From the U.S. Census Bureau, median household income rose by 6.8% in 2019 - a record one-year increase…
CFIF on Twitter CFIF on YouTube
Image of the Day: Record One-Year Income Rise in 2019

From the U.S. Census Bureau, median household income rose by 6.8% in 2019 - a record one-year increase - to a record high of $68,700.  Notably, under the supposed racist President Donald Trump, those 2019 income gains were largest for minority groups.  And since 2016, median income has risen 9.7%, which is fantastic news for Americans, even if it might be bad news for leftists in their disinformation campaign:

 

[caption id="" align="alignleft" width="498"] Record Income Rise in 2019[/caption]

 …[more]

September 18, 2020 • 11:47 AM

Liberty Update

CFIFs latest news, commentary and alerts delivered to your inbox.
Jester's CourtroomLegal tales stranger than stranger than fiction: Ridiculous and sometimes funny lawsuits plaguing our courts.
Dems Smear Trump: 'Impeached for Life' Print
By Betsy McCaughey
Wednesday, January 15 2020
What a charade. The Dems' goal all along has been to impeach Trump and damage his re-electability in 2020.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is gloating because President Donald Trump is "impeached for life," and "there's nothing the Senate can do that can ever erase that." Like a prosecutor telling a defendant, even if acquitted, you're "indicted for life" and you'll never shake the disgrace. So much for the noble principle of innocent until proven guilty.

Could this be the same never-hate Pelosi who wore black on Dec. 18 as she "solemnly and sadly" called for a vote to impeach the president? What a charade. The Dems' goal all along has been to impeach Trump and damage his re-electability in 2020.

The House is preparing to send the articles of impeachment to the Senate, where a trial will get underway next week. Already, Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer are conspiring to make the disgrace stick by smearing Trump's likely acquittal as a cover-up.

They've been demanding an upfront guarantee that the Senate will call White House staff as witnesses, knowing that's a nonstarter with Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. McConnell prefers the trial format used for Bill Clinton's 1998 impeachment: First, the House presents its charges, and Trump's lawyers rebut. If the senators need to know more, they can call witnesses. Delaying that decision doesn't mean the trial is rigged.

Some Trump supporters are urging the Supreme Court to step in to halt the Senate trial before it begins. That will go nowhere because the Court ruled unequivocally and unanimously in 1993 that it would not interfere in impeachments. It's up to the Senate to question the wisdom of degrading impeachment into a partisan tool. Allow it now, and any future House majority can impeach a president they don't like.

After all, House Dems argued Trump could be impeached even if he hasn't violated any law. Their first article of impeachment accuses him of putting "personal political benefit" ahead of "the interests of the nation." Who's to say what's in the national interest?

That definition of an impeachable offense is so vague and subjective that any president could be impeached. Senators should reject it.

Democrats charge Trump with a second offense, "obstruction of Congress," for claiming executive privilege and refusing to allow White House staff to testify. But executive privilege isn't something Trump invented. Previous presidents, from George Washington to Barack Obama have said "no" to congressional requests, relying on the courts to referee. This time, House Democrats were in a rush to impeach and unwilling to battle Trump in court. They took a short cut around our constitutional system of checks and balances. Senators shouldn't go along with it.

The Senate could vote to dismiss the articles, on the basis that these charges are not impeachable offenses. Trump called for that on Sunday, but there is no political will among Senate Republicans to take the heat for that. And the truth is that acquittal is better than dismissal.

So, after opening arguments, the next question is whether to extend the trial and call witnesses. Dems are running ads against vulnerable Republicans like Maine's Susan Collins accusing them of unfairness for not guaranteeing witnesses, and it's having an impact. Collins indicated on Friday she'll try to get witnesses called. But calling witnesses isn't the same as getting them.

Even if the Senate votes to subpoena White House staff, including former national security adviser John Bolton, don't count on hearing from them. Trump indicated on Friday that he intends to limit or block testimony, including Bolton's, citing executive privilege. Bolton may defy Trump, but it's less likely Trump's current top advisers will.

In ordinary times, Trump's stance would set up a court battle. Dems lost their chance for that once they voted to impeach. The 1993 ruling makes it clear the Supreme Court will no longer intervene. That means there's no practical way to force the president to produce witnesses.

Expect a short trial, an acquittal and no relief from the venomous anti-Trump rancor driving the Democratic Party. House Democrats are looking for new grounds to impeach. As if Congress had nothing better to do.


Betsy McCaughey is a former lieutenant governor of New York state and author of "Government by Choice: Inventing the United States Constitution." 
COPYRIGHT 2020 CREATORS.COM

Question of the Week   
Constitution Day is observed annually on September 17th because on that date in 1787:
More Questions
Quote of the Day   
 
"President Trump, like President Obama in 2016, has the constitutional power to nominate a Supreme Court justice. He should exercise that power to put forward someone with a track record of respect for the law and for its limits on the judiciary. The Senate, as it did in 2016, will then have the power to decide whether to proceed. If the nominee meets threshold conditions of quality and judicial philosophy…[more]
 
 
—The Editors, National Review
— The Editors, National Review
 
Liberty Poll   

Which one of the following do you believe is the most likely cause of the forest fires devastating America's west?