Congresswoman Elaine Luria held an open house Cape Charles Saturday and was met with capacity crowd at the town civic center.
After brief opening remarks, Luria entertained questions from the audience that ranged from health care, the environment, military readiness, climate change, and education.
Luria told the audience that during her time in Washington, she has made Veteran’s Healthcare a priority, especially helping local vets such as William Dyas get help resolving claims and payments. The Congresswoman admitted that the VA system is sluggish and frustrating to work with, and has been vocal about streamlining the process for vets.
When asked if she supported a Medicaid-for-All plan, which is being touted by candidates such as Bernie Sanders, Luria told the audience she was not in favor, “There are some lofty goals, but I just don’t see how we would actually pay for it,” Luria said. Luria did say that she supported some form of Medicare buy in plan, where younger people could purchase Medicare at a lower rate. This would add more people to the overall pool, and younger, healthier people, which would hopefully alleviate some of the medical and financial burdens.
Luria noted that the health of the Chesapeake Bay is big priority, and she has reached across the aisle to sponsor the Chesapeake Bay Program Reauthorization Act which is a bipartisan bill that would fully fund the Environmental Protection Agency’s Chesapeake Bay Program by authorizing an injection of $455 million into the Program over the next five years. The Chesapeake Bay Program Reauthorization Act also provides funding for local projects.
The Congresswoman made it a point tell the audience that she has been a vocal advocate for our local aquaculture industry.
“Now matter which meetings I attend that agriculture is mentioned, I’m the loud one in the room that is pushing for aquaculture to be part of it. In the past, it seems aquaculture is kind of overlooked. I’m trying to be sure it gets included in all conversations around agriculture,” Luria said.
Climate change and sea-level rise are also top concerns. While she said she supports green technology, she also said that any real progress in reducing carbon output would require a re-investment in modern nuclear power. As part of this, she introduced the Nuclear Energy Leadership Act, a bipartisan bill that would encourage further development of advanced nuclear energy programs. Such programs are poised to create high-quality jobs, strengthen national security, reduce foreign energy dependence, and promote emissions-free energy.
“As an engineer who operated nuclear reactors on aircraft carriers, I know that ensuring a thriving civilian nuclear industry is vital not only for our economy, but for our national security,” Congresswoman Luria said. “Nuclear energy must be part of any solution to transitioning to a clean energy…even now, 30% our state’s energy comes nuclear plants at Surrey and North Anna.”
When asked about teacher’s salaries, Luria told the audience that while the Federal Government only provides about 10% of school funding, things like the National School Lunch Program cold be leveraged to help allow States to shuffle the budget…she also noted that with the Democrats taking over both the house and senate in Virginia, it might be easier to get more money for teachers into the budget, “Look, teachers, that is one of the most important careers we have,” Luria said.
The Mirror had a chance to sit down with Congresswoman Luria to discuss the Navy’s Fleet Readiness, and the maintenance problems that our carriers have been having. Luria, who served as a nuclear officer on carriers such as the USS Kitty Hawk told the Mirror that many of the problems we are facing are age related, “A lot of the shipyards were built in the early part of the century, and we need to look at modernizations and upgrades. The goal of 355 ships, if we are going to meet that goal, will require the will and the funding to make the necessary modernizations.”
Ray Otton says
I was there.
It was an hour and 15 minute drawn out stump speech in front of an adoring crowd.
There was no interaction with the audience, merely reading and answering of questions selected by the moderator.
A very controlled affair to say the least and interesting that not one word was spoken about the elephant in the room.
Twice the congresswoman made a passing remark and a well received eye roll about “the situation in DC” but that was it.
You’d think that an attempt to unseat the leader of the country would get at least a mention.
Considering that the process is being shielded from our eyes in DC and not even brought up in a local townhall, one wonders if the (D)’s intend to walk Mr. Trump out of the WH and not even tell us.
We’d notice.
Paul Plante says
Good morning to you, Mr. Otton, and may you have a glorious day out ahead of you!
Ray Otton says
Truth be told I was a little depressed after finding out our nuclear engineer turned congresswoman has a serious problem with critical thinking and simply spouts the usual Liberal talking points about climate change, offshore drilling and the need for a living wage.
But then I watch 100K Alabamans give Mr. Trump a rousing welcome at their football stadium and I felt a little better.
So, it may not be a glorious day, but the clouds have dissipated somewhat.
Paul Plante says
Mr. Otton, let me say that I was quite surprised when I read yours above where you said “twice the congresswoman made a passing remark the situation in DC but that was it,” and it must be modesty because the Congresswoman was just the star of a New York Times PUFF PIECE entitled “Inside Adam Schiff’s Impeachment Game Plan” by a dude named Jason Zengerle on 9 November 2019, where we were treated to the following, to wit:
But other Democrats, especially those who represent swing districts, want to keep the impeachment focus on the Ukraine matter.
“Keeping it narrow and defined to this particular instance, where the American public can understand what was done and what the implications were, I think, is enough,” says Representative Elaine Luria, a freshman from Virginia and one of the “badasses.”
end quotes
She didn’t mention any of that, Mr. Otton – that she is one of the real-deal “BADASS” Democrats in Washington, D.C., who is going to take down a sitting American president based on a HOUSE OF CARDS and a load of bull****?
Hmmmm, must be modesty on her part, I guess.
As to her statement about what the American public, of which we happen to be members, can understand and what the implications are, what I understand from all the evidence I have seen to date that this is a CHARADE, so Congresswoman Luria very must appears to be pulling the wool over our eyes here, for partisan political gain.
That it is a CHARADE can clearly be seen by going back to the NY Times PUFF PIECE as follows:
Although Democrats are now largely united behind the idea that Trump should be impeached, they remain significantly divided about what, exactly, Trump should be impeached for.
end quotes
And that takes us back to the ignorant, foul-mouthed Democrat Rashida Tlaib in the Washington Post article “Rep. Rashida Tlaib profanely promised to impeach Trump. She’s not sorry.” by Amy Wang on 4 January 2019, as follows:
Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) made history Thursday afternoon for being the first Palestinian American woman sworn into Congress.
Hours later, she made headlines for swearing at a bar — in comments that continued to reverberate in Washington the following day.
At a reception Thursday night for the progressive group MoveOn.org, Tlaib vowed that the new Democrat-controlled House would be focusing on ousting President Trump from office.
“And I said, ‘Baby, they don’t,’ because we’re gonna go in there and we’re gonna impeach the motherf—–.”
end quotes
That is the action Congresswoman Luria is backing.
And then we have the Fox News article “Democrat introducing impeachment measure against Trump on first day of new Congress” by Alex Pappas on 3 January 2019, as follows:
A California congressman is introducing articles of impeachment against President Trump on Thursday — the first day of the new Democratic majority in the House.
Rep. Brad Sherman is reintroducing the impeachment articles that he first filed in 2017 with Democratic co-sponsor Rep. Al Green of Texas, a spokesman said.
“He will be introducing the same articles he introduced last year once the House is in session this afternoon,” Sherman spokesman Shane Seaver told Fox News.
The move is one of several indications that despite the go-slow approach of Democratic leadership, some in the rank-and-file will be eager to launch impeachment proceedings now that they’re in the majority.
A Detroit Free Press op-ed co-authored by incoming Democratic Rep. Rashida Tlaib, of Michigan, said the House does not need to wait for the outcome of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia probe “before moving forward now with an inquiry in the U.S. House of Representatives on whether the president has committed impeachable ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’ against the state: abuse of power and abuse of the public trust.”
end quotes
Now contrast that with this horse**** dribbling from out of the mouth of Nancy Pelosi in that NYT PUFF PIECE, as follows:
Schiff’s initial reluctance to pursue impeachment, paradoxically, has made him a particularly effective advocate for it in the past month.
In his interviews and news conferences, he strikes a more-in-sorrow-than-in-anger tone, in keeping with Pelosi’s interest in presenting impeachment as a “prayerful, solemn, difficult” process.
“None of us came to Congress to impeach a president of the United States,” she says.
“We take no joy in it, no glee.”
end quotes
And of course they came to Congress to impeach Trump so who is that fool Nancy Pelosi trying to kid here, and why is Congresswoman Luria playing a key part in the Charade, as we see by going back to the NYT as follows:
Impeachment’s prospects in the House have been riding significantly on a cohort of about 40 Democrats, most of them freshmen, who represent swing districts.
A number of these “frontline” Democrats, as Pelosi calls them, were opposed to impeachment for much of this year, during which they repeatedly turned to Schiff for guidance on the matter.
Houlahan and four other moderate female first-term Democrats — Elaine Luria of Virginia, Mikie Sherrill of New Jersey, Elissa Slotkin of Michigan and Abigail Spanberger of Virginia — call themselves the “badasses.”
Since arriving in Washington, members of the group have held frequent meetings and conversations with Schiff.
On Monday, Sept. 23, the “badasses” — plus Representative Jason Crow of Colorado and Representative Gil Cisneros of California, two freshman Democrats with military backgrounds who represent swing districts — published an op-ed in The Washington Post declaring that if the claims were true that Trump had withheld “security assistance funds to persuade a foreign country to assist him in an upcoming election,” then “these actions represent an impeachable offense.”
end quotes
No mention of any of that at the town hall, Mr. Otton?
How very surprising that is, as we can see by going back to the NYT PUFF PIECE as follows:
That night, Houlahan called Schiff from her townhouse in Washington, where some of the authors had gathered, and he congratulated them on the article.
The next day, Pelosi announced that the House would begin an impeachment inquiry.
“When they wrote that op-ed, that was it,” says a senior Democratic House aide.
“It meant that everybody was on board, including these moderate Democrats, and the caucus and the speaker immediately recognized that.”
end quotes
Now, Congresswoman Luria just changed the course of American history here, and she was silent about that in her home district?
Curious.
As to what else she apparently neglected to talk about, we have as follows from the NYT, to wit:
Mueller’s own appearances before the Judiciary and Intelligence Committees in July, which Democrats hoped would bring his more than 400-page report to life, were duds.
The special prosecutor was halting and unsteady, refusing to venture beyond the report or even to restate its contents, often responding to questions with a terse “I direct you to my report.”
And Nadler’s attempts to get public testimony from administration officials were thwarted by the White House’s claims of executive privilege and other legal arguments.
When the Ukraine story broke, Democrats, who had grown exhausted of the Mueller probe even before Lewandowski’s testimony, quickly shifted gears.
“Mueller’s Russia thing was a sprawling, Tolstoyesque story taking place on multiple continents with dozens of players, and it was fairly difficult even for people who were following it closely to keep everybody and everything straight,” says the senior Democratic official with the Intelligence Committee.
“The Ukraine thing is a fairly easy story.”
Pelosi, meanwhile, seemed to jump at the opportunity the Ukraine scandal offered: to move impeachment largely out of Nadler’s hands and into the domain of Schiff and the Intelligence Committee, first with its closed-door depositions and then, as the House voted on Oct. 31, with a series of public hearings that are expected to begin in November.
“Nadler has totally screwed up his attempt at impeachment,” says Representative Matt Gaetz, a Republican from Florida who serves on the Judiciary Committee.
“So now you see Nancy Pelosi calling Adam Schiff out of the bullpen to throw impeachment screwballs.”
end quotes
And that is the “REALLY BIG SHOW” that hometown Congresswoman Luria is a star of.
So, really, Mr. Otton, are you sure she didn’t give herself at least a little pat on the back for being the sparkplug behind giving that failed Democrat impeachment effort a new lease on life?
Well, maybe at the next town hall then, when she will be even more famous than she is now, starring in a New York Times article like that.
Sorin Varzaru says
I am sorry I missed the meeting. She seems like a balanced person who cares about important issues of the day and has common sense.
Ray Otton says
Common sense?
Well, from the viewpoint of a Democrat I supposed it would be common sense to try to keep a tight lid on the proceedings because as of last Thursday, Mr. Trump hit 50% approval in a Rasmussen poll.
That’s 3 points higher than Mr. Obama had at the same time of his presidency. This despite an impeachment inquiry and the 99% negative, nonstop news coverage of Trump by the mainstream media.
In addition, there is also a new Monmouth poll out reporting Trump’s favorability rating is better than that of every Democrat running against him and this in the middle of an impeachment.
Trump – 44%
Biden – 43%
Warren – 42%
Sanders – 41%
Harris – 27%
Buttigieg – 27%.
These numbers are precisely why there is an impeachment inquiry. Democrats have no other way to beat Trump.
Ms. Lauria knows this and approves of the despicable tactics, making her JUST ANOTHER POLITICAL HACK, putting the interests of her party above the welfare of the country. And BTW, along with the Cape Charles crowd who clearly adored her.
They should all be ashamed, but they’re not and they won’t be for the foreseeable future, safe and sound in their bubble.
Paul Plante says
As is the case with the smarmy and unctuous Democrat Congressman from Hollywood, California Adam Schiff, and let’s face it, Mr. Otton, we are now talking BIG LEAGUE POLITICS here, not Babe Ruth or home town Little League, and BIG LEAGUE POLITICS in America today, especially if you are a Democrat, which means you have to buy your way up the ladder, means you need BIG BUCK$, this attacking Trump and getting her name in BIG LEAGUE NEWSPAPERS like the New York Times, where she is now known as a bad-to-the-bone “BADASS” Democrat, has been a boon for the fundraising efforts of Congresswoman Luria.
For her last report on 09/30/2019, she says she raised $1,312,271, which ain’t shabby, at all.
From her friends at NorPAC, for example. she raked in $29,950.
Her other friends at EMILY’s List ponied up $29,890, and her good friends at Bain Capital were in there for her at $14,000, while AmeriPAC: The Fund for a Greater America tossed $10,000 in the pot, and lets not forget to put our hands together for last but not least Forward Together PAC who also put $10,000 in the Luria warchest.
And how about this, Mr. Otton, straight from the internet:
Elaine Luria for Congress | Help Defend the Constitution
I am taking a stand to do what is right for our country.
Donate today to support this campaign in defending the constitution.
end quotes
Now, talk about heavy-duty, there we have it, or we would have it if the Congresswoman were actually defending the Constitution as opposed to helping Nancy Pelosi and the smarmy and unctuous Adam Schiff tear the Constitution into shreds by making a mockery out of due process of law in their never-ending quest to find something, anything, no matter how stupid or wild, to impeach Trump with.
Talk about “defending” the Constitution, the latest in this ABSURD CHARADE being backed by Congresswoman Luria as part of her fundraising efforts has Trump being impeached for violating his oath of office for asking the Ukraine dude if in fact that an American citizen named Joe Biden had been involved in corrupt dealings in the corrupt ****hole of Ukraine, which is patently ridiculous, and I hope they do ring Trump on that specific charge.
What a trial in the Senate that would be alright.
As to “messaging” and “keeping on narrative” in her fundraising, we have as follows from her very slick and professional website where you can actually watch Congresswoman Luria mouthing the words to the oath congresspeople swear to, as if that were somehow relevant to anything in here outside of the fact that by what she is supporting, she is making a mockery of that same oath you can watch her swearing to in that video:
Elaine is upholding her oath.
President Trump has abandoned his obligations to the United States Constitution and jeopardized our national security.
You can support Elaine’s work to hold this administration accountable by making a donation to her re-election campaign today.
end quotes
As to Trump’s oath of office, which is NOT the same oath Congresswoman Luria is swearing to in the video, it is as follows:
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
end quotes
Faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States!
There, people, is where this patent bull**** being thrown at us on a daily basis by these out-of-control House Democrats begins and ends!
Trump happens to be the one who took that oath, not the smarmy and unctuous Adam Schiff, who acts as if he were the president instead of Trump, and not Elaine Luria, so who the hell is she telling us what is right or wrong for Trump to do or not do?
She wants to be the president, then she should get her *** properly elected.
In the meantime, enough of this ENDLESS BULL****, and if that hurts your fundraising, that is too damn bad!
Ray Otton says
Paul, this is an attempt to frame a president who Democrats can’t beat at the ballot box. Nothing new of course, history is replete with examples of Democrats leaning heavily on a number of methods other than winning on the court of ideas.
Paul, some perspective is in order.
Can you imagine Republicans having framed Obama over a phone call that someone heard about from someone else? Think about the reaction from the media and other organizations.
How about if Republicans had moved to impeach Obama and held the inquiry in a secret room, with no Democrats allowed in and no way to cross-examine accusers?
How about if Romney was a senator at the time of Obama’s impeachment, voting on his removal from office? Wouldn’t you be OUTRAGED that the guy who wants his job is serving his jury?
Since that is the case, how can Democratic senators running against Trump be allowed to vote on his impeachment? There are seven, hopelessly conflicted candidates, Sanders, Warren, Klobuchar, Harris, Bennet, Booker and Gillibrand, who MUST recuse themselves from the process.
How about the “whistleblower”? His name is an open secret in DC. Turns out he’s a registered Democrat, works for the CIA and previouly worked for Obama, Biden and a bunch of Obama officials. He is known to haev traveled with Biden, was a guest of Biden’s at a State Department banquet and was involved in the $1 billion foreign aid delivered to Ukraine.
He was introduced to the world by the Washington Post on September 18 and a week after that first report, CNN told us that the ‘whistleblower” was willing to testify.
Then, on October 25, the “whistleblower’s’ attorneys announced that there was no need for testimony.
Why not? Because, the lawyers said, his testimony “IS NO LONGER RELEVANT”.
The accusation that started the ball rolling is no longer relevant?
Shouldn’t we all be asking when does one party get to decide a question such as whether this person testifies?
Shouldn’t the accused get the chance to cross-examine the accuser?
Does any of this strike you as fair?
A few other actual facts.
Mark Zaid, the whistleblower’s lawyers, tweeted in January 2017, “coup has started … impeachment will follow.”
The Democrats’ star witness, Bill Taylor, the top U.S. diplomat in Ukraine, admitted in the secret hearings that he wasn’t on the Trump-Ukraine phone call.
The other star witness, fired Ukrainian Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch, lied under oath about having contacted a Democratic staffer to discuss the case.
The president and foreign minister of the Ukraine already stated that there was no quid prop quo.
So, what the hell is the basis for this impeachment?
There is none, Paul.
This is a coup.
Ms. Lauria and the rest of the Democrats had better hope they can knock the crown off Mr. Trump’s head, ‘cuz if they don’t there’s going to be pay back……………Yugely.
Couldn’t happen to a more deserving bunch.
Paul Plante says
So, what the hell is the basis for this impeachment?
The fact that Trump is president and Hillary Clinton is not is the basis of this impeachment attempt, since they still don’t really have a clue as to what to impeach Trump for.
That is what these ridiculous “impeachment inquiries” are about – continual fishing expeditions to look for any kind of dirt they can find to cobble together some kind of impeachment charges, which will be ridiculous.
As to where matters now stand in this ridiculous FARCE, we have this right from the horse’s mouth himself, as follows:
Transcript: NPR’s Full Interview With Rep. Adam Schiff On Impeachment Inquiry
November 12, 2019·4:41 PM ET
Steve Inskeep: I want to begin with some words in the Constitution about impeachment.
The document says that an official can be impeached and removed for treason, bribery, high crimes and misdemeanors.
Which are these, in your view?
Rep. Adam Schiff: Well, I don’t think any decision has been made on the ultimate question about whether articles of impeachment should be brought.
That will be the purpose of these hearings and the subsequent work done in the Judiciary Committee.
But on the basis of what the witnesses have had to say so far, there are any number of potentially impeachable offenses: including bribery, including high crimes and misdemeanors.
The basic allegations against the president are that he sought foreign interference in a U.S. election, that he conditioned official acts on the performance of these political favors — and those official acts include a White House meeting that the president of Ukraine desperately sought with President Trump, as well as hundreds of millions of dollars in taxpayer funded military assistance for a country that is at war with Russia and a country that the United States has a deep national security interest in making sure it can defend itself.
Debbie Lewis says
I was there, and trust me I never got any warm fuzzy feeling from her. People smiling and nodding even after she threw the bomb about what she wants to do with Virginia’s immigrants that have work visas.
As I was leaving, I had said (loud enough I suppose to be heard), that I felt like all common sense had been sucked out of the room. The Democrats in the room seemed to not flinch at any of the horrible ideas spewing from her lips. She is NO public servant (surprise, surprise) just like the rest of politicians.
Ray Otton says
Oh man, we should have sat together, declared ourselves a disadvantaged minority (At least in that room) and claimed a bunch of government freebies.
Sorin Varzaru says
““Thanks for proving my point Ray.”
Wut?”
You have proven that your actions or reactions are just motivated by who is saying something, not what are they saying. I gave a simple scenario, a Democrat reciting the constitution. you managed to find a negative in that too. So, a conversation with you is 100% futile. You just talk/write to hear yourself talk or to get confirmation from your pals. There is absolutely no reason for anyone to have a conversation with you unless they subscribe to your belief system.
I am not surprised by the way. Actually, I am surprised that I am spending time writing this. I have absolutely no rational reason to do it.
Paul Plante says
Sorin, I like your writing style, very fluid in how it flows along, and that last line of yours above here is a real classic, let me tell you!
As to American politics as seen through the eyes of people born here, like Mr. Otton, as opposed to those born elsewhere and raised with a different history as in your case, the famous “Iron Guards,” or Legion of the Archangel Michael, which crowd actually reminds me a lot of the Democrats in this country, and the utter contempt we have for Democrats, which goes back to the 1800s and proceeds forward from there, especially after the Civil War, or the “Democrat War on American Values,” let’s take a look at some relevant American history here, to wit:
The 1996 United States campaign finance controversy was an alleged effort by the People’s Republic of China to influence domestic American politics prior to and during the Clinton administration and also involved the fund-raising practices of the administration itself.
end quotes
But of course, that was alright, because it was a Democrat.
Getting back to that scandal, and this is from Wikipedia, while questions regarding the U.S. Democratic Party’s fund-raising activities first arose over a Los Angeles Times article published on September 21, 1996, China’s alleged role in the affair first gained public attention when Bob Woodward and Brian Duffy of The Washington Post published a story stating that a United States Department of Justice investigation into the fund-raising activities had uncovered evidence that agents of China sought to direct contributions from foreign sources to the Democratic National Committee (DNC) before the 1996 presidential campaign.
end quotes
Now, the Democrats see nothing wrong with that, at all, and what they are going after Trump for now, with this modern-day “Lincoln Bedroom scandal” the Democrats want to impeach Trump for, his refusal to let a Ukrainian sleep in the Lincoln bedroom, pales in comparison, but our Democrats are self-righteous hypocrites, and they will never see anything they have done as being either wrong or unconstitutional.
Getting back to that Democrat scandal, we have:
The journalists wrote that intelligence information had shown the Chinese embassy in Washington, D.C. was used for coordinating contributions to the DNC in violation of United States law forbidding non-American citizens or non-permanent residents from giving monetary donations to United States politicians and political parties.
A Republican investigator of the controversy stated the Chinese plan targeted both presidential and congressional United States elections, while Democratic Senators said the evidence showed the Chinese targeted only congressional elections.
end quotes
Now, why do you think the Chinese were pouring money into the House of Representatives where ditzy Nancy Pelosi was at that time?
And then we had the Lincoln Bedroom for contributors controversy which was another Democrat political controversy in the 1990s during the Clinton Administration referring to the alleged selling of overnight stays in the Lincoln Bedroom in the White House in return for political campaign contributions.
In connection with that Democrat scandal, in August 1996, the Center for Public Integrity released a 10-page report called “Fat Cat Hotel: How Democratic High-Rollers Are Rewarded with Overnight Stays at the White House,” which report, written by Margaret Ebrahim, went on to win an award from the Society of Professional Journalists.
The report was an examination of the connection between overnight stays in the Lincoln Bedroom during the Presidency of Bill Clinton and financial contributions to the Democratic Party as well as to the Bill Clinton presidential campaign, 1996.
One particular document was most potentially damning, a Clinton annotation on a Democratic National Committee memorandum from its finance chair Terry McAuliffe, written regarding names of people who had not been in touch since the Bill Clinton presidential campaign, 1992: “Yes, pursue all 3 and promptly – and get other names of the 100,000 or more [dollar contributors].”
“Ready to start overnights right away – give me the top 10 list back, along with the 100.”
Many of the original Lincoln Bedroom guests were also big contributors to the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016.
end quotes
Selling America to the highest bidders, Sorin, that’s our Democrats, alright, which is why Americans like myself, and no, Sorin, I am not a Trump supporter, a Republican, nor do I vote for Republicans, hold them in such contempt as we do, because they have earned our contempt.
Uncle Sam says
I no longer recognize democrats as my fellow Americans.
Publius Americanus says
“Fellow travelers” always support each other, don’ they?
Sorin Varzaru says
>“Fellow travelers” always support each other, don’ they?
What’s that saying, “the pot calls the kettle black” ? A Democrat could recite the constitution and you and your pals would find something wrong with that.
Ray otton says
Not a matter of reciting it, more a matter of BELIEVING it.
And that’s where (D)’s fall short.
Sorin Varzaru says
Thanks for proving my point Ray.
Publius Americanus says
AfreakingMen.
Sorin, why do you demand that the USA be turned into the communist cess pool you fled?
Ray Otton says
“Thanks for proving my point Ray.”
Wut?
Debbie Lewis says
The Democrats recite their version of their constitution, which surprises me because I don’t know how they manage that. I mean, it changes everyday as they please.
Now the real Constitution of the United States I believe is the one most of us would like to see them (democrat politicians) adapt to and use.
Paul Plante says
The Constitution that you talk about is being shredded by the Democrats, to be replaced by malleable mush which changes from moment to moment based on the wishes, whims and feelings of the cult-like Democrats.
Back in the beginning, in FEDERALIST No. 10, The Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic Faction and Insurrection, by James Madison to the People of the State of New York from the New York Packet on Friday, November 23, 1787, Jemmy warned us as follows:
AMONG the numerous advantages promised by a well constructed Union, none deserves to be more accurately developed than its tendency to break and control the violence of faction.
The friend of popular governments never finds himself so much alarmed for their character and fate, as when he contemplates their propensity to this dangerous vice.
end quotes
Two hundred thirty-two (232) years later, here we are, facing the violence of the Democrat faction (cult) that is chewing that Constitution to shreds precisely so that the Democrat faction (cult) can be the sole ruler (dictator) here in the United States of America, and there is nothing they won’t do, no lie they won’t tell, to achieve that power mover our lives here in the United States.
In 1787, James Madison stated thusly, to wit:
Complaints are everywhere heard from our most considerate and virtuous citizens, equally the friends of public and private faith, and of public and personal liberty, that our governments are too unstable, that the public good is disregarded in the conflicts of rival parties, and that measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority.
end quotes
In 2019, that statement has as much validity now as it did then.
I am over 70, and I continually study history, and never in my life as an American citizen have a seen such a surreal and absurd spectacle as is being presented to us each day by these ravening Democrats which has made a mockery of the concept of rule of law, and has turned our federal government into just another third-world banana republic ****hole farce, which takes us back to FEDERALIST No. 10, as follows:
By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.
end quotes
There he is referring to the Democrat party, which has a long history of being both corrupt, remember Tammany Hall, as well as adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.
Why after the Civil War, or the War of the Democrats Against America, the Democrat party was allowed to continue to exist as opposed to being outlawed as it should have been continues to elude me, quite frankly.
And here we are today.
No surprises whatsoever.
Sorin Varzaru says
Paul, until you can voice your questions or opinions more succinctly, I’m not going to waste my time replying.
Paul Plante says
I don’t think I am going to miss all that much then, so thanks!
Sorin Varzaru says
That’s a bit nonsensical Debbie. Or totally made up, depending on what you actually mean. Are you an originalist? Pining for the good old days, when black folks were slaves and you could not vote because a woman’s job is to obey her husband ? Because that’s what the constitution said for hundreds of years.
Paul Plante says
Sorin, here in the United States of America, our Constitution has only been in existence for a tad over 230 years, so it is both hyperbolic and dead wrong to say that for “hundreds of years” the Constitution said that Debbie could not vote because a woman’s job is to obey her husband.”
In fact, our Constitution never said that it was a woman’s job to obey her husband, which is another way in which you are simply dead wrong.
If anybody in this country was saying that it was a woman’s job to obey her mother, it likely would have been her own mother and some Bible-thumping cleric of some sort.
Societal values, Sorin, not a Constitutional mandate.
And yes, Sorin, I am an originalist.
I believe everything about the Constitution that the complete set of Federalist Papers said it would be and wouldn’t be, and WHY that was to be in the minds of the FRAMERS of that very Constitution whose true meaning you are trying to pervert in here with this specious claim of yours that for “hundreds of years,” the Constitution said something that it never said at all.
And women were not denied the “right” to vote, because as British SUBJECTS before Independence, they had no right to vote for anything, not even the local dogcatcher.
Because OUR Constitution was based on Original Principles, chief of which was Consent of the Governed/Popular Sovereignty: The power of government comes from the people, which is the only “originalist” interpretation that can be given to it, given it was written to be understood by the COMMON MAN, not lawyers, although they misrepresent it all the time today with impunity, as do hack politicians like Elaine Luria and the slippery, smarmy and quite unctuous Hollywood, California Democrat Congressman Adam Schiff, who sounds like he is going off his rocker big time, women like Debbie GAINED a right they never before had when pursuant to the ORIGINAL PRINCIPLES upon which this nation was founded OUR Constitution was amended to give them that right.
Obviously, Sorin, you must have been absent that day in grade school when these basic American citizenship lessons were taught.
As to the Original Principles enshrined in OURN Constitution, which includes all of its Amendments, which is what the ORIGINALIST INTERPRETATION says, there is this, to wit:
Due Process: The government must interact with all people according to the duly-enacted laws and apply these rules equally with respect to all people.
end quotes
And there is but one of the VIOLATIONS of OUR Constitution’s ORIGINAL PRINCIPLES committed by these ravening Democrats in the House of Representatives with their insane cry that the Democrats are dealing with “a president who’s a one-man crime wave,” as silly Jamie Raskin, a BIG DOG Democrat Maryland congressman, was quoted as saying in the New York Times article “Inside Adam Schiff’s Impeachment Game Plan” by Jason Zengerle on 9 Nov. 2019.
That, Sorin, by American values, is IRRESPONSIBLE, UN-AMERICAN HORSE****.
Another of our Original Principles is this, Sorin:
Checks and Balances: Constitutional powers are distributed among the branches of government allowing each to limit the application of power of the other branches and to prevent expansion of power of any branch.
end quotes
And what we have here right before our eyes is a clear case of the Democrats in the House of Representatives greatly expanding their power by making this attempt to strip a sitting American president of any power, at all, including who can visit the White House, and when, as we can see from the “Transcript: NPR’s Full Interview With Rep. Adam Schiff On Impeachment Inquiry” on November 12, 2019, as follows:
Steve Inskeep: I’m thinking about past impeachments, though.
I’m thinking of Andrew Johnson in the 1860s who fired a cabinet official after having been told by Congress he must not do that.
There was a specific thing that he actually went through with, that he actually did.
Would you suggest that this is just as serious?
Rep. Adam Schiff: Oh, I think this is far more serious than an issue of firing a cabinet official because this is an issue of betraying the national security of the United States.
Of withholding military support, of withholding, in a way, diplomatic support by denying this White House meeting for this new president of Ukraine who wanted to demonstrate to the Russians that he had the full support of the president of the United States, his most important patron.
That damages our national security —
end quotes
And right there, Sorin is an indication of just how absurd this surreal show has become – Trump is going to be impeached because he did not invite some Ukrainian dude to the White House when Adam Schiff, who is the real president of the United States, thought he should have done so.
And the claim that not inviting the Ukrainian dude to the White House “damages our national security” is even more absurd and bizarre, as if we are now a dependency of the corrupt ****hole of Ukraine, upon whom we much now count on the defend us from Russia.
We have become so enfeebled as a nation, Sorin, according to Adam Schiff, that our national security now depends upon Ukraine.
And I think that is the biggest crock of horse**** I have ever heard coming from out the mouth of a Democrat, and that is really saying something, let me tell you.
So what about you, Sorin?
Are you buying into this Democrat horse**** as if it were real?
Deborah Gowran Lewis says
The Democrats recite their version of their constitution, which surprises me because I don’t know how they manage that. I mean, it changes everyday as they please.
Now the real Constitution of the United States I believe is the one most of us would like to see them (democrat politicians) adapt to and use.
Sorin Varzaru says
“Sorin, why do you demand that the USA be turned into the communist cess pool you fled?”
I don’t. But I am not surprised you invent things to support your …. “argument”.
Slide Easy says
‘I could never quite understand why Americans feel so superior when it comes to freedoms. You guys do understand that many countries out there have democracies, constitutions and freedom, and some have been around for far longer then the US is been around for, right?’
They leave Our country every day…planes and boats.
Feel Free.
WH Ferguson says
As a Yellow Dog Democrat, I was disappointed to see her cow-tow to the socialists trying to cheat Americans out of the 2016 elections.
Paul Plante says
The horse**** and campy “DEMOCRAT IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY HIGH FARCE” going on in Washington, D.C. that the Congresswoman is backing as a GOOD DEMOCRAT who puts loyalty to party before loyalty to anything else, is on full display in an ABC News article entitled “‘This is a very strong case of bribery’ : Rep. Jackie Speier on impeachment” on 10 Nov. 2019, as follows:
A Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee defended the Democrats’ strategy in the impeachment inquiry and responded on Sunday to the Republican witness requests in an interview on ABC’s “This Week.”
“This is a very simple, straightforward act.”
“The president broke the law,” said Rep. Jackie Speier of California.
“He went on a telephone call with the President of Ukraine and said ‘I have a favor though’ and then proceeded to ask for an investigation of his rival.”
“This is a very strong case of bribery.”
“The constitution is very clear, treason, bribery or acts of omission,” she added.
“And in this case it’s clearly one of those.”
end quotes
HUH?
And in this case it’s clearly one of those?
NO, IT’S NOT Congresswoman Speier!
It’s not any of those things at all.
Trump is clearly telling the head of a perpetually corrupt ****HOLE to not only clean up the rampant corruption in the ****HOLE, but to publicly commit himself to cleaning up the corruption, so the dude can’t weasel out afterwards, like we see them doing in the highly misleading ABC News story titled “Allegations against Biden ‘not credible,’ testified US official now touted by Trump” on 8 Nov. 2019, as follows:
“It was a general assumption … among the European Union, France, Germany, American diplomats, U.K., that Shokin was not doing his job as a prosecutor general.”
“He was not pursuing corruption cases,” Volker testified.
The ousted ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch, similarly testified that Shokin had a “notorious reputation” for “not doing his job.”
Even Jordan and Trump’s other key congressional ally Rep. Mark Meadows, R-N.C., conceded behind closed doors that Shokin was viewed as “a bad guy,” as Jordan put it.
“I guess his reputation was one that he was not serious about really rooting out corruption,” Meadows said, according to a transcript of closed-door testimony.
end quotes
So why on earth would Donald Trump as United States president not hold them to account today with respect to our tax dollars going to that corrupt ****HOLE as “military assistance” or some such horse**** title.
And that ABC News article title is highly misleading because further down in the article it states thusly:
Nevertheless, Volker acknowledged in his testimony that the allegations against Biden have “never actually been investigated” and have therefore never been directly or fully debunked.
end quotes
So some ABC News editor is playing games with that false title “Allegations against Biden ‘not credible,’ testified US official now touted by Trump.”
TWISTING THE TRUTH A BIT, GUYS?
And speaking of twisting the truth into a pretzel, back we go to ABC News article entitled “‘This is a very strong case of bribery’ : Rep. Jackie Speier on impeachment” on 10 Nov. 2019, where we have the smarmy and unctuous Democrat from Hollywood, California Adam Schiff doing the twisting as follows:
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Rep. Adam Schiff responded to Republicans in a letter saying that the committee was evaluating the witness list, but said that the impeachment inquiry would not “serve as vehicles for any Member to carry out the same sham investigations into the Bidens or debunked conspiracies about the 2016 U.S. election interference that President Trump pressed Ukraine to conduct for his personal political benefit.”
end quotes
SHAM INVESTIGATIONS into the Bidens, Adam?
There weren’t any investigations in the Bidens, Adam.
But two days earlier, you already knew that.
So why are you feeding us HORSE****, Congressman Schiff, about debunked conspiracy theories involving the Bidens which were never debunked, only covered over, and sham investigations into the Bidens when they have never been investigated, because they are the Bidens?
And why is Congresswoman Luria putting her stamp of approval on this inane, juvenile FARCE?
Deborah Gowran-Lewis says
Very well put. Thank you.
WHY? Luria put her stamp on it because she also is a paid butt-kisser to the socialist Dem party and NOT a public servant.
Debbie Lewis says
I agree.
MJM says
The Nature Conservancy is erecting signs in some of our boat launch areas praising our wonderful barrier islands, telling all visitors about their natural importance. It is a positive presentation about how we can all enjoy our salt marshes. They educate us to the flora and fauna to deliver insight into several hidden and hard to find beautiful lives in these areas. Lo and Behold, in the midst of this, they take the time to tell us how the aquaculture industry is such a sold part of this fragile area, and the most productive aquaculture area in our nation. Now Elaine Luria is stepping up in our town hall and telling us how the aquaculture industry deserves support, and she is fighting for cash as more support.
I point this out because some folks in their writings here recently, have voiced a rather narrow minded and very negative opinion of aquaculture. Not only did these opinions pass along an ugly vision of the industry, but they also questioned the integrity of Delegate Rob Bloxom over this industry.
I think it is very hard for any of us to say that The Nature Conservancy does not care for our environment. I think it is very hard for any of us to say that Rep. Elaine Luria is a non partisan politician. Both Ms. Luria and The Nature Conservancy apparently fully support The Aquaculture Industry, along with Rob Bloxom. No industry is perfect and there is always work to do, but can we please stop with the very negative outlook towards something that is trying very hard to be quite the green industry. Can we please have a positive outlook towards a newer industry that is trying hard to be a positive influence? Can more of us rethink an outlook ?
Farming. No chemicals. No fertilizers. Helps the environment. Provides food and jobs. I’m just saying…..
Slide Easy says
‘I think it is very hard for any of us to say that The Nature Conservancy does not care for our environment’
You don’t know much about them, do you?
Ray Otton says
Sorin says
“You have proven that your actions or reactions are just motivated by who is saying something, not what are they saying. I gave a simple scenario, a Democrat reciting the constitution. you managed to find a negative in that too. So, a conversation with you is 100% futile. You just talk/write to hear yourself talk or to get confirmation from your pals. There is absolutely no reason for anyone to have a conversation with you unless they subscribe to your belief system.”
1 – If you look at the articles Wayne posts on Sunday you’ll find that in a fair number of them I’m the first to post. Hey, I’m an early riser, what can I say? The point being that I can’t possibly be reacting when I’m the first poster.
2 – I write not to hear myself talk but just like you, to express my thought on a myriad of subject. Why is that OK for you but not for me? Is it because I hold opinions and beliefs that are completely the opposite of yours? That’s very Liberal of you.
3 – You made the declaration “A Democrat could recite the constitution and you and your pals would find something wrong with that.” Seems to me you were looking for a response……….So I gave one. To repeat, based on their comments in the presidential debate, the impeachment hearings and around my neighborhood, the average (D) wouldn’t know a Bill of Rights if it bit them in the ass. Prove me wrong.
4 – Something else that becoming obvious is that you don’t like push back. You make provocative statements just about every time you post and yet you are OFFENDED when someone challenges you. Forgive my broad brush, but it’s a characteristic the nation has observed among the soon to be extinct Liberal tribe on a daily basis, thus the “snowflake” connotation for followers of that corrupt ideology.
4 – And most annoyingly of all, you also have a bad habit of declaring yourself done with a conversation only to come back to it multiple times, as demonstrated right in this thread. Do you think threatening to leave and then NOT LEAVING is a good debate tactic? It’s not, it make you look weak. Have your say and be done with it.
Something to remember, places like this a part of the rough and tumble world of the internet. You don’t get to make your comments in a vacuum. Everything you post is up for debate.
Don’t like it? Don’t post.
Sorin Varzaru says
“1 – If you look at the articles Wayne posts on Sunday you’ll find that in a fair number of them I’m the first to post. Hey, I’m an early riser, what can I say? The point being that I can’t possibly be reacting when I’m the first poster.”
You are misinterpreting my words. In all fairness I could’ve been more clear. Let me ask you something, please be honest. Have you ever heard a democrat saying something or making a point and think to yourself, “uh, that makes sense”? My guess is probably no. So the question is, why would a democrat ever have a debate with you on anything? It’s not like there is any chance they could say something that will make any difference in what you believe.
“2 – I write not to hear myself talk but just like you, to express my thought on a myriad of subject. Why is that OK for you but not for me? Is it because I hold opinions and beliefs that are completely the opposite of yours? That’s very Liberal of you.’
Good point, went a bit too far there. Sorry about that.
3 – You made the declaration “A Democrat could recite the constitution and you and your pals would find something wrong with that.” Seems to me you were looking for a response……….So I gave one. To repeat, based on their comments in the presidential debate, the impeachment hearings and around my neighborhood, the average (D) wouldn’t know a Bill of Rights if it bit them in the ass. Prove me wrong.
In all fairness Ray the average american wouldn’t know a Bill of Rights if it bit them in the ass. Look it up, there are countless polls out there, one of them says 37% of Americans could not name a single right protected by the 1st amendment.
4 – Something else that becoming obvious is that you don’t like push back. You make provocative statements just about every time you post and yet you are OFFENDED when someone challenges you. Forgive my broad brush, but it’s a characteristic the nation has observed among the soon to be extinct Liberal tribe on a daily basis, thus the “snowflake” connotation for followers of that corrupt ideology.
Who does like push back? Ha! I’m not offended. Maybe I get annoyed sometimes. You and your friends have a way to sprinkle insults/falsehoods in the conversation that I find annoying, because it puts me in the position to either ignore them to make my point in a coherent fashion or waste energy in challenging each one. For instance, in the above paragraph your point was that I write provocative statements then I get offended. Along with that we had this : “corrupt ideology”, “soon to be extinct liberal tribe”. I don’t think the liberal ideology is corrupt, but I don’t have the time to challenge each of these falsehoods you drop in every 20 words.
4 – And most annoyingly of all, you also have a bad habit of declaring yourself done with a conversation only to come back to it multiple times, as demonstrated right in this thread. Do you think threatening to leave and then NOT LEAVING is a good debate tactic? It’s not, it make you look weak. Have your say and be done with it.
Well, you got me there. It’s not a tactic, it’s a weakness. I like debating things and sometimes I can’t help myself and I get sucked in again after deciding i had enough. I know it’s shocking to you to find out that I am not perfect 🙂
Ray Otton says
Watch this.
I’ve had my say and now I’m done with this thread.
Paul Plante says
My goodness, what an awful lot of drama.
For me, anyway.
I personally cut Sorin a lot of slack in here, because he came here as an adult, knowing only what life in a corrupt ****hole was like, while we learned about being Americans when children.
And I learned about the Legion of the Archangel Michael or the Legionnaire movement in Sorin’s home country of Rumania when I was but a child after WWII to contrast the difference.
So I can empathize with Sorin’s inability to understand how a freedom-loving people think, when he grew up not being free, while we grew up unenslaved.
So I can understand Sorin not understanding us, and I am accepting of that, quite frankly.
As to the Iron Guard in Rumania, this before WWII, Wikipedia informs us thusly, which is a repeat essentially of what I learned about them in kindergarten, to wit:
The leaders of the Iron Guard often wore traditional peasant costumes with crucifixes and bags of Romanian soil around their necks to emphasise their commitment to authentic Romanian folk values, in marked contrast to Romania’s Francophile elite who preferred to dress in the style of the latest fashions of Paris.
end quotes
There are our Democrats of today, wearing their traditional peasant costumes with Hillary Clinton on a crucifix and bags of real American soil around their neck as they screech and scream at and about Trump, incessantly, at least as someone like myself would see it, and that is based on my experience of Democrats going back at least to the 1960’s, long before Sorin was born in Rumania, so there is no way he could grasp the antipathy with which I as a Viet Nam veteran and American citizen have for the Democrat party, based on the harm I have observed them doing to not only myself, and my community, but to my state and this nation, as well, which takes us back to Wikipedia and the Iron Guards, to wit:
The fact that many members of Romania’s elite were often corrupt and that very little of the vast sums of money generated by Romania’s oil found its way into the pockets of ordinary people, further enhanced the appeal of the Legion who denounced the entire elite as irredeemably corrupt.
end quotes
And lo and behold, just as mu kindergarten teacher told me all those years ago, now, I am seeing the same thing happening all over again, this continual Democrat denunciation crap that is going on now on a daily basis, which has become sickening, which takes us back to Wikipedia on more time as follows:
With Codreanu as a charismatic leader, the Legion was known for skilful propaganda, including a very capable use of spectacle.
end quotes
Today, the cult-like Democrat party with its charismatic leader Nancy Pelosi, who I think based on her comments about bribery yesterday is bat**** crazy, a scary prospect given that as speaker of the house, she is only two heartbeats away from the Oval Office, is also known for skillful propaganda, including a very capable use of spectacle which includes all of these “public hearings” where all manner of dirt is thrown at Trump by disgruntled former employees like the one the slippery, smarmy and unctuous Adam Schiff had before his inquisition today, that makes the Iron Guard look like rank amateurs.
What makes me think cult leader Pelosi is gone round the bend and has lost her wits is her statement in the POLITICO article “Pelosi says Trump committed ‘bribery’ in Ukraine scandal” by Heather Caygle on 11/14/2019, as follows:
Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Thursday that President Donald Trump committed “bribery,” an impeachable offense, by trying to force Ukraine into tarnishing a political rival to help him in the 2020 election.
end quotes
THAT IS HORSE****, NANCY!
Trump is a sitting president, Nancy.
Trump swore an oath which stated, “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States,” and that is exactly what he has been doing, especially in this matter of Ukraine and the Bidens.
And while Joe Biden might be something to the Democrats just because he has announced that he is going to step into the ring to knock Trump out of it, and is soliciting money to support that cause, that doesn’t make him a “political rival.”
To Trump as president, Joe Biden is just another American citizen, and despite what the Democrats might think about it, being a Democrat who has announced a run at Trump does not confer immunity from the law on Joe Biden, and if Joe Biden is corrupt, then we do not want him or need him as an American president, and now is the time to find out, before it is too late, and not after.
IGNORE NANCY PELOSI AND INVESTIGATE JOE BIDEN FOR CORRUPTION, MR. PRESIDENT!
DO YOUR DUTY TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND IGNORE THE DEMOCRATS WHO ARE TRYING TO DESTROY OUR REPUBLICAN FRAME OF GOVERNMENT HERE IN AMERICA!
Sorin Varzaru says
‘So I can empathize with Sorin’s inability to understand how a freedom-loving people think, when he grew up not being free, while we grew up unenslaved.”
How refreshing to start the Sunday with a nice condescending and patronizing read 🙂
I could never quite understand why Americans feel so superior when it comes to freedoms. You guys do understand that many countries out there have democracies, constitutions and freedom, and some have been around for far longer then the US is been around for, right?
Paul Plante says
Americans do not “feel so superior” when it comes to freedoms, Sorin, for many reasons, starting with the fact that we have LIBERTY, which admittedly we are jealous and protective of, not “freedom” per se to do anything you want without consequences, as so many people like yourself raised in alien cultures with a markedly different and much longer history of kings and repression, seem to think it is over here, and of course you cannot understand an American like myself born here right after WWII, because you have no memory of those times, and their consequences in terms of the human suffering that war caused.
And speaking for myself, Sorin, and I reminded you of this already, the United States of America are a very young nation, having only been in existence for a little over 230 years, a blink of an eye, so of course I know and have been aware since I was five that these “older” nations you remind us of have not only been in existence for a long time, over a thousand years in some cases, been responsible in Europe for centuries of imposed hardship on their peoples and endless wars, one of which, the French and Indian War, which precipitated our subsequent revolution against a corrupt English King when we were told we then had to pay for it, was fought on our soil and scorched our frontiers and took American lives when it was a European War that spilled over to here.
And my goodness, Sorin, we are not ignorant, benighted savages over here regardless of the propaganda you were fed growing up in your alien culture, of course we understand that many countries out there have democracies, constitutions and freedom.
That describes Russia which is a constitutional democracy, and pretty much every other “nation” on the face of the earth to include Zimbabwe, Brazil, Argentina, Venezuela, Cuba, Chad, The Congo, Ethiopia, Somalia and Iraq and Turkey, and on an on and on, for their are hundreds of them, Sorin, all over the world.
WHAT OF IT?
We have a REPUBLIC in this country, Sorin, by design.
We rejected democracy as a form of government. because as we are seeing right now with this Democrat coup going on in Washington. D.C., where Adam Schiff is now the de facto president of the United States as we enter the “TWO PRESIDENTS” phase of our national history, like the Two Popes controversy back when in Europe, it is inherently unstable, and as the Democrats are proving, it is a danger to OUR liberty.
That you cannot comprehend that, Sorin, is cool with me as I said above.
And thanks to you and the Cape Charles Mirror for giving me this valuable opportunity to cure you of all your misconceptions about America and Americans.
And have a great day, Sorin, and watch your back lest some fool in a golf cart come careering along and runs over your foot.
What a bummer that would be, alright.
Sorin Varzaru says
“And thanks to you and the Cape Charles Mirror for giving me this valuable opportunity to cure you of all your misconceptions about America and Americans.”
I feel CURED!
I was under the impression that comparing a democracy with a republic is like comparing apples with … tractors.
I guess I was naive to think a Republic is a form of government where Democracy is an ideology that helps shape how a government is run.
So, I apologize for mistakenly thinking we live in a democratic country that is a republic.
My mistake.
Jane H. says
AMEN, Ray. Sorin has proven himself to be not only contemptuous of conservative, US Constitution believing American citizens, but also incredibly arrogant and incredibly uninformed – exactly what he accuses all those who call him out on that of being.
Sorin Varzaru says
I have to admit, I do have some contempt for conservatives. You elected in office a self centered opportunist, a racist, a person who seems to even lack the concept of ethics, much less have any. As far as the Constitution, it’s a fine document, and the founding fathers had incredible foresight, but even they could not foresee the future 300 years in advance. You all treat the Constitution as a magical document that is set it stone. It was amended before (to enshrine your right to vote Jane) and will probably amended again.
Paul Plante says
As far as the Constitution, Sorin, it is hardly a fine document, because it no longer means anything to anyone, and it cannot be enforced.
And while the founding fathers may in some cases have had incredible foresight, they never tried 231 years ago to foresee the future 300 years in advance, which is why the Constitution was intended to be amended by a process built into it at the beginning.
So it is horsecrap that we treat the Constitution as a magical document that is set it stone.
What we do treat the Constitution as is LAW OF THE LAND until amended.
And yes it has been amended before and perhaps will be amended again.
What of that, Sorin?
And if we treat the Constitution as a magical document, what do you treat it as?
As to foresight 231 years ago with regard to amending the Constitution, in FEDERALIST No. 85, titled Concluding Remarks, to the People of the State of New York from MCLEAN’s Edition, New York, founder Alexander Hamilton, who subsequently got his **** blown away when he came out second best shot in a duel with Aaron Burr, first stated thusly:
The additional securities to republican government, to liberty and to property, to be derived from the adoption of the plan under consideration, consist chiefly in the restraints which the preservation of the Union will impose on local factions and insurrections, and on the ambition of powerful individuals in single States, who may acquire credit and influence enough, from leaders and favorites, to become the despots of the people; in the diminution of the opportunities to foreign intrigue, which the dissolution of the Confederacy would invite and facilitate; in the prevention of extensive military establishments, which could not fail to grow out of wars between the States in a disunited situation; in the express guaranty of a republican form of government to each; in the absolute and universal exclusion of titles of nobility; and in the precautions against the repetition of those practices on the part of the State governments which have undermined the foundations of property and credit, have planted mutual distrust in the breasts of all classes of citizens, and have occasioned an almost universal prostration of morals.
end quotes
There, Sorin, is what this “magical document” as you call it, was meant to be, and you will note in there the phrase “the express guaranty of a republican form of government to each,” not a democracy.
In our childhood here in America, Sorin, and I am sorry you missed out on this when young, which certainly was not your fault, this is what we were taught as the difference between “democracy” and “republican” government, to wit:
The American System of Government
In modern times, the terms “democracy” and “republic” are commonly used interchangeably, especially in reference to the expansion of citizenship and rights to previously disfranchised groups.
However, the distinction between a democracy and a republic is significant.
Democracy: A form of government in which ultimate authority is based on the will of the majority.
In a pure democracy (from the Greek demos, meaning “people”) the citizens participate in government directly, rather than by electing representatives.
One of the challenges in a direct democracy is that there is no protection for the inalienable rights of minorities, leading to the possibility of tyranny by the majority.
Moreover, direct democracy is susceptible to changing passions that can lead to mob rule, as well as demagoguery that can lead to tyranny.
The form of government established in the U.S. Constitution is sometimes called a representative or indirect democracy.
end quotes
As to changing passions leading to mob rule, as well as demagoguery that can lead to tyranny, we are getting a good dose of that now as these ravening Democrats who believe in democracy, and not the Republican frame of government they want to tear down, go about doing exactly that with all this impeachment crap they are throwing at us, which gets wilder and wilder all the time.
Getting back to basic Americanism, we have:
Republic: A form of government in which the people are sovereign (ultimate source of power) and give their consent to representatives to make laws.
The term, republic, comes from the Latin res publicae, meaning “thing of the people.”
In a republic, the will of the people is filtered through several steps, making it less likely that a majority faction can endanger the rights of particular individuals or groups.
In Federalist #10, Madison explained why a republic, or system of representation, is the form of government best suited to protecting the rights of all.
Madison noted that the Constitution’s structure and limitations on power created a republic that would “refine and enlarge the public views, by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens, whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country, and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations.”
end quotes
Except we no longer have in the House of Representatives a chosen body of citizens whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country, and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations; to the contrary, we now have a ravening pack of fools who lack wisdom and whose true interest lies with their party alone, and they have no love of justice at all, only a love of raw political power.
So despite what Jemmy thought was his foresight, history has proven him wrong and the Constitution seriously flawed in that regard, that it cannot control the passions of faction, at all, which takes us back to Al Hamilton on the question of amendment in FEDERALIST No. 85, to wit:
By the fifth article of the plan, the Congress will be obliged “on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the States, which at present amount to nine, to call a convention for proposing amendments, which shall be valid, to all intents and purposes, as part of the Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the States, or by conventions in three fourths thereof.”
The words of this article are peremptory.
The Congress “shall call a convention.”
Nothing in this particular is left to the discretion of that body.
end quotes
That, Sorin, is the “originalist” interpretation.
Debbie Lewis says
Wow! Last time I commented on your post, you chose to judge me, and predict my life. Not to debate. But to critique me. It was not worthy of a response. You certainly are uninformed.
My reason for my new text is to inform you that President Donald J Trump is NOT A RACIST. We can prove that.
We know it, you don’t .
Sorin Varzaru says
“Wow! Last time I commented on your post, you chose to judge me, and predict my life. Not to debate. But to critique me. It was not worthy of a response. You certainly are uninformed.”
I have no idea what you are referring to.
“My reason for my new text is to inform you that President Donald J Trump is NOT A RACIST. We can prove that. We know it, you don’t .”
That made me laugh out loud. There is even a wiki page on the President’s racial tendencies. There you go :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_views_of_Donald_Trump
Debbie Lewis says
I understand completely that you have no idea what I’m talking about.
Sorin Varzaru says
“I understand completely that you have no idea what I’m talking about”
OK then, thank you for the … clarification.
Paul Plante says
As to the Constitution of Romania of 1991, Sorin, as revised in 2003, it contains 156 articles, divided into 8 titles, to wit:
Title I – General principles
Title II – Fundamental rights, liberties, and duties
Title III – Public authorities
Title IV – The economy and public finance
Title V – Constitutional Court
Title VI – Euro-Atlantic integration
Title VII – Revising the Constitution
Title VIII – Final and transitional provisions
By contrast, OUR Constitution has just seven articles and is as follows:
Preamble
Article I – Legislative Department
Article II – Executive Department
Article III – Judicial Department
Article IV – States’ Relations
Article V – Mode of Amendment
Article VI – Prior Debts, National Supremacy and Oaths of Office
Article VII – Ratification
end quotes
There you can clearly see that “Mode of Amendment” was right in there at the start 231 years ago when OUR Constitution was ratified, and unlike the ever-changing Constitution of Romania, ours has remained the same over that period of time, which leads to this present moment with the “TWO PRESIDENTS” constitutional crisis we are now facing as the Democrats in the House of Representatives attempt to wrest control of the Office of the Executive pursuant to Article II of OUR Constitution to make it merely a tributary of the Democrats in the Legislative branch.
But that is a blatant perversion of the express language of the Constitution, which you seem incapable of grasping, because the Constitutional history you grew up with is so far different from ours as to be from a different planet, to wit:
Regulamentul Organic, voted by the respective Assemblies of Moldavia and Wallachia under Imperial Russian occupation in 1831-1832, was the first organic law resembling a constitution ever awarded to the Danubian Principalities.
It remained in place until 1858, when the Crimean War removed the two countries from Russian influence and confirmed the rule by several European powers first established by the Treaty of Paris; the Paris Convention of 1858 remained the governing document following the election of Alexandru Ioan Cuza as Domnitor (ruling prince) over the united countries (1859), but was replaced by Cuza’s own organic law, entitled Statutul dezvoltător al Convenţiei de la Paris (“Statute expanding the Paris Convention”), in 1864.
Although the newly minted state was nominally still a vassal of the Ottoman Empire, it only acknowledged the suzerainty of the Sublime Porte in a formal way.
The first constitution of the Romanian United Principalities was adopted 1 July 1866.
It was retained after Romania became a kingdom in 1878.
After the extension of national territory in 1918, a new constitution was approved 29 March 1923.
It was repealed by King Carol II in 1938 and replaced with a corporatist/authoritarian document with the king’s National Renaissance Front as the sole legal party.
This document was, in turn, cancelled in 1940 by the National Legionary State government under Ion Antonescu and the Iron Guard.
Antonescu broke his alliance with the Guard in 1941, and ruled by decree until his overthrow in 1944.
The 1923 constitution was reinstated pending the adoption of a new constitution.
The monarchy was abolished in 1947.
In March 1948, the first constitution of Communist Romania was adopted; it was heavily modeled on the Soviet constitution.
Two other constitutions appeared during the Communist era, in 1952 and 1965 (the former “building socialism”, the latter announcing the “socialism has won” and notably making the change from a people’s republic to a socialist republic).
Following the collapse of the Communist regime in 1989, much of the 1965 document was suspended, though portions remained in effect until the present document was adopted in 1991.
end quotes
There is your history of “constitutions,” Sorin, and no offense to yourself is intended, because you were hardly in control of anything over there before you were born, but to us in this country, that history of Romania is a ******* mess, and IF these ravening Democrats in the House have their way, that is what our history will look like, as well, where you never know from day to day whether there is any Law of the Land in existence and what it might possibly be.
That, Sorin, is what this debate is about – the powers given to the Legislative branch in Article I versus the powers given to the Executive branch in Article II, as follows:
Section 2.
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
end quotes
By OUR Constitution, it is the President, not Nancy Pelosi or Adam Schiff, who may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices.
The House Democrats are trying to take that power away from Trump, which is a violation of our Constitution as written, which ism what this dispute is about.
Continuing on here:
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
end quotes
The Constitution as written gives the House Democrats absolutely no power or authority whatsoever over the appointment of Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, but undeterred by that express written language which is not subject to a separate Democrat interpretation, the Democrats nonetheless are attempting to usurp that power, as well, which is causing a CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS today here in America, which takes us to Section 3 of Article II, as foll0ws:
He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information on the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.
end quotes
There, Sorin is the basis of this Constitutional Crisis clearly revealed:
The executive, in this case Trump, shall from time to time give to the Congress Information on the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; the House Democrats want to reverse that and have them in control, not them executive, which violates OUR Constitution.
And it is the executive who may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper.
The House Democrats want to call the president before them, as if her were a thrall.
I’m against that blatant violation of OUR Constitution by the House Democrats.
What about you?
Sorin Varzaru says
“The House Democrats want to call the president before them, as if her were a thrall.
I’m against that blatant violation of OUR Constitution by the House Democrats.
What about you?”
My research says the jury is out on weather the President can be summoned by Congress, certainly not as clear cut as you make it out to be.
Paul Plante says
Your “research,” Sorin?
What “research?”
Here is the only possible finding your research could uncover with respect to Trump and foreign policy, including that corrupt ****hole Ukraine, to wit:
THE CONDUCT OF FOREIGN RELATIONS
The Right of Reception: Scope of the Power
”Ambassadors and other public ministers” embraces not only ”all possible diplomatic agents which any foreign power may accredit to the United States,” but also, as a practical construction of the Constitution, all foreign consular agents, who therefore may not exercise their functions in the United States without an exequatur from the President.
The power to ”receive” ambassadors, et cetera, includes, moreover, the right to refuse to receive them, to request their recall, to dismiss them, and to determine their eligibility under our laws.
Furthermore, this power makes the President the sole mouthpiece of the nation in its dealing with other nations.
end quotes
Now, how many different interpretations can you give to that sentence which states in clear and explicit language that “the power to ‘receive’ ambassadors, et cetera, which includes, moreover, the right to refuse to receive them, to request their recall, to dismiss them, and to determine their eligibility under our laws makes the President the sole mouthpiece of the nation in its dealing with other nations?”
What the Democrats are saying is that that is not true – Trump is not the sole mouthpiece of the nation in its dealing with other nations, the wild-eyed zealot Congressman from Hollywood, California is.
And because the smarmy and unctuous Hollywood Democrat put in power by the money and clout of a rich and powerful dude named Geffen does not like the way Trump as president has conducted foreign policy, Adam Schiff is UNCONSTITUTIONALLY pushing Trump out of the way and he is putting himself in charge of foreign policy with these UNCONSTITUTIONAL HEARINGS of his now-ongoing in Washington, D.C. where he is calling in all these diplomats and what-have-you’s to dish dirt to Adam Schiff so he can use the dirt to fabricate some type of impeachment charges.
How the smarmy and unctuous Adam Schiff came to be in OUR Congress in the first place is the subject of a long puff-piece in the New York Times entitled “Inside Adam Schiff’s Impeachment Game Plan” by Jason Zengerle on 9 November 2019, where we were informed as follows:
Schiff lost his first two campaigns for the California Legislature.
In 1996, on his third attempt, he was elected to represent a State Senate district that included Glendale and part of Hollywood.
Three years later, Representative Jim Rogan, the Republican whose congressional district overlapped with Schiff’s district in the State Senate, served as a House manager in Bill Clinton’s impeachment.
In 2000, David Geffen and other Hollywood executives recruited Schiff to run against Rogan in what was then the most expensive House race in the country.
end quotes
As that story goes, Geffen and his crowd were incensed that Rogan was going against the Clintons, the most powerful political family in America, bar none, and so, they put Adam Schiff in power with their money, because Schiff had none of his own, to punish not only Rogan, but the Republican party, as well, which is what we see Adam Schiff doing right now – giving Trump Democrat party pay-back for the Republicans impeaching Bubba Clinton.
That the whole thing is political horse**** cooked up by Adam Schiff so he can fulfill his role assigned to him by the Geffen MONEY CROWD that owns Adam is readily apparent from that same NYT puff-piece, as follows, to wit:
According to another senior Democratic official with the Intelligence Committee, the committee “started developing a potential framework for an investigation” of Trump and Ukraine as far back as June — before the whistle-blower first approached an Intelligence Committee aide, who recommended that the whistle-blower get a lawyer and bring the matter to the attention of an inspector general.
It was the timing of Trump’s supposed wrongdoing, as eventually revealed by the whistle-blower, that was particularly alarming to Schiff and ultimately persuaded him to support an impeachment inquiry.
“What struck me was the fact that the president engaged in this conduct” — in his July 25 phone call with Zelensky — “the day after Mueller testified,” Schiff told me.
“It demonstrates that this president thinks he’s above the law and there’s no accountability whatsoever.”
“And that, to me, said the greater danger here may be a president who feels completely above the law.”
end quotes
WHAT A CROCK OF ****, Adam Schiff!
As to who calls whom, Sorin, OUR Constitution provides thusly:
Section 3. Legislative, Diplomatic, and Law Enforcement Duties of the President
LEGISLATIVE ROLE OF THE PRESIDENT
This clause, which imposes a duty rather than confers a power, is the formal basis of the President’s legislative leadership, which has attained great proportions since 1900.
Today, there is no subject on which the President may not appropriately communicate to Congress, in as precise terms as he chooses, his conception of its duty.
Conversely, the President is not obliged by this clause to impart information which, in his judgment, should in the public interest be withheld.
The President has frequently summoned both Houses into ”extra” or ”special sessions” for legislative purposes, and the Senate alone for the consideration of nominations and treaties.
end quotes
The Democrats in the House of Representatives therefore have NO CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY, JURISDICTION, or DISCRETION to summon a sitting American president as if he were a mere thrall.
That they are trying to do so is an UNCONSTITUTIONAL ACT on their part, which makes them a clear and present danger to our Constitution and OUR American way of life.
Section 3. Legislative, Diplomatic, and Law Enforcement Duties of the President
LEGISLATIVE ROLE OF THE PRESIDENT
This clause, which imposes a duty rather than confers a power, is the formal basis of the President’s legislative leadership, which has attained great proportions since 1900.
Paul Plante says
With respect to this crap of treating announced presidential candidates like Joe Biden as if they were immune from the law, as the Democrats are doing here with respect to Joe Biden, who was never investigated for alleged corrupt acts in Ukraine, we have some background here from the New York Times article “Code Name Crossfire Hurricane: The Secret Origins of the Trump Investigation” by Matt Apuzzo, Adam Goldman and Nicholas Fandos on May 16, 2018, as follows:
Counterintelligence investigations can take years, but if the Russian government had influence over the Trump campaign, the F.B.I. wanted to know quickly.
One option was the most direct: interview the campaign officials about their Russian contacts.
That was discussed but not acted on, two former officials said, because interviewing witnesses or subpoenaing documents might thrust the investigation into public view, exactly what F.B.I. officials were trying to avoid during the heat of the presidential race.
“You do not take actions that will unnecessarily impact an election,” Sally Q. Yates, the former deputy attorney general, said in an interview.
She would not discuss details, but added, “Folks were very careful to make sure that actions that were being taken in connection with that investigation did not become public.”
end quotes
So, the moral of that story is that if you want immunity from the law, announce that you are running for president as a Democrat and you will be golden!
Right, Joe?
As to Joe’s boy, Hunter, who the Ukrainians selected out of everybody else in the world to serve on the board of Burisma after he apparently answered an ad on Craig’s List looking for an American with an influential parent high in American politics to serve as a Burisma board member, he is the dude who was the star of an NBC News article entitled “Joe Biden’s Son Hunter Kicked Out of Navy for Cocaine” on Oct. 16, 2014, the same year Hunhter joined the Burisma board, where we had as follows:
Vice President Joe Biden’s son was booted from the Navy Reserve because he tested positive for drugs, it was revealed on Thursday.
A U.S. official told NBC News that Hunter Biden was kicked out of the Reserve earlier this year after he failed a drug test.
The official said Biden failed the test in 2013, but he was not kicked out until Feb. 14 of this year.
Senior U.S. officials told NBC News that Biden, 44, tested positive for cocaine.
The Wall Street Journal first reported the incident.
According to one official, Biden’s dismissal from the Naval Reserves was not made public “because he was treated like any other sailor who fails a drug test and is thrown out of the Navy.”
The official said the services do not routinely report such cases.
end quotes
According to Hunter, he had unwittingly consumed the cocaine after being given cigarettes he believed were surreptitiously laced with the drug, which is just about as good an excuse as any, when you think about it.
“Hey, give me a break here, the dude was the very last person on the face of the earth who would have anything to do with drugs or cocaine, so when he gave me the cigarette, why, shuckins, I thought it was just a regular Lucky Strike, and my goodness, since I don’t know nothing about drugs or cocaine either, why, how could I possibly have known?”
MJM says
I almost always appreciate all comments in this Mirror. I completely accept the fact that everyone has the right to their opinion. Part of my opinions is that I believe I sometimes read people are slinging arrows as though it’s an anger sport rather than a factual opinion.
That’s why I sometimes come back in here and ask for someone to support that which they opine.
I repeat, no business and no person is perfect. With that in mind, why Slide Easy, would you say” The Nature Conservancy does not care for our environment”? And that I “don’t know much about them”. What is it in their charter and their actions that would lead you to say that ? Please enlighten me as to why I should believe their work is so negative as to earn a comment like yours. Or, if possible and necessary, please tell me what they do with the majority of their work that so far outweighs the good that I believe that they do. I really would appreciate it. I do not want to go through life being ignorant of all the negative impact that is the result of their work.
Slide Easy says
Do your own research!
MJM says
Well I’ve done my research there, Slide Easy. I see all of the areas that they have purchased and protect, and all of the knowledge they pass along through education, and I don’t see what you are complaining about. I see them trying to find ways to protect and preserve flora and fauna. Yeah, they seem to overprotect at times, and close beaches for nesting long after nesting season. And yeah, “Piping Plover tastes just like chicken” bumper stickers are good for a laugh in a bar.
To me it sounds and looks like you’ve got nothing going on here but a snarky voice from the cheap seats. Perhaps you can tell us about all the ongoing projects you have throughout our waters or this country that are providing a better future for all of us to enjoy ? I’d like to Thank You for them. Please tell us all how your work and investments in our environment are outshining the Nature Conservancy that are demonstrating for us how they could be doing so much better a job.