Brexit goes through today, and Britain is finally independent, free from the clutches of the European Union. It’s a great event regardless of how it happens, but in this case, it was cool beyond description. 

It all ended with a pretty amazing flourish, one that told us a lot about both the European Commission and newly sovereign Britain itself. Chief Brexiteer Nigel Farage made his last speech before the European Commission, which was a great scolding and call to shut down the whole operation altogether, which was subversive enough. But he drove it even further. 

Here was the great final moment:

Farage and his buddies ended the whole thing by explicitly waving the British flag of sovereignty right in the faces of all the angry little European Commission eurocrats, even as they sputtered and cut off his mic. 

 Metaphor, anyone? It was the mother of all metaphors, a Britain that asserted its sovereignty in waving its symbolic flag as its soulless eurocrat masters got angry and tried to stop it, not on political grounds, not because they were afraid the other member states might follow, but on petty rules grounds, little administrative state foot-stamping, insisting on cookie-cutter order and obedience, no exceptions, in the face of a newly freed state that just asserted that it can do what it wants.

The ending was absolutely perfect. The mean librarian-looking woman of no memorable name repeatedly, humorlessly, ordering Farage and his allies to take his waved Union Jack flags down. No flags here! It came off as saying ‘no sovereignty, you’re all the EU’s slaves now. And she had no idea how bad she looked doing it, something that is sure to give other restless states of the E.U. some pause. As she cut off his mic, Farage continued demonstrating his country’s newfound sovereignty by laughing at her and refusing.  Sovereigns, after all, have flags. Vassal states do not.

It’s not the first time Farage has shown such sense of purpose. His preceding speech had it – here’s the whole thing here:

And remember his fierce speech to this same bunch of Eurocrats, telling them they laughed at him once but for that now got Brexit. That, too, was electrifying:

Farage not only has a stellar sense of the theatrical, he seems to understand the importance of creating memorable moments and understands how to do them. In a way the self-unaware eurocrate would never understand, he understands the meaning in his movement. That’s why his Brexit was so powerful – and is sure to redound to future acts of rebellion against this nasty, petty little eurocracy Britain broke away from.

Image credit: Screen shot from The Telegraph, shareable YouTube video

Brexit goes through today, and Britain is finally independent, free from the clutches of the European Union. It’s a great event regardless of how it happens, but in this case, it was cool beyond description. 

It all ended with a pretty amazing flourish, one that told us a lot about both the European Commission and newly sovereign Britain itself. Chief Brexiteer Nigel Farage made his last speech before the European Commission, which was a great scolding and call to shut down the whole operation altogether, which was subversive enough. But he drove it even further. 

Here was the great final moment:

Farage and his buddies ended the whole thing by explicitly waving the British flag of sovereignty right in the faces of all the angry little European Commission eurocrats, even as they sputtered and cut off his mic. 

 Metaphor, anyone? It was the mother of all metaphors, a Britain that asserted its sovereignty in waving its symbolic flag as its soulless eurocrat masters got angry and tried to stop it, not on political grounds, not because they were afraid the other member states might follow, but on petty rules grounds, little administrative state foot-stamping, insisting on cookie-cutter order and obedience, no exceptions, in the face of a newly freed state that just asserted that it can do what it wants.

The ending was absolutely perfect. The mean librarian-looking woman of no memorable name repeatedly, humorlessly, ordering Farage and his allies to take his waved Union Jack flags down. No flags here! It came off as saying ‘no sovereignty, you’re all the EU’s slaves now. And she had no idea how bad she looked doing it, something that is sure to give other restless states of the E.U. some pause. As she cut off his mic, Farage continued demonstrating his country’s newfound sovereignty by laughing at her and refusing.  Sovereigns, after all, have flags. Vassal states do not.

It’s not the first time Farage has shown such sense of purpose. His preceding speech had it – here’s the whole thing here:

And remember his fierce speech to this same bunch of Eurocrats, telling them they laughed at him once but for that now got Brexit. That, too, was electrifying:

Farage not only has a stellar sense of the theatrical, he seems to understand the importance of creating memorable moments and understands how to do them. In a way the self-unaware eurocrate would never understand, he understands the meaning in his movement. That’s why his Brexit was so powerful – and is sure to redound to future acts of rebellion against this nasty, petty little eurocracy Britain broke away from.

Image credit: Screen shot from The Telegraph, shareable YouTube video

In a previous American Thinker article, I asked if Chief Justice John Roberts had the judicial acumen of a traffic court judge.  We now know he doesn’t.

During the course of the impeachment trial in the U.S. Senate, Americans have now seen the chief justice have three historical strikes.  Consequently, the Senate should immediately vote to have case dismissed, against President Trump.  Our fairly elected president should be immediately acquitted of these most politically driven bogus charges in American constitutional history.

Strike one by John Roberts is simple, based on the conduct of his presiding over the trial.  It is obvious that he has been over-the-top prejudiced against President Trump by not holding House Democrat managers accountable for their gross breach of decorum.

Early in the proceedings, Chief Justice Roberts invoked a precedent from 1905, using the word ”pettifoggery,” to establish decorum during the impeachment  trial the Constitution makes him preside over.

Definition of pettifogger

1: a lawyer whose methods are petty, underhanded, or disreputable : SHYSTER

2: one given to quibbling over trifles

“I think it is appropriate for me to admonish both the House managers and the president’s counsel in equal terms to remember that they are addressing the world’s greatest deliberative body,” Roberts said.  ”One reason it has earned that title is because its members avoid speaking in a manner and using language that is not conducive to civil discourse.”

Yet the chief justice of the United States allowed Chairman Nadler to call the president of the United States a dictator without a moment’s hesitation or admonishment on decorum and civil discourse.  That smacks of Justice Roberts being an inconstant intellectual coward against the 

“This is a determination by President Trump that he wants to be all-powerful, he does not have to respect the Congress, he does not have to respect the representatives of the people, only his will goes,” said Nadler.  ”He is a dictator.” 

If Representative Nadler (D-N.Y.) had said that personal insult during a House debate his words would have been “taken 

Rule XVII, clause 4, of the standing rules of the House of Representatives describes a parliamentary mechanism whereby a Member may call another Member to order for the use of disorderly language.  Disorderly, or unparliamentary, remarks are a violation of House rules of decorum.  This mechanism, which is referred to as “words taken down,” may be invoked during debate on the House floor, in the Committee of the Whole, or in the standing and select committees of the House. 

In addition, Members whose words are determined to be unparliamentary may not be recognized to speak for the rest of the day (even on yielded time) unless the Member is allowed to proceed in order by unanimous consent or a motion.

Strike two for Chief Justice Roberts is that he has shown so far that there is no judicial admonishment or accountability for committing perjury.  We have a saying in the Marines about lying: the Democrat House managers put their back against the wall and lied like a rug.  Why have a witness if the person is allowed to lie without penalty?

If the chief justice had instructed the House managers to stop committing perjury, then perhaps their posturing in calling witnesses to get at the truth may be more credible.  If there is no penalty for perjury, then why have any witnesses?  So far, this entire impeachment is just more D.C. political blustering and fake news reporting theater of the absurd that Americans hate at so many levels.

Strike three, and you are called out, Mr. Chief Justice.  Senator Rand Paul asked a question that was not allowed that goes to the heart of my traffic court analogy in President Trump facing his accusers.

Senator Rand Paul: My question today is about whether or not individuals who were holdovers from the Obama National Security Council and Democrat partisans conspired with Schiff staffers to plot impeaching the president before there were formal House impeachment proceedings.

As I previously pointed out:

If the person reporting the transgression is not present, then the judge will issue a verdict of not guilty.  The judge, in doing so, is actually reaching back to the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment (facing one’s accusers), which, with the genius of the Founding Fathers, is actually built out from English Common Law and even Roman law.  The Sixth Amendment is one of the foundational stones upon which our entire edifice of a fair system of justice is built.

If the past is prologue for this entire sham process, and  a witness can lie with impunity, and the president’s accusers can use “disorderly language” to attack him with no consequences, and President Trump cannot face his accusers, then shame on everyone involved, and this has gone much too far.  End it.

In a previous American Thinker article, I asked if Chief Justice John Roberts had the judicial acumen of a traffic court judge.  We now know he doesn’t.

During the course of the impeachment trial in the U.S. Senate, Americans have now seen the chief justice have three historical strikes.  Consequently, the Senate should immediately vote to have case dismissed, against President Trump.  Our fairly elected president should be immediately acquitted of these most politically driven bogus charges in American constitutional history.

Strike one by John Roberts is simple, based on the conduct of his presiding over the trial.  It is obvious that he has been over-the-top prejudiced against President Trump by not holding House Democrat managers accountable for their gross breach of decorum.

Early in the proceedings, Chief Justice Roberts invoked a precedent from 1905, using the word ”pettifoggery,” to establish decorum during the impeachment  trial the Constitution makes him preside over.

Definition of pettifogger

1: a lawyer whose methods are petty, underhanded, or disreputable : SHYSTER

2: one given to quibbling over trifles

“I think it is appropriate for me to admonish both the House managers and the president’s counsel in equal terms to remember that they are addressing the world’s greatest deliberative body,” Roberts said.  ”One reason it has earned that title is because its members avoid speaking in a manner and using language that is not conducive to civil discourse.”

Yet the chief justice of the United States allowed Chairman Nadler to call the president of the United States a dictator without a moment’s hesitation or admonishment on decorum and civil discourse.  That smacks of Justice Roberts being an inconstant intellectual coward against the 

“This is a determination by President Trump that he wants to be all-powerful, he does not have to respect the Congress, he does not have to respect the representatives of the people, only his will goes,” said Nadler.  ”He is a dictator.” 

If Representative Nadler (D-N.Y.) had said that personal insult during a House debate his words would have been “taken 

Rule XVII, clause 4, of the standing rules of the House of Representatives describes a parliamentary mechanism whereby a Member may call another Member to order for the use of disorderly language.  Disorderly, or unparliamentary, remarks are a violation of House rules of decorum.  This mechanism, which is referred to as “words taken down,” may be invoked during debate on the House floor, in the Committee of the Whole, or in the standing and select committees of the House. 

In addition, Members whose words are determined to be unparliamentary may not be recognized to speak for the rest of the day (even on yielded time) unless the Member is allowed to proceed in order by unanimous consent or a motion.

Strike two for Chief Justice Roberts is that he has shown so far that there is no judicial admonishment or accountability for committing perjury.  We have a saying in the Marines about lying: the Democrat House managers put their back against the wall and lied like a rug.  Why have a witness if the person is allowed to lie without penalty?

If the chief justice had instructed the House managers to stop committing perjury, then perhaps their posturing in calling witnesses to get at the truth may be more credible.  If there is no penalty for perjury, then why have any witnesses?  So far, this entire impeachment is just more D.C. political blustering and fake news reporting theater of the absurd that Americans hate at so many levels.

Strike three, and you are called out, Mr. Chief Justice.  Senator Rand Paul asked a question that was not allowed that goes to the heart of my traffic court analogy in President Trump facing his accusers.

Senator Rand Paul: My question today is about whether or not individuals who were holdovers from the Obama National Security Council and Democrat partisans conspired with Schiff staffers to plot impeaching the president before there were formal House impeachment proceedings.

As I previously pointed out:

If the person reporting the transgression is not present, then the judge will issue a verdict of not guilty.  The judge, in doing so, is actually reaching back to the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment (facing one’s accusers), which, with the genius of the Founding Fathers, is actually built out from English Common Law and even Roman law.  The Sixth Amendment is one of the foundational stones upon which our entire edifice of a fair system of justice is built.

If the past is prologue for this entire sham process, and  a witness can lie with impunity, and the president’s accusers can use “disorderly language” to attack him with no consequences, and President Trump cannot face his accusers, then shame on everyone involved, and this has gone much too far.  End it.

Republican Sen. Mitt Romney of Utah, one of the original anti-Trumpers who in 2016 tried to block President Donald Trump from getting the party’s presidential nomination, announced that he wants to call additional witnesses in Trump’s Senate impeachment trial.

The action, which Romney had been publicly ruminating about throughout the week, was confirmed by Liz Johnson, Romney’s communications director.

“For those asking: As @SenatorRomney has said, he wants to hear from Ambassador Bolton, and he will vote in favor of the motion today to consider witnesses,” she tweeted.

For those asking: As @SenatorRomney has said, he wants to hear from Ambassador Bolton, and he will vote in favor of the motion today to consider witnesses.

— Liz Johnson (@LJ0hnson) January 31, 2020

TRENDING: Fiery Rand Paul Blisters Schumer’s ‘Scurrilous’ Remarks in Real Time, Says Trump Should Sue for Defamation

The Senate is expected to vote Friday on whether to call witnesses now that the first two phases of the trial are complete.

Each side was given three days to present opening arguments. Senators followed that up with two days of written questions to the two sides.

Democrats have said from the start that they wanted the case sent to the Senate by the House to be augmented with witnesses.

Those calls grew louder after media reports said a book being released in March by former national security adviser John Bolton claims that Trump linked military aid to Ukraine with the country’s willingness to investigate a corruption investigation from 2016 that targeted Hunter Biden, the son of then-Vice President Joe Biden, who intervened to derail the investigation.

Trump has denied any connection, but the claim has roiled the waters of Trump’s impeachment trial because it is at the heart of the allegations against him.

Republican Sen. Susan Collins of Maine has said she wants to hear from a limited number of witnesses, which would include Bolton.

However, Republican Sen. Lamar Alexander of Tennessee has said no witnesses are necessary, leaving only Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska among the Republicans who are publicly on the fence over the issue of witnesses.

Republicans have a 53-47 majority in the Senate, meaning Democrats would need four GOP senators to support witnesses in order to extend the trial. As of Friday, that seemed unlikely.

Romney, the GOP’s presidential candidate in 2012, said he believed more testimony was necessary.

RELATED: Breaking: Trump Likely Acquitted by End of Day & Impeachment Over Thanks to Sen. Alexander

“I, of course, will make a final decision on witnesses after we’ve heard from not only the prosecution, but also the defense. But I think at this stage it is pretty fair to say John Bolton has a relevant testimony to provide,” Romney said to reporters, according to the Desert News.

“I know there are some who feel if we open the door, we’d have tons of witnesses and court battles,” Romney said, according to The New York Times.

Many on Twitter took Romney to task for his stand.

2. I guess he wasn’t listening when the president’s lawyers eviscerated the Democrat House managers yesterday. But he is getting lots of fawning press. https://t.co/BL6xH7g7bn

— Mark R. Levin (@marklevinshow) January 26, 2020

Mitt Romney is doing a fantastic job of making us all realize how utterly disappointing a Romney presidency would have been.

— ForAmerica (@ForAmerica) January 31, 2020

Mitt Romney is a yes on witnesses because he hates President Trump

Susan Collins is a yes on witnesses because she’s trying to hold on to her seat in a blue state

I’m ok with the latter, not the former https://t.co/U9BZuoGvtn

— Will Chamberlain 🇺🇸 (@willchamberlain) January 31, 2020

Romney’s plan calls for each side getting one or two witnesses, with each side getting 30 days to have them testify.

“I think of this as an inflection point, politically in our country,”  Romney said. “It’s a constitutional issue. I feel a sense of deep responsibility to abide by the Constitution, to determine — absent the pulls from the right and the pulls from the left — what is the right thing to do?”

Patrick Philbin, a deputy White House counsel, said calling witnesses would set a dangerous precedent, encouraging a future House to send “half-baked” cases to the Senate.

“It will do grave damage to this body as an institution to say that the proceedings in the House don’t have to really be complete,” Philbin said, according to USA Today. “That’s not the way the way that his chamber should allow impeachments to be presented to it.”

Philbin also noted that Bolton has not publicly said whether the report about his book is true.

Jay Sekulow, another defense lawyer for the president, said that if witnesses are allowed, Trump’s defense wants to call the Bidens and the whistleblower whose complaint last summer touched off the impeachment inquiry.

Mitt Romney Announces He’s Siding with the Democrats Scroll down to comment below.

Do you think this type of event should be held at a public school?