Right Opinion

Impeachment the Pits for Dems

Tony Perkins · Nov. 17, 2017

Being conservative isn’t a crime — but there are six Democrats in the U.S. House ready to treat it like one. Wednesday, against the advice of their own party leaders, a half-dozen liberals filed Articles of Impeachment against Donald Trump for a grab-bag of offenses. Ranging from the comic to the bizarre, Tennessee Rep. Steve Cohen outlined the case against the president (not very effectively, based on the reaction of most Washington insiders). Even the mainstream media, which has been calling for Trump’s head since January, collectively rolled its eyes at the news.

Hurting the press’s feelings, appointing conservative justices, and owning successful businesses are hardly the stuff of Watergate. Yet, Cohen insisted at a press conference with fellow conspirators Reps. Luis Gutierrez (IL), Al Green (TX), Adriano Espaillat (NY), Marcia Fudge (OH), and John Yarmuth (KY), “We believe that President Trump has violated the Constitution.” Specifically, they charge Trump with obstructing justice, violating the Constitution’s foreign and domestic emoluments clauses, and undermining the federal judiciary and press.

Undermining the press, an incredulous Stephen Dinan asks in The Washington Times? How — “by being mean to it?” And since when is criticizing a court’s judgment an infringement on the judiciary? President Obama berated the Supreme Court justices to their face at his own State of the Union! Where were his Articles of Impeachment? And, as National Review explained earlier this year (and CNN agreed) on the bogus emoluments charge, “Trump’s opponents claim that every time … a foreign diplomat books a room in a Trump hotel or pays for a meal in a Trump restaurant, the Constitution is violated…. Presidents Washington, Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe all owned massive plantations and sold agricultural commodities in Europe. Undoubtedly, some of their customers were foreign governments, but no political opponent ever raised the specter that they were violating the foreign-emoluments clause.”

This is an unserious, petty, and self-destructive campaign for Democrats. But don’t take my word for it — take theirs. Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) has been against this witch hunt since May. “What are the facts?” she asked CNN’s Chris Cuomo. “If you don’t have that case, you’re just participating in more hearsay.” This week, she could only shake her head. Impeachment, she told reporters, “is not someplace I think we should go.” The party’s minority whip, Rep. Steny Hoyer (R-MD), was equally concerned. “Do we disagree with [Trump’s] policies? We do. But disagreeing with the policies is not enough to overturn an election, a free and fair election,” he admitted with uncharacteristic rationality. “There are a large number of Democrats that believe this president ought to be impeached,” he went on. “We’ve just a made a judgment that the facts aren’t there to pursue that.” Even DNC Chairman Tom Perez wanted nothing to do with the six’s crusade. “I’m not talking about impeachment,” he let everyone know.

Liberal columnists from Vanity Fair to the Chicago Sun-Times complained that the effort would do more harm to their cause than good. “Nobody wants Trump gone from the White House more than me,” wrote Mark Brown. But, “You’re kidding yourselves if you think this is any sort of real blow to Trump… Our fellow Americans elected him… They won. We lost. And until there’s a stronger case to be made for impeachment, Democrats would be better served by being patient while fighting Trump on other fronts.”

Of course, the irony is that Barack Obama, whose picture belongs next to Webster’s definition of lawlessness, is the one who could have legitimately been impeached. If the Constitution hadn’t been in bomb-proof casing those eight years, the 44th president would have erased every memory of it. His abuses of power — from recess appointments and contraception mandates to IRS targeting — were actual violations of the law. The Democrats’ case against Donald Trump amounts to one thing: policy differences.

Of course, this has been the strategy all along. From cake bakers to sportscasters, liberals have tried to persuade people that holding conservative views is a fireable offense at best and a criminal one at worst. It isn’t breaking the law to disagree with the radical ideology of the Democratic Party, but that’s what politicians like Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) allege in their criticism of Trump. “He creates controversy, he cannot get along with our members of Congress, and I’m going to continue my efforts to impeach him.” Apparently, Karl Rove wrote, “The standard for impeaching a president has shifted again: Now he can be removed from office for creating controversy and fighting with Congress.”

And while the impeachment of Trump isn’t something people inside DC take seriously, there is one thing they do — and that’s next year’s election. If you think the President Trump’s had a hard time getting things done with a Republican Congress, imagine what would happen if Democrats regain control of the House, Senate — or both. Our country can’t afford to hand the mantle back to Pelosi and Hoyer, who will almost certainly declare war on traditional values, bringing whatever positive change Trump’s affected to a grinding halt. As for their hesitation on impeachment proceedings, I don’t have to tell you how quickly that could change. So, remain vigilant. If you want to see more of the president’s promises become a reality, don’t let up!

Originally published here.

Lib: Forgo Kids for ‘Mother’ Earth

How many of you sat down and thought about the environment before you decided to have children? According to Dr. Travis Rieder, you should have. “Science proves kids are bad for Earth,” is the title of his controversial new column on NBC. “Morality suggests we stop having them.”

A father himself, Rieder insists his arguments for population control are long overdue. “Although culturally controversial, the scientific half of this position is fairly well-established. Several years ago, scientists showed that having a child, especially for the world’s wealthy, is one of the worst things you can do for the environment.” In other words, if children don’t exist, neither will our environmental problems. If that sounds crazy, it’s because it is. In their worldview the planet, not people, come first. Rather than the earth being our home, a place we are to make subservient to the needs of human beings (Gen. 1:28), they would eliminate human beings as just another way to balance the CO2 equation.

“I’m certainly not arguing that we shame parents,” Rieder claims (despite spending 1,000 words doing exactly that). But, he goes on, “some amount of an offspring’s emissions count toward the parents’ ledger.” Then, stunning readers, he compares child-raising to murder. “If I release a murderer from prison, knowing full well that he intends to kill innocent people, then I bear some responsibility for those deaths — even though the killer is also fully responsible. My having released him doesn’t make him less responsible (he did it!). But his doing it doesn’t eliminate my responsibility either.”

Unfortunately, Rieder’s views are nothing new. This is the same camp that once called people “the AIDS of the earth,” then proved it by launching a “Voluntary Human Extinction Movement.” For years, these green extremists used photos of cuddly polar bears and harp seals to cover up their real agenda of radical environmentalism. What they don’t seem to realize is that the population is already on its way to a full-scale collapse. “The total fertility rate,” Census officials say, “has fallen below the 2.1 children that a couple needs to replace themselves.” That spells disaster for an aging country like ours. If you can’t grow the families, you can’t grow the economy. But then, that’s the irony of liberalism. They complain about overpopulation and push for abortion, when the rest of their big government agenda falls apart without more taxpayers. And where do we get future taxpayers? From the same wombs Rieder wants to empty.

In our book, Personal Faith, Public Policy, Bishop Harry Jackson and I devoted an entire chapter to the importance of conservation as a core social value. We talk about how the world is on the verge of reaping the long-term consequences of this mentality that children are a drain on resources rather than a reward from the Lord. Just look at Scripture. Nowhere in Scripture does God’s command to “be fruitful and multiply” have an expiration date. If we really want to save the world, it’s time we looked at children not as burdens but blessings.

Originally published here.

Pence Leads the Charge for Middle East Aid

When Vice President Mike Pence said he was ready to get to work helping the world’s Christians, he meant it. A few weeks after telling Americans that the administration was taking matters into its own hands — and out of the UN’s — he proved it. Despite the obvious reluctance to move on Trump’s agenda at USAID, Pence is personally driving the push to change the environment at the agency, where holdovers from the Obama years still seem to be dictating policy.

After Laura Ingraham exposed the office’s “deep state” on her Fox News show, the administration got down to business, holding what the vice president called an “important meeting” on Tuesday with UN Ambassador Nikki Haley, USAID Director Mark Green, Deputy Secretary of State John Sullivan, and Office of Management and Budget Director Mick Mulvaney. The topic? Fast-tracking the relief to hot spots like Iraq and refugees from Syria.

Former Congressman Frank Wolf is one of the many leaders happy to see Mike Pence take the issue seriously. “There is a famous quotation that says, ‘Silence in the face of evil is evil itself. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act.’ This administration is acting on the president’s policy to direct much-needed resources and relief to Christians, Yazidis, and others persecuted for their faith in the Middle East.”

Our brothers and sisters in Christ desperately need America’s help. Shame on USAID if it lets politics get in the way.

Originally published here.

This is a publication of the Family Research Council. Mr. Perkins is president of FRC.

Click here to show comments