Tom Tancredo

Former Rep. Tom Tancredo to Run for Governor of Colorado

Former Congressman Tom Tancredo (R-CO), a strong advocate against illegal immigration, will reportedly run for Colorado gubernatorial election in 2018. Tancredo decided to enter the race for governor after a private poll revealed that he had a wide lead over other potential Republican candidates. The survey also revealed that Tancredo has a statistical tie with Democratic candidate Rep. Jared Polis (D-CO). Tancredo told Colorado Politics on Monday, “I think that all of the things we need to do in the state of Colorado really require some bold leadership. It will not be easy to get some real change here, but I think I can provide that kind of leadership. I’m not afraid of taking on tough issues and being bold.” Tancredo explained that difficult issues facing Colorado families include roads, gun rights, education, sanctuary cities, energy, and economic growth. Tancredo was a prominent critic of illegal immigration during the Bush administration. The Republican gubernatorial candidate believes that the Republican establishment tanked his chances of winning the Colorado gubernatorial primary in 2014 after a wave of negative ads from the Republican Governor Association tanked his standing in the polls. “We have to anticipate what the establishment will do. It could get ugly. I think there is a swamp here,” Tancredo admitted. Tancredo had discussed whether he should run with conservative groups since August. “I keep asking the same question — ‘Do you think I can beat (Polis)? Do you think I’m the guy who can do it?’” Tancredo said. “So far, it looks like I have a chance.” Tancredo added, “I am so mad at the Republicans who are presently in office or in the hunt for not speaking out in defense of free speech that it won’t take much to push me over the line.”

Yes!!  We’re thrilled that former Congressman Tom Tancredo (R-CO) is seriously considering another run for Governor here in the great state of Colorado!!  In the interest of disclosure, and as many of you know, I’ve had the pleasure of knowing Tom on a personal level for many years.  He is the one who turned me on to “The Clash of Civilizations..,” and other writings, by Samuel P. Huntington.  Tom is a great guy who thinks outside the box and would be a breath of fresh, albeit feisty, air in the governor’s mansion.  We, of course, will keep a close eye on this developing story.    🙂

Tancredo: The Nazis Are Coming! The Nazis Are Coming! And They Are All Wearing Che Guevara Tee-Shirts!

Who would have believed that our Hollywood actors and late-night comedians could be counted on to be canaries in the mine? Their incessant chirping now warns us of the poison gases of hate wafting in on the nightly news reports of riots and blood-letting. These celebrity canaries are so concerned, they devote precious airtime, otherwise used to award each other prizes for being wonderful (and radically relevant), to sound the alarm. These celebrity cherubs and their sycophantic pols see Nazis everywhere and shudder at their resurgence. So do I. As a matter of fact, I have seen them with my own eyes. I saw them on the campus of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill where, as an invited speaker a few years ago, I had to have police swat teams provide a protective barrier to get into the lecture hall. Then the real party started. At Chapel Hill, the screaming brown shirts (led by several “professors”) were so loud inside that the cacophony was deafening. After a few minutes, bricks started coming through the window and a panic ensued while everyone scrambled for the doors. I was spirited away by two policemen as another nail was put in the coffin of free speech by a fascist mob hell-bent on protecting the campus from purveyors of heretical ideas. So much for our halls of academe leading to the free marketplace of ideas! The war on free speech has now reached epidemic proportions on college campuses nationwide. One brave scholar, Stanley Kurtz, has recently chronicled this firestorm of intolerance, which is all the more alarming and insidious because it is tacitly -– and often openly— aided by university administrators. The most ironic location for such a display of totalitarian temperament was at the University of Michigan LAW School, where after having been thwarted in their efforts to intimidate by rock throwing and sign waving in the streets, they pulled the fire alarm each time I tried to speak. Of course, that was the just a mild prank compared to the black mask wearing, window smashing, bottle throwing, pepper-spraying mob that injured 11 cops in St. Louis a few days ago. And so, I say “Right On!” to the public condemnation of the neo-fascists who disrupt peaceful rallies and incite mob violence. I want every act of a rally disruption or a synagogue desecration investigated thoroughly because I believe that, more often than not, you will find they are leftist agent-provocateurs and “false flag” miscreants who paint the swastikas on the walls. Through my Team America PAC, which has the distinction of being labeled a “hate group” by the Southern Poverty Law Center, I have offered cash rewards for information leading to the arrest and conviction of anyone committing these acts of vandalism in Colorado. So far, no takers. I venture to guess that around the nation, you will find that similar acts have been perpetrated by the same type of brown shirt/ski mask fanatics who defaced the statue of Christopher Columbus in Central Park and spray painted “Racist anthem” on the Baltimore monument to Francis Scott Key, who penned the words to the Star Spangled Banner. They are doubtless ignorant of the fact that Key was an outspoken opponent of the slave trade. Yes, there are indeed “Nazis” everywhere, quite a few of them operating from “safe places” inside our hallowed universities. They all learned from the tactics of their namesakes who first burned books and defaced artworks and broke out all the windows on Kristallnacht in Germany, in 1938. They, of course, soon graduated to burning people instead of just buildings and books. By all means, let’s all be on the lookout for the modern-day Nazis who use violence or intimidation to silence dissenters. They are on the march and have gained the support of the same mass media and organs of government charged with the responsibility of keeping them in check. What are we to do with public officials who promote self-censorship instead of defending the rights of citizens and groups targeted by the threat of violent disruption? Does anyone think history cannot repeat the Nazi reign of terror or Mao Tse-Tung’s “Great Leap Forward”? When we look back at the 1930’s and wonder how a nation like Germany, with the highest per capita education level in Europe at the time, could descend into the snake pit of evil that led to the death so many millions, we should think of this: •According to a 2015 report by the Pew Research Center, 40 percent of millennials are ok with limiting free speech, and the American Council of Trustees and Alumni found that 54 percent of Americans surveyed cannot accurately identify the Bill of Rights. •The same study found that 10 percent of the college students surveyed thought Judge Judy was on the Supreme Court. Hmmm. I have not yet been asked if I would trade Judge Judy for Associate Justice Sotomayor, and that’s good: it would be hard to resist that choice if I put my country’s well-being ahead of mere rules and precedents. But, hey: if the Constitution is only a useless piece of paper left behind by “dead white males,” why let the Rule of Law stand in the way of progress?

Things that make ya’ go, “hmmm…”   That outstanding piece was written by former Congressman Tom Tancredo (R-CO).

Tancredo: Hurricane DACA Targeting Washington Swampland: Are Republicans Prepared?

President Trump’s six-month reprieve for Obama’s “Deferred Acton on Childhood Arrivals” (DACA) program could be a lifeline to the Republican party, but it can turn out to be a death sentence if Republicans swallow the Democrats’ amnesty plan. The early signs are not good, as it appears we are looking at a replay of the 2013 “Gang-of-Eight” fiasco in the Senate. Remember that circus? Four Republican pro-amnesty “moderates” — Lindsay Graham, John McCain, Marco Rubio and Jeff Flake — joined four Democrats to sponsor a very ambitious amnesty bill. That bill passed the Senate but with a majority of Republican senators voting “no,” and it was so bad and doomed to failure it was never even introduced in the House. Well, it looks like that failed Gang-of-Eight game plan is being resurrected for the 2017 campaign to sell a deceptive general amnesty bill as the “replacement” for Obama’s DACA program. One of the four Democrats who sponsored the Gang-of-Eight bill, Robert Menendez, is now on trial for corruption, so he had to be replaced. On the Republican side, John McCain and Marco Rubio have been replaced by Cory Gardner and Alaska’s Lisa Murkowski — a “RINO” Republican who recently showed her true loyalties by joining McCain in voting to kill the Senate Republican health care bill. It looks like her appetite for sabotage has not yet been satisfied. So, we now have four pro-amnesty Republican “moderates” –Graham, Flake, Murkowski and Gardner–joining Gang-of-Eight Democrats Charles Schumer, Richard Durbin, and Michael Bennet to cosponsor S.1615, the “Dream Act of 2017,” which is sitting in the Senate Judiciary Committee. Folks, that senate amnesty bill resembles the DACA program about as much as Germany’s Hindenburg resembled Charles Lindberg’s Spirit of St. Louis flight. They were both “aircraft,” but had nothing else in common. Respected conservative columnist Byron York this past week pointed out the numerous differences between the DACA program and the glaring amnesty provisions of the “Dream Act of 2017.” The DACA program does not grant a path to citizenship, bars to criminal aliens, and does not throw open the floodgates for chain migration under the rubric of “family reunification.” Yes, the new Schumer-Flake amnesty bill will give legal status to the 780,000 “Dreamers” who have been protected from deportation by the DACA program, but it does far more than that. The Schumer-Flake bill also establishes a generous amnesty program which will give a green card and a path to citizenship to over 5,000,000 migrants once its “family unity” and “humanitarian” loopholes are fully implemented. This is “bait and switch” legislation at its worst. News bulletin for the amnesty lobby: 2017 is not 2013: There’s a new sheriff in town. In 2013, when the Gang-of-Eight amnesty bill passed the Senate, both the Senate and the White House were under Democrat control. Today, both are under Republican control. So, why are Republicans allowing pro-amnesty Democrats Durbin and Schumer to set the terms of the DACA debate? Is it because the Republican leadership of the Senate agrees with the open border principles of the US Chamber of Commerce and not the Rule of Law principles of Jeff Sessions, Donald Trump and the US Constitution. OK, let’s admit that the new sheriff in town, our independent-minded President, is not popular among Republicans or Democrats in the Washington establishment. In fact, there is a danger that a shared hatred of the Trump presidency might be enough to bring Republican and Democrat leaders together in support of a new amnesty bill. However, since it is widely believed that Trump will sign any DACA-related bill put on his desk, passing an amnesty bill loathed by both the Republican grassroots and Trump loyalists might be too high a price to pay among most Republicans for the fun of poking the President in the eye. But wait. Is it Donald Trump’s and Jeff Sessions’ principles that are being challenged by the blatant amnesty provisions of the “Dream Act of 2017” — or is it the Republican Party’s principles? Let’s do something seldom done in swampland: let’s look at the 2016 Republican Party Platform.”

Just click on the text above to read that statement, and the rest of this outstanding op/ed by former Congressman Tom Tancredo (R-CO).

Tancredo on Sessions Flap: Democrats’ Ferocious Malevolence Matched by Congressional Republicans’ Cowardice

This week we are reminded of that old political axiom– “I can handle my enemies, but please, God, protect me from my friends.” A handful of Republicans in Congress joined the concerted attack by Democrat leaders in criticizing Attorney General Jeff Sessions for not answering a question that was never asked in his confirmation hearing. As part of his confirmation hearing in a Senate committee, Sessions was asked by Sen. Al Franken about meetings with “foreigners” while serving as a surrogate for candidate Trump during the 2016 presidential campaign. Sessions replied that he had no such meetings while assisting the Trump campaign.

And, that’s because he didn’t.  Did he appropriately meet with them as a member of the Senate Arms committee?  Absolutely.  But, that wasn’t the question being asked.  And yet, the self-righteous, hypocritical Dems like Sen. Chuck Schumer and Rep. Nancy Pelosi are wanting AG Jeff Sessions’ head, the facts be damned.  And, unfortunately, there are several shameless Republicans ready to eat their own.  This outstanding analysis was done by former Colorado Congressman Tom Tancredo (R-CO).  As many of you know, I’ve had the pleasure of meeting Tom on several occasions.  He’s the one who turned me on to
“Clash of Civilizations” by Samuel Huntington, and other must-reads.  But, I digress..  To read the rest of Tom’s article, click on the text above.

Tancredo: Three Lessons Learned from the Judicial Brawl over Trump’s Immigration Order

Lesson number one: never take a knife to a gun fight. Lesson number two is that every Trump initiative on immigration will be a gunfight, not a walk in the park. And, unfortunately, lesson number three is that there are a large number of “so-called judges” who will be strapped and ready to bushwhack the president at every turn. The federal courts are a battleground, not a playground, and the 9th Circuit is the most left-wing battleground of all. District Court Judge Robart was especially incompetent in his ruling and deserved to be ridiculed for his embarrassing performance, but judicial sabotage of constitutional government is nothing new. Someone at the White House or Homeland Security forgot to factor it into the game plan for the “roll-out.” Score round one for the army of activist open borders judges and lawyers Trump will face at every turn. But that 9th Circuit ruling was only round one, and Trump can still score a knockout. As legal critic J.V. DeLong observed in a February 10 commentary in FORBES, “The Ninth Circuit opinion upholding the lower court’s fact-and-logic-free decision is hard to defend, as a matter of either legal reasoning or common sense.” So, the good news is, the law is on Trump’s side, and even honest liberals understand that. The bad news is, that’s often not enough. But Trump has a not-so-secret weapon: the public wants that executive order implemented. Trump may have erred in his choice of words in calling Judge Robart a “so-called judge.” Okay, he is a real judge: he was duly appointed and sworn into that district court position. But, hey, let’s be honest here: Trump is not the first president to attack or ridicule a federal judge. We all remember Barack Obama criticizing and insulting Chief Justice John Roberts and the entire US Supreme Court to their face in one of his State of the Union speeches. President Franklin Roosevelt was so angry at a string of Supreme Court decisions that he asked Congress to “pack” the court by adding two new members– two new members he would appoint. President Trump has not yet suggested anything so blatantly political as packing the court. What he has suggested is viewed as even more radical by our progressive media: that judges interpret and apply the law as it is written, not subvert it with their personal political views. It is abundantly clear that is exactly what the 9th Circuit has done– or attempted to do. But the White House need not and will not let that unfounded 9th Circuit ruling go unchallenged. President Trump’s January 27 executive order instituting a 90-day freeze on refugee and alien admissions from seven terrorist-torn countries — among other needed reforms like returning our refugee admissions ceiling to 50,000 annually from Obama’s recent doubling of that number– obviously did not anticipate the virulent, hysterical reaction by opponents and the feeding frenzy by the media. But nonetheless, politics and media hysteria aside, his executive order is rooted in the constitutional powers of the president and existing immigration law. Shame on the critics for their deplorable lies and obfuscations; shame on the major media for agitating and abetting the misinformed hysteria; and shame on the 9th Circuit for its attempted political subversion of the law. Such is the world we now live in, where a fully lawful order of the president is met with organized and orchestrated chaos. And yet, there is more than a silver lining behind these menacing clouds: Trump has both the law and the American people on his side. Yes, there were snafus and mistakes in the first 48 hours of implementation, and indeed, legal “green card” immigrants who are already full-time residents of the United States should not have been affected by the travel ban. Those temporary problems were quickly corrected but were magnified all out of proportion by a partisan media anxious and even gleeful in their rush to embarrass the president to the maximum.

Agreed!!  And that’s why the White House staff (i.e. Kellyanne Conway, Sean Spicer, Sarah Huckabee Spencer, etc.) need to be out there in front of the cameras of CNN, MSNBC, and the rest of the dominantly liberal mainstream media fighting back and keep the narrative on point, and not allowing them to reframe the debate or using the opportunity to spint it to their approved liberal agenda talking points.  Another excellent op/ed by former Congressman Tom Tancredo (R-CO).  To read the rest, click on the text above.    🙂

Tancredo: The Disgusting Media Double Standard Between Obama and Trump

Pop quiz: Who said, “The Middle East is an issue that has obviously plagued the region for centuries”? No, it wasn’t Ross Perot, and it wasn’t Donald Trump. It was Barack Obama, the same man the White House press corps hailed as the smartest man to ever sit in the Oval Office. The political bias of the establishment media has never been more outrageous than what we see in the press’s double standard for covering President Donald Trump. For contrasts that will make your head spin and your heart ache, compare Trump’s treatment to the press’s idolatrous treatment of President Obama. The media’s fan-club attitude toward Obama was unprecedented in the modern era. Not even handsome Jack Kennedy or war hero Eisenhower got the kids-glove treatment that Obama got. Obama’s frequent goofy statements and embarrassing gaffes were either overlooked entirely or treated as amusing sidebars. Will any historian ever catalog Obama’s frequent misstatements of elementary facts? How many do you remember? Here are few of the gems liberal historians will overlook:

Just click on the text above, to see Tom’s list.  Former Congressman Tom Tancredo (R-CO) is the author of this outstanding analysis.  Tom is exactly right.  The dominantly liberal mainstream media just drooled over Obama.  He could do no wrong in their eyes..  And when you compare that treatment against they way they’ve treated Donald Trump…and Tom is right, it IS “disgusting” the double standard/hypocrisy.  Again, to read the rest, just click on the text above.

Tancredo: Report Reveals Massive Indoctrination of Students at Universities Through ‘Transformative Civic Engagement’

Students at hundreds of colleges and universities are being systematically indoctrinated into the “New Civics” of social justice activism, according to a report released this past week by the National Association of Scholars. The report’s findings suggest that the suppression of free speech on college campuses that is making headlines is only the tip of a very large iceberg. What lies beneath the surface is a massive, publicly funded program of indoctrination through a remaking of the curriculum as a vehicle for advancing the political agenda of progressivism. The “New Civics” can accurately be called indoctrination because it is far more ambitious and open than the left-liberal bias in classroom instruction encountered by students for decades. Yes, 90% of college faculty in the liberal arts and humanities are liberal and progressive, and classroom propaganda is a growing problem, but the “New Civics” has ambitions for transforming the entire institution and all academic disciplines into “change agents.” The “New Civics” is replacing traditional “civic literacy,” and it’s campus-wide ambitions have the endorsement and support of university administrators. In public institutions like the four cases documented in the MAKING CITIZENS report, it sees no conflict in using taxpayer dollars to accomplish its progressive mission. If you think this is a marginal or minor problem, look at this week’s story, “How Colleges Teach Students to Be Good Citizens,” in the January 13 issue of the premier trade publication for the higher education establishment, THE  CHRONICLE OF HIGHER EDUCATION. The establishment is proud of the “New Civics” and hopes it will be “transformative.” Also, you can take a gander at the section of the Huffington Post devoted to Civic Engagement, where the goals of social justice indoctrination of students are praised by the pioneers of transformative social values like Ralph Nader. Where have we heard that word “transformative” before? President Obama endorsed the Civic Engagement movement in a March 2016 speech to the “SXSW” technology conference in Austin, Texas.

And it gets MUCH worse..  To read the rest of this eye-opening op/ed by former Congressman Tom Tancredo (R-CO), just click on the text above.  I’ve had the pleasure of speaking with Tom on several occasions.

Tancredo: Memo to Mayors and Governors: Sanctuary Cities Protect Gangs and Rapists, Not Citizens

The organized outrage over President-elect Trump’s plans to deport up to 2,000,000 criminal aliens has the look and smell of identity politics. How and why convicted criminals became a privileged political constituency instead of over law abiding legal immigrants remains a mystery. The identity politics behind “sanctuary cities” failed Hillary Clinton miserably, and it may yet prove to be the Achilles heel of big city Democrat mayors as well. There’s a new sheriff in town, and he has both the law and public opinion on his side. Sanctuary city advocates in Los Angeles, Denver, Atlanta, New York and other cities are about to be confronted by a Congress and federal law enforcement agencies united in a simple mission: to enforce the law. News bulletin: Deporting criminal aliens is not a new concept. It was accepted policy across the nation until Political Correctness replaced common sense. Are citizens in rebellion against deporting the 6,000-plus criminal aliens currently serving jail terms in Colorado’s local jails and state prison facilities? No, only the political establishment finds the idea repugnant. Memo to Governors Brown, Hickenlooper and Cuomo: Your political stupidity is no longer protected by the Obama White House and Justice Department. You will soon experience the full force of federal law enforcement backed by congressional funding prohibitions and public outrage over your criminally negligent behavior. The Trump administration and Congress understand that sanctuary city policies have nothing to do with protecting children and families. Obstructing the legitimate enforcement of federal immigration law is about protecting convicted criminals from the consequences of their criminal behavior. Urban politicians will soon learn there are consequences for their criminally negligent behavior as well. There is considerable hypocrisy in the statements issued this past week by mayors and governors proclaiming, “We will not help federal officials enforce federal immigration law.”

Indeed!!  This outstanding op/ed was written by former Colorado Congressman Tom Tancredo (R-CO).  As many of you know, I’ve had the pleasure of talking with Tom on several occasions over the years.  To read the rest of Tom’s article, click on the text above.

Tancredo: Hillary Clinton Should be in Jail, Not the White House

There is absolutely no reason anyone should still be “struggling” with the choice for President. Voters do not have a choice between a perfect candidate and three others, but it is a national embarrassment that the Democrat candidate belongs in jail and not on the November ballot. The only reason anyone should vote for Hillary Clinton on November 8 is give formal representation at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue to the nation’s criminal class. Clinton would indeed represent that class very well. The scandal is that Hillary Clinton would already be in jail as the head of an international crime syndicate if she were not being protected by the media establishment and Obama’s political operatives in the Department of Justice. The ferocity with which she is being defended despite her pubic record betrays the moral bankruptcy of too many of elites– not only in government but in the media, the universities, law firms and in the business community. Does anyone need a list of her crimes and her national security fiascoes? Should we ask voters to print a list of known crimes to take with them to the polling booth as a reminder? Maybe the Trump campaign should publish in the top 50 newspapers a full page ad providing a simple list of the top 100 reasons to send HRC back to Arkansas — while she awaits her day in court. Any full list would occupy a large book and not a newspaper advertisement, but here are a few of the most well-documented crimes and national security nightmares that are in her resume. How many voters really want four years of such self-serving cronyism orchestrated out of the White House? While Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton used an illegal personal email server for sharing classified documents, thereby compromising national security and violating federal law. Clinton then lied about the email server and the classified documents to Congress, the FBI and the American people. Clinton as Secretary of State supported Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood candidate for president of Egypt and opposed his removal from power by a pro-American, anti-Islamist coalition. When in Arkansas and working for a private law firm, Hillary Clinton successfully defended a child rapist and then laughed about the case afterwards. Clinton cannot escape responsibility for the deaths of four Americans at the US embassy outpost at Benghazi on September 11, 2012 — through her denial of the additional security requested by the Americans in Benghazi and her refusal to send military forces to rescue the Americans who were under attack. Then Clinton lied to the American people for months about the al-Qaeda planned terrorist attack on Benghazi in order to protect Obama’s re-election as President in 2012. As Secretary of State in 2010, Hillary Clinton proposed a “drone attack” on Wikileaks founder Julian Assange– that is, proposed to murder him to stop his revelations. The Clinton emails and messages revealed by Wikileaks showed Clinton approving military arms going to known jihadist groups in the Middle East. The Clinton campaign received a private “heads up” from within the Obama Justice Department about a pending email investigation– from a friend of Hillary’s campaign chairman. Obama’s political appointees at the Justice Department have for months blocked an FBI investigation of the Clinton Foundation, seeking to delay the investigation until after November — for obvious political reasons. While Secretary of State, over half of the individuals Clinton met with made donations or pledges to the Clinton Foundation. The Clinton Foundation required a $100,000 donation for anyone seeking a personal meeting with Bill Clinton. The FBI is now actively investigating the “pay-to-play” activities of the Clinton Foundation, which involve billions of dollars in both foreign and domestic “donations” to gain access to government contracts ad influence government policies. Those are federal crimes and will very likely result in indictments of top Clinton Foundation officials– possibly including Bill and Hillary Clinton. Clinton has proposed abandoning the 2nd Amendment guarantee of the right to own firearms for personal protection, and has promised to appoint Supreme Court Judges who will re-write the 2nd Amendment to allow aggressive federal gun control laws.

And the list continues..  To read the rest of the rest of former Congressman Tom Tancredo’s (R-CO) op/ed, click on the text above.

Tancredo: Hillary Clinton Should Step Down to Avoid Constitutional Crisis

The announcement by the FBI that it has reopened the criminal investigation into Hillary’s email server is more than an embarrassment to the Clinton presidential campaign. It is a ticking time bomb that could do more damage to our country than the Watergate scandal if allowed to explode. The Watergate investigation revealed Nixon’s attempted cover-up of the June 1972 break-in at Democratic National Committee HQ at the Watergate Hotel. It was the cover-up that led to Nixon’s downfall, not the break-in. The FBI investigation has already revealed Hillary Clinton’s perjury, and a new investigation of additional classified documents shared through her personal email server can lead to criminal indictments—unless the FBI itself wants to fall on its sword in a far more visible and viral cover-up than we have seen to date. It is not at all clear that the FBI has not already been hopelessly compromised: Did the FBI have knowledge of Barack Obama’s participation in the illegal email server and the president’s lies about it to the public? Who will investigate the investigators? What happens if Clinton wins the election and is then indicted on criminal charges prior to January 20? What happens if the FBI again fails to recommend criminal charges but the House of Representatives finds her in contempt of Congress and asks the Department of Justice to prosecute her for perjury? What happens if the Congress holds up all presidential appointments and all Democrat legislation until a nonpartisan Special Prosecutor is appointed? The likelihood of a constitutional crisis grows each day that Clinton continues to lie about her classified emails and continues to avoid criminal penalties for her possible perjury. If Clinton wins the election and is sworn in as President, she can only be removed by impeachment by the House and conviction by the Senate. If Democrats win majority control of the Senate on November 8, Clinton could defy the Congress and either refuse to appoint a Special Prosecutor or appoint someone who would rubber stamp her criminal behavior. The patriotic thing for Hillary Clinton to do would be to step aside and let the DNC select Tim Kaine as the party’s presidential candidate. But since that would almost certainly lead to a tidal wave of support for Donald Trump, that will not happen. The national Democrat Party is not famous for its fidelity to constitutional norms. The difference between the Watergate scandal and the Clinton perjury scandal is that in 1974, a delegation of Republican members of Congress went to Nixon and told him point blank he must resign because they would vote to remove him if he didn’t. Republicans suffered devastating losses in the 1974 elections because of the Nixon resignation—even though no members of Congress were implicated in Nixon’s cover-up. In the Watergate scandal, Republicans in Congress put the truth and the rule of law above politics. Democrats do not behave that way; Democrats put politics above everything, including the Constitution. Besides, the Clintons have been here before and survived. In 1998, Bill Clinton committed perjury — and obstruction of justice – and got away with it because, as Democrat Senators admitted publicly, they would not remove one of their own for merely telling a lie. After all, they said, Bill Clinton’s lie was not about policy, it was about sex with a White House intern. The national media will of course do its best to deflect public attention away from the new FBI criminal investigation. Indeed, that is already happening. Like liberal newspapers across the country, The Denver Post considers it necessary to link the FBI story to the Associated Press survey of public opinion on the veracity of the “groping” allegations against Trump. The media has not yet managed to find any credible allegation of criminal wrong-doing against Trump, but is working hard to divert public attention away from Clinton’s newest scandal. A constitutional crisis is not entirely avoided even if Hillary Clinton loses to Donald Trump on November 8. Let’s suppose President Trump asks newly appointed Attorney General Rudy Giuliani to appoint a Special Prosecutor to investigate Clinton’s misuse of a private email server. A Democrat-controlled Senate could obstruct that investigation and threaten all kinds of retribution against the new President. Thus, in typical Washington fashion, a bipartisan deal would likely be struck to let Hillary off the hook—all in the name, of course, of saving taxpayer money. A very real constitutional crisis has already occurred and it is ongoing — the transparent politicization of the FBI and the Department of Justice by the Obama team and the resulting loss of public confidence in those law enforcement institutions. Americans now have additional reasons to be wary of expanded federal powers.

Agreed!  Of course, Hillary is too much of an arrogant, self-righteous, entitlement-minded, limousine liberal to do something as honorable as stepping aside.  Just the opposite, I’m afraid.  She’ll do anything, and everything she can, to win…at all costs…regardless of the law, or the consequences.  That article was written by former Colorado Congressman Tom Tancredo (R-CO).