How many witches does it take to constitute a coven?

Apparently, within the Democratic party, the coven-quorum number is four:

Progressive lawmaker responds to President Trump's tweets.

In spirited remarks tinged with open animosity, (1) Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., standing side-by-side with Reps. (2) Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez,(3) Ayanna Pressley and (4) Dashiki Tlaib, declared at a news conference Monday on Capitol Hill that "it is time for us to impeach this president" for "openly violating" his constitutional oath.

Well, that seems fair.   After all, the Republicans wanted to impeach President Clinton for (essentially) Moral Turpitude and Being A Democrat.

At least the Democrats learned that an impeachment movement needs something a little more "political" than a BJ in the West Wing.

Unfortunately, the Dems have just delivered the moral equivalent (although not in the West Wing) with the Progressive Movement to impeach Trump for "being Presidential".

As nearly as anyone who isn't a radical leftist can guess, the reason for the current impeachment movement us because  "... he's a Racist ..."!!!

(Oh, and he also made some unkind remarks about people he has never met.)(Also, he hurt their feelings.)

Most importantly, the Democrats are attempting to impeach Donald Trump for not being a Democrat. 

This political strategy has apparently been attempted only twice in American history (Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton) ... neither time successfully:impeached-3368130

There are only two impeached presidents in United States history, meaning only two presidents have been charged by the House of Representatives with committing "high crimes and misdemeanors."." Neither of the two impeached presidents, Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton, were convicted by the Senate. In fact, there has never been a president removed from office using the impeachment process.

(emphasis added)

Well, then there was John Tyler.  But he wasn't sufficiently colorful to show up in a quick internet search.   And Andrew Johnson.  (You can look them up yourself.)

Essentially, being impeached includes being accused, not being convicted of a charge which might ultimately resulted in the removal of a sitting president from office.   Yeah, like THAT'S gonna happen!  If they couldn't kick Nixon out, EVERYBODY is safe!

  (Oh!  Wait a minute ..... never mind.)

My guess is that Donald  Trump might be secretly pleased by any kind of impeachment proceedings against him.  He's a Glory Hound, and obviously loves the attention. 

BUT GETTING BACK TO THE MAIN THEME ... it takes only the accusation of a sitting member of congress (or two or three ... who knows?) to mount impeachable accusations against a current office holder.

It works out quite well for every one:

-- the accusers get their names in the newspapers (Headline Hogs)
.. the accused suddenly seems "colorful" to the Hoi Poloi.

In Trump's case, that's worth a good twelve to fourteen points in next week's Gallop Polls!

(Unless you're Richard Nixon)

Grounds for Impeachment?

No; he actually cannot do that.

Trump vows to end birthright citizenship with executive order:

President Donald Trump said in an interview that he plans to sign an executive order ending "birthright citizenship" for the children of non-American citizens who are born on U.S. soil, a move that would likely be challenged immediately in the courts over its constitutionality.

American Democrats have been waiting for President Trump to make a misstep, and he just tripped over his big mouth with this statement.

The office of the President is an "executive" position, which means he is responsible for executing the law.  He cannot make, change or delete laws ... which are based on the Constitution.

Trump's declaration that he can end "birthright citizenship" puts him in the political position of attempting to undermine the Constitution, and that might reasonably be grounds for a move for impeachment.

Which will certainly happen.

Impeachment isn't necessarily the same as removing him from office, but it certainly is justification for requiring him to resign (as did Nixon) with a sufficient number of responsible Republican Congressmen to reinforce the inevitable Democratic motion.

He has crossed the Rubicon, and he's not an American Caesar ... he's not strong enough to defeat all of his enemies when his own party concurs that he has overstepped his authority.

I voted for Trump on the basis that he was "Not Hillary"; but this move puts him in the same category as the power-mad Clinton family.

If there's a small town in America who is looking for a new dog-catcher, I can name a candidate.
Although it may offend the dogs.

Here's the bad news: his replacement is likely to be the vice president; and can anybody even remember HIS name?

What would we do without NewsWeek? (Think for ourselves?)

It's a wonderful thing to be a writer for NEWSWEEK:

When there's a Democratic administration, you get to write about a Saint; and when there's a Republican in the White House, you get to write about the asshole leading the country.

Either way, you have an eager readership just waiting to read (and agree with you) about whatever you have to say about the current administration!

Donald Trump’s Congressional Lackeys Are Threatening Washington D.C.’s Gun Laws:

 Now proven largely correct, I’m willing to bet there’s one consequence to Donald Trump’s presidency that didn’t occur to you: For the first time in 40 years, due to the Republican Congress emboldened by a new president, guns might return to the streets of our nation’s capital en masse, no longer subject to the controls that have kept gun violence in check for decades.

This is just one example about the opinions propounded in SlewsWeek;
The current administration is "permitting" Americans in DC to exercise their constitutional rights ... and it is A Bad Thing!

DC is "no longer subject to the controls that have kept gun violence in check for decades.

Yeah, right.

The District of Columbia has been among the top fifteen most lawless (in terms of "Gun Violence") cities in America for decades, but NewsWeek Magazine typifies it as a city which has kept " gun violence in check for decades."

This has been a town (?) which has been (in 13th place in the nation along with its sister city, Baltimore, in 4th place) so lawless that criminals, crooks, gang-bangers and other Bad Guys have been moving from Chicago (18th place) to the DC area just because they know they are less likely to be prosecuted for "gun violence" .. because DC wants so badly to maintain its (unlikely) image as a "violence free" place to live.

If it wasn't for all the armed body-guards protecting elected officials, there would be NO protection for "The Average Joe".  All you have to do in DC to protect yourself is to have a half-dozen suits forming a protective circle around you; everyone else is assumed to be without protection, because NO GUNS ALLOWED!

The rest of the citizens have been advised to carry a five-dollar bill in their wallet, no credit cards, and to meekly "give it up" when confronted by muggers.

Where is the outrage?

Who can carry a gun?  (Nobody, except armed, licensed "Security Guards" ... which the Average citizen cannot afford!)

Gun Control sucks.  It keeps the criminals .. muggers, gang-bangers, etc. ... well armed and everyone else (who can't afford a hired bodyguard) without defense.   Unless, of course, they're willing to "carry" even though it's a violation of the law, or perhaps if they are "privileged" to carry a firearm .. which means very few without  "Political Influence".

Here's how you can get a Concealed Carry License in the District of Columbia:

The District of Columbia is a "May Issue" entity: you must have a permit to carry a firearm, but permits are rarely issued.

In Washington, D.C., all firearms must be registered with the police, by the terms of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975.
The same law also prohibited the possession of handguns, even in private citizens' own homes, unless they were registered before 1976. However, the handgun ban was struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 2008 case District of Columbia v. Heller. The Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment acknowledges and guarantees the right of the individual to possess and carry firearms, and therefore D.C.'s ban on handguns was unconstitutional.^[9] 

In a word:   NO!   "They cannot keep you from owning a firearm!"

Sneaky, dirty rats

Trump calls Islamic State 'sneaky, dirty rats' during Hannity interview - YouTube:

 Jan 26, 2017 President Donald Trump discussed the fight against ISIS, replacing Obamacare, his Supreme Court nominee and much more in an interview with Sean Hannity in the White House.

I wish I had said that ... I could have, but nobody would have listened.
Oh, and I don't have the ability to pick the perfect nomenclature for the "sneaky, dirty rats" which threaten our country.

Trump's Right Hand

Apparently I'm not the only one who finds Donald J. Trump's "hand gestures" irritating!



Geez ... if someone would replace that hand with ,,, with a ... A HOOK!

Can Trump Rob Peter To Pay Paul?

 Is our new president making promises he can't keep?

Oh, HELL yes!

Can Trump Deliver More Water to California's Farmers? - Breitbart:

President-elect Donald Trump has stated his commitment to helping California’s farmers attain more water, as the Golden State prepares to enter its historic sixth year of a crippling drought, with a federal water policy in place that favors fish over agriculture.

Where is he planning to get more water for California?

A large  (YUGE!) part of the water that soothes California Drinkin' comes from the Pacific North West ... parts of which have their own irrigation problem.

What's more important?  Salmon or Lettuce?

One of those problems is that the Pacific Salmon fishing industry (not so much the fish, as the people) depends on Salmon returning to spawn in their 'home waters.   Most of those waters are not located in California, but in Oregon and Washington.  And small farmers in Southern Oregon could produce bigger crops, if they could get more water.

When California draws irrigation water from other states, Pacific Salmon mortality rate soars.
The facts are, Oregon/Washington/Idaho/Colorado are already suffering from threats to harvests because they are sharing their water with California.

Not only are the Northern California farmers "part of the problem", but mega-cities such as San Francisco and Las Angeles are unable to provide sufficient water to service their rapidly growing population without "stolen water":

Colorado River Supply

A California Plumbing Supply industry (link at paragraph heading) provides the answer:
The Colorado River provides water usage to seven states, parts of Mexico, and several Native American tribes. Naturally, all parties are looking out for their own interests first. Many people in other states upriver resent having to let water they want to use flow by them and go to California.The Hetch Hetchy Aqueduct provides more than three-quarters of the water for urban San Francisco. It draws primarily from the area encompassing Yosemite National Park. The East Bay also gets most of its water from the high Sierra, via the Mokelumne Aqueduct. 

We're All "JOADS" Now:

These problems were not created by Donald Trump.  They were created by the mass immigration into California since the Dust Bowl brought failed farmers from Oklahoma to California back in the 1930's.

(See: Grapes of Wrath by John Steinbeck)

No American president has been able to find a better solution to California droughts than "Redistribution" ... which was Obama's solution to the flow of money; and we all know how well that worked out.

We will be treated to the drama of a billionaire who cannot buy himself out of a problem.  This is the immovable object being faced by the unstoppable force.

I can't wait to see how the Trump Administration handles itself.

How the NRA Stoked the Populist Rage That Gave America President Trump

How the NRA Stoked the Populist Rage That Gave America President Trump:

On May 2016, the National Rifle Association endorsed Donald Trump for president earlier in the campaign cycle than any candidate in the group’s history. The anointment came during the group’s annual meeting in Louisville, Kentucky, where top NRA lobbyist Chris Cox declared that the “the choice for gun owners in this election is clear. And that choice is Donald Trump.”

 The move puzzled observers who understood the NRA to be a doctrinaire single issue interest group, and even its own members, who didn’t quite share their leaders’ ardor for the Manhattan businessman.

Here is how it worked out:

Trump bore little resemblance to the lifelong heartland conservatives whom the NRA typically backed. He was an Ivy League-educated real estate heir with a gold-plated private jet and a foreign, former-model third wife. Trump and Melania had wed at a glamorous ceremony where Bill and Hillary Clinton had been among the guests. A proud New York City resident, Trump didn’t seem to have much regard for the attachments many Americans felt towards guns, never mind the policy purity the NRA demands of other candidates. In a 2000 book, he’d even written, “I support the ban on assault weapons and I also support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun.”

But here's how it REALLY worked out:

We "Double-Dog Dare You" to vote for Der Trump!

Boston Globe Trump front page: The GOP must stop Trump - The Boston Globe:
(April 11, 2016)

 It is easy to find historical antecedents. The rise of demagogic strongmen is an all too common phenomenon on our small planet. And what marks each of those dark episodes is a failure to fathom where a leader’s vision leads, to carry rhetoric to its logical conclusion. The satirical front page of this section attempts to do just that, to envision what America looks like with Trump in the White House.
 It is an exercise in taking a man at his word. And his vision of America promises to be as appalling in real life as it is in black and white on the page. It is a vision that demands an active and engaged opposition. It requires an opposition as focused on denying Trump the White House as the candidate is flippant and reckless about securing it.

Oh, dear!

Are they TAUNTING us to vote for Trump?

(Note rule of thumb: if the Boston Globe is against 'it', chances are I should be for 'it'.)