Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

House Democrats introduce bill to ban “Twice Impeached Presidents” from burial at Arlington National Cemetery

House Democrats introduce bill to ban “Twice Impeached Presidents” from burial at Arlington National Cemetery

Don’t they mean “twice acquitted presidents”

https://twitter.com/WhiteHouse/status/1286041141360627712

How much to Democrats hate Trump? This much.

Legislation introduced by House Democrats would ban “twice impeached presidents” from being buried at Arlington National Cemetery.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Impeached (e.g. character), yes, but not removed (e.g. validated).

The first impeachment was self-incriminating. The sequel was less dramatic, but there was social and civil progress: one step forward, two steps backward.

That said, the narrative of Capitol is reminiscent of Cuomo, the man from Planned Parent/hood, and resources rejected. And Katrina, resources offered, and rejected. And Atlanta, Georgia, of Every Child Left Behind fame. Et cetera.

    JusticeDelivered in reply to n.n. | February 18, 2021 at 6:51 pm

    I am so–ooo tired of Dems and their hate. I have had plenty of people hate me when I stood strong and extracted what I was owed. Frankly I don’t give a about what they like and dislike. Most of the time I kept beating them into the ground, the more they hated, the better.

    That is what we need to do to these people. Keep rubbing their noses in until they their hate either destroys them or or they get tired of the hate.

    One of the best ways to deal with their hate is to cause them to turn on each other.

Hey, next they can pass a law that allows anyone who’s twice been accused of a crime, and then acquitted, to still be sent to prison.

    LibraryGryffon in reply to McGehee. | February 18, 2021 at 6:36 pm

    Don’t give them ideas!

    JusticeDelivered in reply to McGehee. | February 18, 2021 at 6:52 pm

    Like China.

    randian in reply to McGehee. | February 20, 2021 at 1:44 am

    next they can pass a law that allows anyone who’s twice been accused of a crime, and then acquitted, to still be sent to prison

    Rather like how the UK abolished double jeopardy for certain crimes. The government can keep trying until it finds the “right” jury, in the meantime bankrupting you and keeping you in prison for years while the trials play out.

Comanche Voter | February 18, 2021 at 5:28 pm

Cute little suckers aren’t they? And then once The Donald is safely dead and buried somewhere, they’ll organize tour buses so all of the Pelosi acolytes can come and “water” his grave. These people are lower than whale feces on the bottom of the Marianas Trench.

Since the Dems are doing everything possible to emulate Stalin’s Soviet government, why not just do a Nikolai Yezhoy and Photoshop President Trump out of all official photos ? That would really utilize the old memory hole.
“Those who do not learn from history are domed to repeat it.” Santayana

I.hate.these.people.

Do your f-king jobs

Oh that’s right Biden is doing it for you with his EO’s that you don’t give crap about

We.don’t.need.you..

DieJustAsHappy | February 18, 2021 at 5:37 pm

Just when I think their pettiness cannot be surpassed, they prove me wrong …

smalltownoklahoman | February 18, 2021 at 5:41 pm

DieJustAsHappy beat me to it! Yes, pure pettiness and spite on open display.

Trump is developing free real estate in the Dems heads.

pablo panadero | February 18, 2021 at 6:04 pm

Shh…nobody tell the Democrats that the cemetery is actually on the grounds of a slaveholder, then the will have to change the bill to FORCE him to be buried there…

It’s going to take this type of craziness to wake people up to the mental illness in our current administration.

It’s cute that they have to say “twice impeached” so as to exclude Billy Jeff. It forces them to expose themselves for the hypocrite they are. But why don’t they just name Trump and be done with it?

    alaskabob in reply to Milhouse. | February 18, 2021 at 6:31 pm

    Anticipating future Republican presidents?

      LibraryGryffon in reply to alaskabob. | February 18, 2021 at 6:47 pm

      It would at least prevent them from spending all of the next Republican President’s term impeaching him. Because if one was a thrice impeached president, this bill would obviously not apply.

      And as my daughter just pointed out, we better not let them know that a former member of the Waffen SS (died in ‘Nam a much-decorated Green Beret) is buried there….

    Brave Sir Robbin in reply to Milhouse. | February 19, 2021 at 12:16 am

    Well, by the precedent they set, a future Republican house of representatives can simply impeach Bill Clinton again.

    randian in reply to Milhouse. | February 20, 2021 at 1:46 am

    But why don’t they just name Trump and be done with it?

    They appear to be assuming that our courts won’t rule it a bill of attainder, which it clearly is, if Trump isn’t explicitly named in the bill.

“This bill is called the ‘No Glory for Hate Act.'”

We should make a point of referring to it by its shorter name, the “Hate Act.”

The Friendly Grizzly | February 18, 2021 at 6:40 pm

I look at the bright side. While they’re doing the sort of childish nonsense, they don’t have time to debate the next tax increase.

Article I, Section 9, paragraph 3 of the U.S. Constitution: “No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.”

According to the Supreme Court, a bill of attainder is “a legislative act which inflicts punishment without a judicial trial.”

    Milhouse in reply to Ironman. | February 18, 2021 at 7:59 pm

    The question is whether any of these things are punishments. You could argue they’re merely denial of privileges. Congress can say these privileges only go to former presidents who haven’t been impeached more than once.

      Kelikaku in reply to Milhouse. | February 19, 2021 at 7:37 am

      Two problems with this, showing that it was probably not written by a lawyer;

      1) If it passes (which it won’t) it will take effect, both, after each of the impeachments, and after the swearing in of, President Trump. Since laws are not retroactive, when the law takes effect, it will only apply to those Presidents sworn in afterwards. Not before. This won’t even get to the Supreme Court.

      For example, when the 22nd amendment was passed, it didn’t affect President Truman (it limited Presidents to no more than two terms). It was passed after he became President. Laws are never “retroactive.”

      2) Presidents and many other elected officials are personally exempt from actions being taken against them for decisions they made while in office.

      For example, after President Nixon resigned, he was “untouchable” from prosecution for any misconduct, while in office.

      This is never going to pass. The value is here, that it exposes the stupidity and ignorance of the politicians who drafted and endorsed this bill.

      Thanks for the content.
      Keep up the good work. בס״ד

        lichau in reply to Kelikaku. | February 19, 2021 at 10:16 am

        There you go reading that pesky Constitution again.

        Just have Biden issue an EO. Problem solved.

        Milhouse in reply to Kelikaku. | February 19, 2021 at 11:48 am

        It’s not true that laws are never retroactive. The constitution only bans retroactively turning a lawful act into a crime, or retroactively increasing the penalty for a crime. This bill wouldn’t do that. It would simply condition future benefits on a president not having been twice impeached in the past.

        The 22nd amendment would have applied to Truman, had its language not specifically excluded him; that was a political decision by its sponsors. In fact, it specifically provides that if it comes into effect during a president’s third term he should nevertheless finish out the term; without that language it would have forced that person out mid-term.

        It’s customary for such changes to take effect only in the future, to avoid suspicion that they’re being made for current political advantage; in this case that’s explicit anyway and they’re not bothering to hide it.

        And no, former presidents are not immune for misconduct while in office; they’re only immune for official decisions. Nixon could have been prosecuted, were it not for his pardon. But even the pardon could not have prevented congress from passing this sort of act against him; it didn’t because Ford would have vetoed it, and by the time Carter came nobody wanted to revisit it.

        א גיטן שבת

        Lichau, Biden could probably do this by EO, but whoever is president when Trump dies could undo it. An actual law would bind that future president.

    henrybowman in reply to Ironman. | February 19, 2021 at 7:31 am

    Yeah, lawyers can argue their way out of anything. Remember the Lautenberg Act, making people who had ever been convicted of domestic violence unable to possess guns? Ex post facto as hell. Nope, said the courts, it’s not a punishment. Sounds like one to me.

      Milhouse in reply to henrybowman. | February 19, 2021 at 11:50 am

      At the time it wasn’t a punishment, because the presumption was that owning a gun is a privilege, not a constitutional right. If and when we have a court that takes the 2A seriously, that decision may be revisited.

It’s a Bill of Attainder – https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/381/437/

If not:
Any President who sexually harassed interns, raped women and whose wife hid subpoenaed documents in the White House can never – forgedaboutit – he’s suffered enough

Any President who can’t produce a valid birth certificate and ruined American Health Care forfeits any money he earned as a result of his political career

Any woman Speaker of the House who has had more than 15 facelifts and 20 Botox injections has to retire in Baltimore City where she was spawned

And so on

    Obama did produce his birth certificate and was born in the USA, and because his mother is a citizen that isn’t relevant anyway. What the constitution mandates is being born a citizen not born on our soil.

      Milhouse in reply to Danny. | February 19, 2021 at 2:19 am

      He produced it eventually, but only after several years’ of messing with people’s heads. That could be grounds for denying him the privileges of former presidents 🙂

      As for the exact meaning of “natural born citizen”, it’s an open question. It certainly doesn’t mean the person’s parents have to be citizens, but there’s a good argument that it does require birth under US sovereignty.

      DaveGinOly in reply to Danny. | February 19, 2021 at 2:55 am

      The birth certificate was fake. I know that for a fact (I’m a documents and graphics professional). I downloaded the PDF, opened it in Adobe Illustrator, and could see it was assembled from parts. A scan of a document doesn’t have parts. It just has an image embedded in the document. One image. It was fake and this was pointed out at the time by others. I had to see for myself and did so. It was created by some dumbass who didn’t know enough to flatten the document before outputting it to PDF.

      Q: If the birth certificate was fake, does that mean Obama wasn’t a citizen?
      A: No. The purpose of the birth certificate was not just to provide a false proof of citizenship. It was meant to conceal the true source of his citizenship.
      While it’s true his mother was a citizen, under the law of the time she was not able to pass her citizenship status to little Barry because she had not spent the statutorily-required number of consecutive months in residence (i.e. in the US) before and after her 18th birthday. Therefore Barry was not eligible for US citizenship by way of his mother.
      Q: Then did he get his citizenship from his father? Wasn’t his father African?
      A: Yes and no.
      Barry’s father was an American. A communist by the name of Frank Marshall Davis.
      Now, imagine trying to get elected president, or advance in any way in America, as a black man with a commie for a dad. So Barry concealed the fact that Davis was his biological father and concocted the story that Kenyan Barack Hussein Obama Sr. was his dad.
      But this created a new problem. Barry was born in Africa. How could he claim US citizenship if he couldn’t claim it directly through his mother nor by his place of birth? (Remember, he doesn’t want to claim it through his actual, biological father.)

      Solution: Create a fake narrative, and equally fake documentation, of his birth in Hawaii.

      Just as a “for instance,” one of the problems with the fake birth certificate is that it was likely created by a 20-something no-nothing. The race of Barry’s faux dad was listed as “African American.” Barack Obama was born in 1961. In the US at that time, his father would have been referred to (esp. on official documentation) as a “Negro.” The term “African American” wasn’t in use until much later. (And his faux dad wasn’t an “African American” at all. He was just plain “African.” But that’s not a race, so the term that should have been, and would have been, used was “Negro.”)

      Of course, this story includes both some speculation and some hard facts. And it explains a lot about Obama’s citizenship status, how he acquired it, and why he had to fake a birth certificate. Of course, he may have faked a birth certificate because he was born in Kenya of a Kenyan father. But I don’t believe that’s (entirely) true.

        DaveGinOly in reply to DaveGinOly. | February 19, 2021 at 2:57 am

        Correction: “20-something know-nothing”

        Milhouse in reply to DaveGinOly. | February 19, 2021 at 1:51 pm

        That is all high-grade bovine waste product.

        1. It is not true that “a scan of a document doesn’t have parts. It just has an image embedded in the document. One image.” On the contrary, the layers in the birth certificate are exactly the sort of weird random layers that you get when you scan a document with software that tries to OCR it, or when you optimize a PDF and then open it as an image. See here, here, and here.

        2. There is not a shred of evidence or any reason to believe Davis was his father. But had that been the case there is still no way he would have appeared on the birth certificate. Ann Dunham was a married woman (or at least so she and everyone else at the time believed, not knowing about the bigamy), so her husband was automatically her child’s legal father, and would have so appeared on the birth certificate.

        3. The race of Barry’s faux dad was listed as “African American.”

        This is just an outright stupid lie, as anyone can verify for themselves. His race is given as “African”, which was indeed the then-correct term for a black person from Africa. “Negro” was used only for Americans of African descent.

    henrybowman in reply to Vladtheimp. | February 19, 2021 at 7:34 am

    If I wrote for the Babylon Bee, I’d write about a new Pelosi bill that mandates that all Trump’s property be destroyed by fire and crushing, and Trump himself be set adrift in the Atlantic on a log raft, which after three days would be targeted by a Hellfire Drone and sunk. The Bill would be called the Stop Hate Act II.

Are they going to tell us we cannot hate anyone? Really? They must surely be insane to believe they can legislate this. Unfortunately, there is bad news regarding the powermongers at the top who are pushing this agenda on the “useful idiots” that elected them: they know they cannot legislate morality, but they can sure put many to death exactly like their predecessors have throughout history.

Next… A bill to

1) purchase the house he was brought home to from the hospital he was born in;
2) burn it down;
3) salt the earth is was built on.

If this passes…Add to the GOP ToDo impeachment list…

— Two impeachments for the Obamessiah.
— One more for Slick Willy.
— Two for China Joe.

Shouldn’t take more than a few weeks based on the new impeachment criteria and procedure precedents the Dems have established..

    Danny in reply to JHogan. | February 19, 2021 at 12:34 am

    If we retake congress I think I would prefer keeping congress so Democrats can’t get anything done again.

      Milhouse in reply to Danny. | February 19, 2021 at 2:21 am

      And you think doing this would endanger that?! I think the opposite; it would gratify the voters who elected the R majority.

        Danny in reply to Milhouse. | February 20, 2021 at 6:45 am

        If we campaign on impeachment that would be a good argument but if we campaign on something else then just turn to impeachment it would be considered a broken promise wouldn’t it?

We can never peacefully share a country with these psychopaths.

Whatever animus they have towards Trump is animus they have towards you and I.

America has become a very dangerous, sick place. Let’s get the hell out.

From Wikipedia: Only two U.S. presidents, William Howard Taft and John F. Kennedy, are buried at Arlington National Cemetery. (Most presidents have chosen to be buried in their home states.) There’s the secret: you can’t have President Trump buried anywhere near the sainted JFK.

So, who cares. The Democrats are saying if you are not buried in Arlington you are unworthy. Tell that to the thousands of Americans buried in foreign lands and the many US Presidents and other great Americans not buried in Arlington. For most interments, being a Washington elitist is a prerequisite. Real Americans do not need honors bestowed by the deep state.

The sheer pettiness on display at times leaves one speechless.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend