

 

Doesn't matter what the Senate will do. One should do what they think is the right thing, especially from a Christian perspective, regardless of what others may do. If a House member thinks that the president should be impeached, especially after openly calling today for Ukraine and China to interfere in the 2020 election, then that is how he or she should vote.

Fox News analyst Andrew Napolitano says Trump's Ukraine call was both criminal and impeachable

 

Yes, Napolitano seemed to take a strange tack some months back. In a link cited in your own, Digenova on the same network called Napolitano a fool for saying that.

Simply believing the Dems and their media on anything is unwise at best, but anything they say regarding Trump is almost certainly intended to deceive.

DiGenova: Judge Napolitano Is A "Fool," Trump Did Not Commit Or Admit To A Crime

 

Hmm, do as I say not as I do.

" Here we have the Obama administration doing exactly what they are trying to impeach Donald Trump for and they are so arrogant they do not even care about the hypocrisy. The double standard is astonishing and the selective outrage is on full display. "

Obama administration pressured Ukraine to investigate Paul Manafort during the 2016 election

 

"All in all, the framers would probably agree that it's better to impeach too often than too seldom. If presidents can't be virtuous, they should at least be nervous." - Joseph Sobran

“A good magistrate will not fear [impeachments]. A bad one ought to be kept in fear of them.' - Elbridge Gerry, Vice President of the United States, March 1813 - November 1814

 

Yes, it would be great to impeach all of the progressive Dem hypocrites and replace them with more honorable leaders, but the Dems are unlikely to impeach themselves, even the worst of their own, except in the court of public opinion, where they cannot help but show themselves guilty.

They don’t seem serious about trying to legitimately impeach Trump with their trumped up charges and fake evidence. They only seem interested in illegitimately discrediting him through lies, deception, and innuendo, and they are obviously masters of such tactics, with their Dem media doing their usual devil’s advocate duty in spinning the nonsense for the gullible.

 

If you are referring to members of Congress - members of Congress cannot be impeached.

 

Except he didn't do that. He called for an investigation on the Bidens who are corrupt.

 

You are technically correct, but expulsion would be the equivalent, and they most certainly can do that, and don't need the other house to do it.

So, semantics aside, the statement stands, as they have a host of deserving Dem candidates for expulsion that collectively stand in the way of justice that would truly serve the country.

 

Two measures that would help the country immeasurably: 1) the Republican Party ridding itself of all the Dem leaders in it, 2) the Democrat Party doing the same.

 

You will probably never accept the truth about what Trump did, but he did.

 

I will accept it if you can produce the words. When did Trump say " I want Ukraine to interfere in our elections"

 

I wish there were no political parties. Joseph Addison and George Washington had them pegged correctly.

"There cannot be a greater judgment befall a country than such a dreadful spirit of division as rends a government into two distinct people, and makes them greater strangers and more averse to one another than if they were actually two different nations. The effects of such a division are pernicious to the last degree, not only with regard to those advantages which they give the common enemy, but to those private evils which they produce in the heart of almost every particular person. This influence is very fatal both to men’s morals and their understandings; it sinks the virtue of a nation, and not only so, but destroys even common sense.

A furious party spirit, when it rages in its full violence, exerts itself in civil war and bloodshed; and when it is under its greatest restraints naturally breaks out in falsehood, detraction, calumny, and a partial administration of justice. In a word, it fills a nation with spleen and rancour, and extinguishes all the seeds of good nature, compassion, and humanity." - Joseph Addison

“However [political parties] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.” - George Washington

"The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism." - George Washington

 

If you do not think that President Trump saying that China should investigate a political rival of Trump is asking for interference, then we have common ground for agreement on this subject. Trump did not say that off in some corner. He said it in public where the whole world could hear him. Can you honestly say that you think Trump would have mentioned Biden if Biden had chosen not to run and remained in private life?