Why are the feckless Democrats demanding new evidence to be presented in the phony impeachment process, when they claim that the “overwhelming evidence” that they have produced in the House is enough to convict the president?

Can you imagine impeaching a president over an innocuous phone call with another president of another country? Does carrying the moniker of Democrat mean that you have lost all your common sense? If their evidence is so “overwhelming”, why, then, do they need more? The Republicans should not be sucked into trying to answer all the lies that the Democrats throw at them in trying to justify impeaching the president. The Articles of Impeachment, sent to the Senate for trial, contain two counts that do not reach the level of “high crimes and misdemeanors” set forth in the Constitution. For months leading up to the actual vote in the House of Representatives for impeachment, the “loser” Democrats were using words like bribery, extortion, “quid pro quo” and attack on the Constitution, to charge what the president supposedly engaged in for doing those activities. Those were actual crimes, but, in the end, they couldn't prove those outrageous false charges so they settled for “Abuse of Power” and “Obstruction of Congress”, both non-crimes.

The trial in the Senate should, after hearing the charges put forth by the House of Representatives, the Senate should declare that the Articles do not meet the criteria of what the Constitution states as reasons for impeaching a public official (in this case the President of the United States).

When the president will be found “not guilty” in the Senate (no way will 2/3's of the Senate vote for conviction), some think that that the Democrat-controlled House will not accept the Senate's decision by offering up more new senseless crimes to hang around the president's
neck, and start another impeachment process. Their hatred is so intense that they can't think straight and will attempt another “bite of the apple”. That's how out of control they are when it comes to dealing with President Trump. They realize that the re-election of the president is almost a sure thing.

Think of all the wasted time, effort, and money that has been expended on this “hoax” impeachment. Instead of doing the people's work by addressing the problems of the country, the Democrats will continue on their vendetta against the president in trying to undo the results of the 2016 election.

It seems the “overwhelming evidence” that the Democrats presented to the Senate was not so “overwhelming” after all. The Democrat “shills” in the persons of Nancy Pelosi, Adam Schiff, and Jerrold Nadler, are going to be shown to be the phonies that they are in pushing this senseless impeachment charge against all rational thinking. The quicker they shoot down this sham persecution, the better off we all will be.

Conservative commentary by Chuck Lehmann

If you listen to today's liberal politicians and their flunky's in the main stream media, you wonder where their common sense has gone – it seems their once common sense has morphed into nonsense.

A good example are the thoughts and policies put forth by the Democrat candidates for president and some of the movers and shakers in the rank and file of the Democrat Party itself. You wonder, do they really believe what they say or are they just mouthing what they think the Democrat base wants to hear? To any intelligent person, it is just pure nonsense to spout such platitudes promising voters something for nothing, which seems to be the major promise they are making in hopes of enticing the voters to vote for them.

Let's go down the list of what the Democrats are professing to believe in. Free college for all and the paying off of the students debt; Medicare for all, including for illegal aliens; no border walls to stem the flow of illegals into our country and the same with the amount of deadly drugs smuggled in; doing away with the Trump tax cuts and the imposition of a 70% income tax on successful wealthy citizens; mandating the introduction of “green energy” in place of fossil fuels; trying to impeach a sitting president who has committed no high crimes and misdemeanors only for purely political purposes; and on and on. You wonder, do they really believe that the general public will fall for their “snake oil”? That isn't common sense, it is nonsense.

In addition, their policies mirror many of the ideas out of the Karl Marx playbook. Many in the Democrat Party really think that socialism is the preferred economic system we should follow in place of our tried and true capitalist system. To justify their warped thoughts, they throw out the nice sounding word “fairness” that drips off their lips as if they think everyone should be equal regardless of what they contribute to society. That mentality sort of makes everyone fall into the mediocre category as the incentive to succeed is frowned upon. Is that really fair, or is that the nonsense I was referring to in my headline of this editorial.

The left-wing liberal who preach that socialism is the preferred economic system, never seem to mention or point out where, when or what country socialism has succeeded. On the other hand, people with common sense can point out the economic “basket cases” like Cuba, Venezuela, Argentina, the former Soviet Union, and most Muslim countries in the Middle East and most countries in Africa. Some of those countries that have embraced Marxism/Socialism, were once very successful economically until they embraced the socialist economic model. In South America, both Venezuela and Argentina fall into the category of being endowed with great wealth, but after falling into the hands of rulers who embraced socialism, their economies, consequently, went into the tank.

So when you hear the liberal politicians promise outrageous ideas of you getting something for nothing, you should remember that old saying of “there is no such thing as a free lunch” as the liberals try to turn common sense into nonsense.

Conservative commentary by Chuck Lehmann

Should President Trump be judged upon his personality and his personal peccadillo's, or should he judged on his performance in the oval office? The main chant by his detractors is that he doesn't act presidential and is sometimes crude in his language, and that he is a braggart, a bully and a prevaricator (imagine any politician using those words on another politician?). Those criticisms might be true in some sense, but does that really affect the policies that he presents and institutes in order to “Make America Great Again”?

Since his inauguration, what have been his accomplishments? Do his detractors, mainly the “Never-Trumper's” (especially even some Republicans) agree with his appointment of Judge Neal Gorsuch and Judge Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court to fill the seat of Justice Kennedy; do they agree with his tax cuts whereby both rich and poor get a tax break; do they agree with the unparalleled boom in our stock markets and the lowest unemployment rates in decades; do they approve of his approval of the Keystone pipeline and his opening up of ANWR for future oil exploration; do they agree with his voiding of the business killing regulations that has hampered businesses for years; do they agree with his outreach to some of our international adversaries in China, No. Korea, and Russia in trying to avoid the next World War 111; do they agree with his trying to crackdown on halting the flow of illegal aliens into our country, etc., etc.? Most likely the answer to these policies should be positive, but still they criticize him with over the top rhetoric, not about his policies, but against his personality and demeanor. This reminds me of an analogy of choosing a surgeon for a serious operation. Would you choose an experienced surgeon, with a lousy demeanor and a poor bedside manner, or would you choose a pleasant, friendly, inexperienced surgeon with a pleasant bedside manner? I'll bet the majority would choose the gruff surgeon, right? The same should be applied to President Trump in carrying out of his duties as the chief executive officer and the commander in chief
of the United States. Remember, he is not your usual politician, he says what he means and means what he says. Can you say that about most politicians?

This compulsive desire on the part of the Democrats and their flunky's in the news media (90% of all mention of Trump is negative), to hamper President Trump in anyway possible, is a stain on the country as a whole. Most of the vitriol against President Trump is based on extreme emotion rooted in the fact that they cannot accept the fact that he beat their anointed queen, Hillary Clinton, against all odds and all polls. From the beginning, the Democrats have instituted a “total resistance” plan to try to bring down President Trump and his administration, but the more “crazy” they act the higher President Trump's approval poll numbers go up.

So, the personal attacks against the president seems to be discounted by most “sane” people in determining what is best for them and their families. He is flawed like all of us, including other recent presidents like John F. Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, and Bill Clinton, so these sanctimonious hypocrites who condemn the president personally, should be thankful that he is the president and not Hillary Clinton, who was primed to continue the failed polices of President Obama.

We elected a leader, not a Pope!

Conservative commentary by Chuck Lehmann

That absolute fact is seldom or never taken into consideration when the “gun grabbers” or the anti-gun zealots make their plea to confiscate guns from the law abiding public. Think of all the times law abiding citizens (gun owners) have defended themselves and/or their families by using their legal firearms to thwart a possible or real personal attack. The”fake news media”, who are almost universally opposed to gun ownership, very seldom report on those instances of self-defense because it does not fit their narrative of most all guns are bad and that the patriotic NRA (National Rifle Association) is an “evil” organization that should be denied existence.

Let's look at the facts. Most mass killings and individual killings are performed in places called “gun free zones” (schools, malls, theaters, and other public places where people gather) where the victims cannot defend themselves from harm from a crazed individual(s) who is wanton to do his/her dirty deed. Legally armed public citizens cannot prevent all such instances, but they could mitigate the damage done by a perpetrator(s) bent on personal destruction by using a firearm, or other lethal weapons like a knife, machete etc.

The people who blame guns instead of the person who uses that instrument to do harm to others, are emotionally blind to the happenings in the real world. A gun (whether a handgun or a rifle) cannot perform without the assistance of a person behind the firearm pulling the trigger. It should be the person pulling the trigger that should be the focus of the authorities, not the legal gun owner who never, or seldom, uses his firearm to do harm to the community.

The “gun grabbers” blame the patriotic members of the NRA as being the culprit in the various gun crimes committed in the United States that are hysterically reported in the media. In all these terrible instances of gun violence, how many of the perpetrators belonged to the NRA or other peaceful gun organizations? Would the answer be close to none?

I personally, do not own a firearm (I did have a “Red Ryder” B-B gun as a youth), but I would welcome a legal gun owner to be present in my company if or when a crazed individual decided to shoot at innocent people, including myself, in a venue I was attending.

​I don't naively claim that an armed individual would prevent all gun crimes, but I do, again, claim that legally armed gun owners could lessen the damage done by one or more individuals bent on creating death or havoc upon innocent people by using a gun or other lethal weapon. In the main, the police and law enforcement agencies do a commendable job in protecting us from harm, even with the obstacles thrown up against them by some feckless politicians, but as the headline of this article states, when seconds count, the police are only minutes away. A legally armed citizen could close that gap in response to confronting that criminal, by using his legal firearm before
the police arrived.

Conservative Commentary by Chuck Lehmann