Opinion: Making it Up as they Go

Comments

1. Paul Plante says

   November 11, 2018 at 8:01 pm

   Yes, indeed, people, making it up as they go along!

   American history, I mean, as we can clearly see in an editorial in the Hearst publication, the Albany, New York Times Union, entitled “Editorial: Correct America’s course” on October 29, 2018, where we are fed this following falsehood, to wit:

   It is time to restore a two-party system, for the sake of the country.

   Regardless of whether you’re Republican, Democratic, a member of a minor party or an independent, it’s hard to imagine any thoughtful American would be comfortable with the idea of absolute control of Washington, D.C., by a single political party.

   The last 22 months have shown us the dangers of a federal government without the checks and balances envisioned by the nation’s founders and set forth in the Constitution.

   end quotes

   What hog**** that is, because the so-called “two-party” system, which has all political power in this nation in the hands of just two factions, both of which are minority factions in terms of population in America, is not set forth in the United States Constitution, at all, nor did the so-called “nation’s founders” put in place the two-party system in the United States of America as a check and balance on anything.

   And in fact, the Era of Good Feelings in America, which certainly does not exist today, marked a period in the political history of the United States that reflected a sense of national purpose and a desire for unity among Americans in the aftermath of the War of 1812.

   That era of American history saw the collapse of the Federalist Party and an end to the bitter partisan disputes between it and the dominant Democratic-Republican Party during the First Party System.

   President James Monroe strove to downplay partisan affiliation in making his nominations, with the ultimate goal of national unity and eliminating parties altogether from national politics.

   So much for this spew of hog**** from the editorial staff of the Albany Times Union about the tw0-party system being essential to the functioning of government here in the United States of America!

   As to this internecine political warfare we see plaguing this country today, as the Democrats make open war on the Republicans in a naked grab for power, it was after the Era of Good Feelings, during and after the 1824 presidential election, when the Democratic-Republican Party split between supporters and opponents of Jacksonian Nationalism, leading to the Second Party System, which plagues our nation today.

   As to the First Party System, which ended when the Era of Good Feelings began, it was a model of American politics used in history and political science to periodize the political party system existing in the United States between roughly 1792 and 1824.

   It featured two national parties competing for control of the presidency, Congress, and the states: the Federalist Party, created largely by Alexander Hamilton, and the rival Jeffersonian Democratic-Republican Party formed by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison and usually called at the time the “Republican Party.”

   The Federalists were dominant until 1800, while the Republicans were dominant after 1800.

   In an analysis of the contemporary party system, Jefferson wrote on February 12, 1798:

   “Two political Sects have arisen within the U. S., the one believing that the executive is the branch of our government which the most needs support; the other that like the analogous branch in the English Government, it is already too strong for the republican parts of the Constitution; and therefore in equivocal cases they incline to the legislative powers: the former of these are called federalists, sometimes aristocrats or monocrats, and sometimes Tories, after the corresponding sect in the English Government of exactly the same definition: the latter are stiled republicans, Whigs, jacobins, anarchists, dis-organizers, etc.; these terms are in familiar use with most persons.”

   Contrary to the hog**** the editorial board of the Albany Times Union is making up as it goes along there in support of the Democrat party in this recent election, the Constitution did not create either of those parties, nor did the founders intend them into being.

   Rather, they were the result of something – that being the struggle for political power at the national level here in the United States of America after the new Constitution was ratified.

   Getting back to the so-called “First Party System,” and the power struggle, both parties originated in national politics, but soon expanded their efforts to gain supporters and voters in every state.

   The Federalists appealed to the business community, the Republicans to the planters and farmers.

   Thus, we see the original lines of political division in America exposed here for all to see, and that is supposed to be our common political history, no matter your personal political persuasion, because history as it happened should trump politics.

   So why doesn’t it, then?

   Any thoughts, anyone?

   Reply

2. Paul Plante says

   November 15, 2018 at 9:50 pm

   Yes, people, making it up as they go, and shamelessly so, as to be a “liberal Democrat” by their own definition is to be “liberated from all traditional forms of authority,” which actually starts with history and the meaning of words as a means of inter-personal communications, as can be seen in this following colloquy from the internet where RLA2 is a self-identified “liberal” in favor of democracy in America over the Republic on what was an “ask me anything” thread where people could learn first-hand from a self-professed “liberal” how it was that a “liberal” would see the world, to wit:

   RLA2 wrote: People who do not want to see equalitarian democracy flourish tend to define it as something bad.

   INTERLOCUTOR: Athens became the most successful democracy of ancient Greece during the 400’s BC.

   Athenian democracy granted all male citizens the rights to vote on government policies, hold political office, and serve on a jury.

   However, it was restricted to male Athenian citizens.

   Non-Athenians living in Athens, women, and slaves had no political rights.

   So HISTORY defines democracy as something bad, not people.

   In a democracy, the majority, or those with muscle, exclude from the protection of law those they don’t want to have it.

   And your metaphors keep changing, rla.

   Now you are over into an “equalitarian democracy.”

   What, pray tell, is that now?

   How many kinds of democracy are there, anyway?

   Is there a non-equalitarian democracy, as well?

   RLA2 wrote: People with a committment to the rule of law define democracy as something good.

   INTERLOCUTOR: The Aftermath of Solon’s reforms:

   After completing his work of reform, Solon surrendered his extraordinary authority and left the country.

   According to Herodotus the country was bound by Solon to maintain his reforms for 10 years, whereas according to Plutarch and the author of Athenaion Politeia (reputedly Aristotle) the contracted period was instead 100 years.

   A modern scholar considers the time-span given by Herodotus to be historically accurate because it fits the 10 years that Solon was said to have been absent from the country.

   Within 4 years of Solon’s departure, the old social rifts re-appeared, but with some new complications.

   There were irregularities in the new governmental procedures, elected officials sometimes refused to stand down from their posts and sometimes important posts were left vacant.

   It has even been said that some people blamed Solon for their troubles.

   Eventually one of Solon’s relatives, Pisistratus, ended the factionalism by force, thus instituting an unconstitutionally gained tyranny.

   In Plutarch’s account, Solon accused Athenians of stupidity and cowardice for allowing this to happen.

   So much for rule of law, anyway.

   RLA2 wrote: We have a republican form of government, the state-federal structure.

   This republican structure facilitates the process of democracy in that it allows for more decentralization.

   Democracy vs republic is a false dychotomy.

   RLA2 wrote: We have a republican form of government, the state-federal structure.

   INTERLOCUTOR: COMMONWEALTH: It generally designates a republican frame of government – ONE IN WHICH THE WELFARE AND RIGHTS OF THE ENTIRE MASS OF PEOPLE ARE THE MAIN CONSIDERATION, rather than the privileges of a CLASS or the will of a monarch.

   – Black’s Law Dictionary

   TEDDY ROOSEVELT wrote:

   New Nationalism Speech, 1910

   The true friend of property, the true conservative, is he who insists that property shall be the servant and not the master of the commonwealth; who insists that the creature of man’’s making shall be the servant and not the master of the man who made it.

   That is conflating, I think, rla.

   A REPUBLIC does not imply the relationship between levels of government, it is about the relationship between the people and the government.

   INTERLOCUTOR: What Is Federalism?

   Historical Examples of Things Like Federalism

   Primitive leagues: leagues of nations (when they had more than military duties).

   “Confederacy.” Calling these leagues federal may seem anachronistic: using our current term to describe something in the past.

   Yet these primitive leagues (e.g. the Achaean League) resemble the Articles of Confederation in some ways.

   • Early modern leagues: e.g. Swiss.

   They were a league of groups to defend against Habsburgs and Holy Roman Emperor.

   USA: began as a league of rebellious provinces, but was transformed in Philadelphia in 1787.

   A new kind of confederacy: “as much a single centralized state as it was an alliance of states.”

   The word federalism was coined largely to describe this new mix, and still refers to systems like the USA.

   Latin American federalism: mostly modeled after US.

   Former English colonies: since most were small, they have often combined into a federal structure after independence (much as USA’s thirteen colonies did).

   Examples: Canada, Australia, India/Pakistan, Malaysia, Nigeria, etc. (though not all remained federal).

   Communist federalism: unique form, designed to ease absorption of new republics, then abandoned for party domination once the new republics were firmly absorbed.

   Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia after 1968, etc.

   Federalism elsewhere: Africa (Ethiopia, libya, others for a while), but balkanization keeps them from lasting long.

   Conceptual Definition of Federalism

   “Federalism is a political organization in which the activities of government are divided between regional governments and a central government in such a way that each kind of government has some activities on which it makes final decisions.”

   Federalism comes in many flavors, which can be thought of along a continuum from minimal (loosely allied) to maximal (highly centralized) federalism.

   In minimal federalism, the central rulers have at least one (perhaps narrowly restricted) area in which it can act without approval of the federal units.

   (Otherwise, it’s an alliance like the UN, not a federal union.)

   In maximal federalism, the central rulers can make decisions in all but on (perhaps narrowly restricted) area without approval of the federal units.

   (Otherwise, it’s a fully centralized government, not a federal union.)

   http://wikisum.com/w/Riker:_Federalism% … al_Science

   INTERLOCUTOR: Measuring Federalism

   A strongly centralized party system can undermine federal divisions of authority.

   Thus, fully centralized (“maximal,” see above) federalism is often accompanied by a strong governing party, rendering federal divisions “quite meaningless.”

   Examples: USSR, Yugoslavia, Mexico (under PRI).

   Thus, measuring the degree of federalism requires measuring the degree of party centralization.

   And Riker measures party centralization according to (1) whether the party that controls the central government also controls the regional governments and (2) the strength of party discipline.

   (Note that, in practice, looking at both party strength and institutional divisions is analogous to the veto players approach, which looks for both institutional and partisan veto players.)

   http://wikisum.com/w/Riker:_Federalism% … al_Science

   RLA2 wrote: Who or what made Henry Cambell Black the ultimate authority on government in the human social system.

   Born 1860, growing up in a devout religious context, receiving a BA and MA from Divinity College, studying Greek and Roman classics, he then attended law school and practiced law for about six years.

   He remained a nerdish scholar, spending his time writing and editing the Constitutional Review, from its beginning to his death in 1925.

   He lived with parents Until they died and at age 50, married a woman who had been a border in his family’s house hold for many years.

   The Black’s Law Dictionary was an out growth of many years of editing the writings of law professors.

   The Dictionary is in its 9th edition.

   The 1910 second edition is now in the public domain and available free on the internet and is thus the edition most often quoted.

   RLA2 wrote: Who or what made Henry Cambell Black the ultimate authority on government in the human social system.

   INTERLOCUTOR: Black’s Law Dictionary

   From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

   Black’s Law Dictionary is the most widely used law dictionary in the United States.

   It was founded by Henry Campbell Black.

   It is the reference of choice for definitions in legal briefs and court opinions and has been cited as a secondary legal authority in many U.S. Supreme Court cases.

   The latest editions, including abridged and pocket versions, are useful starting points for the layman or student when faced with an unfamiliar legal word.

   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black%27s_Law_Dictionary

   I believe the United States Supreme Court did, rla.

   Shouldn’t they have?

   RLA2 wrote: Black’s definitions of the basic terms for a theory of government did not come from a summary of court cases but rather from his own personal construct system, which was a product of his time and his particular history.

   He apparently used his role and status as an professional insider to popularize his particular world view.

   A world view that came primarilly from ancient history and theology–not from science or the kind of experiential learning that develops street smarts.

   INTERLOCUTOR: JAMES MADISON wrote:

   Do not separate text from historical background.

   If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government.

   INTERLOCUTOR: COMMONWEALTH: It generally designates a republican frame of government – ONE IN WHICH THE WELFARE AND RIGHTS OF THE ENTIRE MASS OF PEOPLE ARE THE MAIN CONSIDERATION, rather than the privileges of a CLASS or the will of a monarch.

   – Black’s Law Dictionary

   Are you then saying that a REPUBLIC is really something other than what Black’s Law Dictionary says it is?

   Are you saying that science or the kind of experiential learning that develops street smarts have come up with some kind of different definition for what a REPUBLIC is as defined by the U.S. Constitution, and that we should use that alternate definition for what a REPUBLIC is over that expressed in Black’s Law Dictionary?

   Are the dudes with the street smarts now saying that a REPUBLIC should be a frame of government in which the privileges of a class, say, the MIDDLE CLASS, and the will of our monarch are the main consideration, rather than the welfare and rights of the entire mass of people?

   Is that what science is saying as well?

   RLA2 wrote: No, I’m saying do not conflate the US Constitution and Black’s Law Dictionary.

   I would take that a step further to say don’t allow the constitution to be transformed into scripture.

   It has a process for being amended.

   INTERLOCUTOR: U.S. CONSTITUTION Article IV, Section 4:

   The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government.

   http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/cons … article04/

   I’m hardly conflating anything here, rla.

   To the contrary, I am employing a two-step rational, logical process here.

   And I am doing exactly what James Madison, himself a member of the Constitutional Convention and an American president to boot, told us to do when reading and interpreting the wording and language of the U.S. Constitution – Do not separate text from historical background.

   Or you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government.

   Which is what this present discussion is all about so our readers can follow along in here.

   Sooo …

   FIRST, I go to the U.S. Constitution, which happens to be scripture, or law of the land, until such time as it might be lawfully amended, where in Article IV, Section 4, that document informs us that:

   The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government

   THEN, to find out what a REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT is, I go to Black’s Law Dictionary, since the Constitution does not separately define a republican form of government itself.

   Put them together and what you have is that Article IV, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution as written states clearly and unambiguously that the United States SHALL guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government – one in which the welfare and rights of the entire mass of people are the main consideration, rather than the privileges of a CLASS or the will of a monarch.

   I know that pisses you off to no end, rla, but so be it.

   It is what it is until it is LAWFULLY changed.

   RLA2 wrote: The constitution specifies a republican FORM of government and Black’s Law Dictionary specifies a republican FRAME of government and a process in which the welfare and right of the entire mass of people are the main consideration, rather than the privileges of a CLASS or the will of a monarch, which is what democracy means.

   The republic-democracy dychotomy is a distinction without a difference.

   The US Constitution laid the ground work for a democratic republic and the Amendments have for the most part have made it more democratic.

   INTERLOCUTOR: First off, rla, Black’s Law Dictionary does not specify anything at all; rather it DEFINES what words being used elsewhere, such as the U.S. Constitution, actually mean.

   Secondly, FORM and FRAME are interchangeable, and you see me using both, because they are interchangeable.

   And DEMOCRACY most certainly is not the same as the REPUBLICAN FORM or FRAME of government.

   DEMOCRACY is all about class, and in a DEMOCRACY, the dominant class disenfranchises the minority classes.

   INTERLOCUTOR: The liberal-popular and the conservative-aristocratic emerged as the two dominant factions in Athenian democracy.

   The spirit of the agon (competition), fame, glory, honor and the desire to surpass all others were values enshrined even in the Homeric poems, particularly the Iliad.

   “It was widely accepted as ‘natural’, that the members of the community were unequal in resources, skills and style of life.”

   In Herodotus’ prime, Athens was the dominant naval and imperial power.

   It offered military protection to members of the Athenian (Delian) league in exchange for tributes, euphemistically called contributions – other euphemisms include protection for military occupation; prison was dwelling; an Athenian military defeat was to have a misfortune.

   Athenians were granted homesteads in the colonies, cementing further their hold on them and squelching any moral objection from the participants.

   Athens relied on imports of fruits and merchandise from distant lands to supplement local produce like corn and salted fish, and maintained permanent garrisons abroad to ensure a steady supply.

   Many of the colonized though, even when they resented the politics of Athens, found its popular culture irresistible.

   The professed objective of Athenian foreign policy was to aggressively promote democracies abroad in direct opposition to the more muted Spartan confederacy’s preference for oligarchies.

   But exceptions to high principle were frequently made for illiberal ends.

   At times, foreign territory was grabbed in the name of goddess Athena herself.

   In reality, wars were used to acquire wealth, to keep the economy humming, to flex their muscle of growing power, and to distract citizens from domestic issues.

   Classical Athens soon turned into a wartime economy.

   Special interest groups in popular assemblies cloaked their impassioned speeches in the rhetoric of national interest and glory – deemed acceptable grounds for hostile military action even when others’ legitimate rights were mauled.

   Athens began asserting itself in all manner of allied causes and interfered in other nations’ internal matters.

   It had shrewd orators – demagogues, idealists, pragmatists, with the ability to manipulate public opinion to catastrophic ends – illustrated by the Mitylene debate when the popular assembly, following the frenzied instigation of the demagogue Cleon, rashly voted to condemn all men in the rebellious colony to death to set an example.

   In greater Hellas, Athens repeatedly invoked its role in the Persian wars as moral justification for present domination, backing it up with militant aggression, much to the exasperation of the second-rank powers and other ‘inward-looking’ city-states.

   A generation after Herodotus, the great historian Thucydides thought the Peloponnesian war inevitable: Athens had become an unprincipled bully; they had to be checked.

   Their cultural effulgence had a dark side; they were victims of their own cupidity and recklessness.

   Their conduct towards other city-states, with its own self-serving logic and momentum, had set them on a road to disaster.

   Some Athenians believed that a just society needed an inspired combination of philosophy and real-politick in a leader – a philosopher-king, but the production and predictable supply of such men proved utopian.

   Their democracy, too, depended on public awareness, responsibility, and participation to provide a bulwark against any willful abuse of power; conscious citizens were vital for its success in their asking – who are these men making decisions for me and my people?

   The disparity between the rich and the poor, and the knowledge gap between the civilized few and the superstitious many, had become enormous in Athens.

   Class conflict between wealthy landowners and less fortunate craftsmen, sailors and small traders became pervasive; the poor began asking awkward questions when reminded of their obligation to the polis.

   Thucydides portrays the fragile and corruptible nature of popular government and noble institutions, the twin spectacle of the juggernaut of history and an endlessly vulnerable humanity, egocentric leaders lusting for power and glory, and at times inevitability, in light of the often blind and contending cultural instincts of peoples – his is a stage portrait of man, the political animal.

   http://www.shunya.net/Text/Blog/DemocracyAthens.htm

   INTERLOCUTOR: MARKETWATCH wrote:

   America is no longer a democracy, not even a plutocracy.

   Today our middle class is in a rapid trickle down into Third World status, while the rich get richer and the “gap” between the super-rich and the rest steadily widens.

   It is now irrelevant who wins the 2012 race, because money corrupts and Obama is already a puppet of this system favoring lobbyists and wealthy donors.

   http://www.marketwatch.com/story/2011-2 … e_carousel

   The experiment of a REPUBLIC in America was an abject failure, thanks to democracy, which sold out the REPUBLIC to the highest bidders, as democracy always does, in the end.

   RLA2 wrote: DEMOCRACY is all about class, and in a DEMOCRACY, the dominant class disenfranchises the minority classes …Yes.

   FORM and FRAME are interchangeable because they both refer to how the government is structured.

   Every system has both structure and process.

   The founding fathers and Mr. Black came along before general system’s language became available to scholars.

   The US Constitution structures the US government in the form of a constitutional democratic republic.

   The people are still struggleing to establish and maintain a democratic process.

   There have always been a large gap between theory and practice.

   This gap has been maintained because leadership has been allowed to emerge only from among the elite who controlled banking and comerce, organized religion and higher education, government bureauracy and the military.

   Henry Black, because of his insider position with Trinity College, the Episcopal Church and the Journal for Constitutional Review was uniquely positioned to reinforce the prevailing perspective of the most elite who gave lip service to democracy while carrying on bidness as usual.

   end quotes

   That is a conversation that went on and on and never went anywhere or got to anywhere because the self-proclaimed liberal RLA2 would not accept Black’s Law Dictionary as a source for the meaning, of words in the Constitution, and yes, that is a real conversation from back in February of 2012, which is an indication of how long this inability to have a rational discussion about government in America with a self=proclaimed liberal has existed.

   Maybe it is just me, but when words no longer have common meaning, and history becomes what you want it to be, then do we still have a nation?

   Reply

3. Paul Plante says

   November 18, 2018 at 7:36 pm

   And getting back to the false and specious claim of the pompous (affectedly and irritatingly grand, solemn, or self-important) windbag Joseph Eugene Stiglitz (born February 9, 1943), a.k.a. “Bad Boy Joe,” because he dared to question the World Bank and was fired by the World Bank for expressing dissent with its policies, in his recent essay courtesy of Marketwatch entitled “Opinion: The fight to preserve democracy has come home to America” published Nov. 6, 2018, where “Bad Boy Joe,” who is making up American history as he goes for partisan political reasons, given that the dude self-identifies on his Wikipedia page as a notorious Democrat, that “(T)he U.S. was founded as a representative democracy,” which we have previously identified as a hog**** statement, because it is false, one has to wonder how he thinks he can simply sail that blatant falsehood past us without it being questioned.

   “Bad Boy Joe,” the notorious Democrat, is using his considerable influence as one of Time magazine’s list of the 100 most influential people in the world to feed us a snow job here, and but for the Cape Charles Mirror, he would be getting away with it, scot-free, as they say, completely unchallenged.

   So why is he lying to us, telling us “(T)he U.S. was founded as a representative democracy,” when any schoolchild knows that when we say the Pledge of Allegiance, we say, “I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands.”

   What, pray tell, is his agenda, beyond sowing confusion among the American people on behalf of the Democrats who have just taken back control of the United States House of Representatives?

   And that thought takes us to a NBC News article entitled “Democrats’ investigative dreams to meet cold, hard congressional reality – Democrats conducting presidential oversight will soon have legal authority to demand answers from the Trump administration. That doesn’t mean they’ll get them.” by Rebecca Shabad on Nov. 12, 2018, where we are told as follows:

   WASHINGTON — When Democrats take control of the House next year, they will find themselves with new powers to investigate and embarrass the Trump administration.

   end quotes

   Oh, really, Rebecca!

   And tell us, Rebecca, where in the United States Constitution does it give the Democrats in the United States House of Representatives, that branch of our national government most dangerous to our liberty, any authority, jurisdiction or discretion to waste our national resources in an obviously partisan effort intended to embarrass a sitting American president?

   Oh, but you are a member of the American press, so you probably don’t know, and further, don’t have a clue, since you are there not to question, but to write it down as you are told to write it, which takes us back to the NBC News article, as follows:

   But their ability to use those powers may be more limited than many progressive voters may imagine.

   The liberal wish-list has been circulating for months, and Democratic base voters are hungry for results.

   end quotes

   And there we see it, people, the passions of the mob controlling what the Democrats in the House of Representatives are going to do, as opposed to what the United States Constitution says they are there to do.

   In FEDERALIST No. 62, The Senate, for the Independent Journal to the People of the State of New York by either James Madison or Alexander Hamilton writing as Publius circa 1788, it was stated thusly about our national government, to wit:

   A good government implies two things: first, fidelity to the object of government, which is the happiness of the people; secondly, a knowledge of the means by which that object can be best attained.

   end quotes

   In that same essay, Publius stated as follows:

   No government, any more than an individual, will long be respected without being truly respectable; nor be truly respectable, without possessing a certain portion of order and stability.

   end quotes

   When we today some 230 years later put those two together, can we say that the Democrats in the House of Representatives using our national resources in a partisan effort to embarrass Donald Trump is worthy of respect?

   Does it contribute to order and stability in our national government?

   Or is it a blatant effort by the Democrats in the House of Representatives to disrupt our national government?

   In FEDERALIST No. 62, The Senate, for the Independent Journal to the People of the State of New York by either James Madison or Alexander Hamilton writing as Publius circa 1788 stated thusly, to wit:

   Another defect to be supplied by a senate lies in a want of due acquaintance with the objects and principles of legislation.

   end quotes

   And right there, Publius is making a direct reference to what we are seeing taking place here in America as the Democrats take control of the U.S. House of Representatives – quite simply, they are totally unacquainted with the objects and principles of legislation, so they don’t know what the **** it is they are doing, other than lashing out on behalf of the howling mob, which is a blatant misuse of our national government resources, which takes us back to FEDERALIST No. 62, as follows:

   The necessity of a senate is not less indicated by the propensity of all single and numerous assemblies to yield to the impulse of sudden and violent passions, and to be seduced by factious leaders into intemperate and pernicious resolutions.

   Examples on this subject might be cited without number; and from proceedings within the United States, as well as from the history of other nations.

   end quotes

   And here is yet another blatant example of it, 230 years later, where we see our House of Representatives, now that the Democrats are taking power, yielding to the impulse of the sudden and violent passions of the howling, shrieking and screaming mob, and being seduced by factious leaders into intemperate and pernicious resolutions, which again takes us back to FEDERALIST No. 62, as follows:

   It is a misfortune incident to republican government, though in a less degree than to other governments, that those who administer it may forget their obligations to their constituents, and prove unfaithful to their important trust.

   end quotes

   And there, people, 230 years later, Publius is talking about Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats in the House of Representatives when he says it is a misfortune incident to republican government that those who administer it. like Nancy Pelosi as speaker of the house, forget their obligations to the nation and prove unfaithful to their important trust, which takes us back in time a bit to a Tribune Washington Bureau article entitled “Embattled Pelosi’s big survival weapon: money” by Anshu Siripurapu on 6/22/2017, as follows:

   WASHINGTON — Here’s a huge reason Nancy Pelosi maintains her iron grip on House Democrats, even after another bruising — and in many party circles embarrassing — election loss: her ability to raise lots and lots of money.

   The House Democratic leader has few current peers when it comes to pumping money into colleagues’ campaigns.

   No other potential up-and-coming Democratic challenger to her leadership comes close.

   Since 1990, she’s raised more than $9.2 million for party candidates, including $739,000 in the 2016 election cycle, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks contributions from candidate committees and affiliated PACs.

   Pelosi’s office claims even loftier triumphs, saying she’s raised more than $500 million for Democrats since entering the party leadership in the early 2000s, including $141.5 million in the 2015-2016 cycle.

   The totals, her office says, include money raised for the party not directly controlled by her committees.

   Big donors to the party’s congressional campaign committee were also available to Pelosi through her “Speaker’s Cabinet” program, which gave them special access to the Democratic leader.

   end quotes

   That is what we just got back in control of OUR United States House of Representatives – somebody and a party with a history of selling out the American people to the highest bidders.

   What a swamp, but it doesn’t end there, so please, stay tuned for further installments of Making It Up As they Go!

   Reply

4. Paul Plante says

   November 21, 2018 at 10:35 pm

   As we children learned when young up here where I am, this country is ours, like all other countries, only so long as we can hold it, and there is always going to be someone somewhere waiting to take it away from us to make it their own.

   That was the big threat of Communism when I was young, that the dreaded Commies from Russia would come over here to take over the country to take away our freedoms.

   Now the threat is from within this country, instead, but then, it always really has been.

   Consider FEDERALIST No. 65, “The Powers of the Senate,” from the New York Packet to the People of the State of New York by Alexander Hamilton on Friday, March 7, 1788, to wit:

   THE remaining powers which the plan of the convention allots to the Senate, in a distinct capacity, are comprised in their participation with the executive in the appointment to offices, and in their judicial character as a court for the trial of impeachments.

   A well-constituted court for the trial of impeachments is an object not more to be desired than difficult to be obtained in a government wholly elective.

   The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust.

   end quotes

   That last sentence about the subjects for a well-constituted court of impeachments here in the United States of America, regardless of how it might be done in Kenya or Zimbabwe or Pakistan being those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust are words each and every one of us here in America who remain loyal citizens of the Republic should keep in mind as the impeachment-for-the-sake-of-impeachment minded Democrats take over control of OUR United States House of Representatives, and God help the nation for that.

   If these Democrats who are making it up as they go in an effort to impeach Trump because that is what their screeching, howling mob that put them in power (NO, I am not a Republican and I don’t vote for Republicans) actually move to impeach Trump, then what they owe us as American citizens is a clear case of Trump abusing or violating some actual public trust, and not something hoaky that they pulled out of their *** and hope to sail by us as if we were all too stupid to realize the difference!

   Getting back to FEDERALIST No. 65:

   They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself.

   The prosecution of them, for this reason, will seldom fail to agitate the passions of the whole community, and to divide it into parties more or less friendly or inimical to the accused.

   end quotes

   Regardless of when this was written, Hamilton was describing the times we find ourselves in right now where the Democrats’ talk of impeaching Trump has agitated the passions of the whole community, and divided it into parties more or less friendly or inimical to the accused, and that is by Democrat design, following the tenets of Saul Alinsky, which takes us back to the Alinsky article as follows:

   Michelle Obama echoed Alinsky’s words in her speech at the Democratic Convention.

   Michelle Obama:

   “Barack stood up that day,” talking about a visit to Chicago neighborhoods, “and spoke words that have stayed with me ever since.”

   “He talked about ‘The world as it is’ and ‘The world as it should be…’”

   And, “All of us driven by a simple belief that the world as it is just won’t do – that we have an obligation to fight for the world as it should be.”

   end quote

   Now, think about that for a moment, people.

   Does Barack Obama, or anyone for that matter, know “the world as it is?”

   Or is that just some more horse****?

   And what about “the world as it should be?”

   Whose decision is that?

   And obviously, Barack and Michelle Obama, so much higher than us on the intellectual plane, feel it is theirs as they talk about having an obligation to fight for the world as it should be, which makes those of us in this country who don’t agree with their vision for our future their enemies, which in turn takes us back to the Alinsky article, as follows:

   Saul Alinsky, “Rules for Radicals,” Chapter 2:

   “The means-and-ends moralists, constantly obsessed with the ethics of the means used by the Have-Nots against the Haves, should search themselves as to their real political position.”

   “In fact, they are passive-but real-allies of the Haves …”

   “The most unethical of all means is the non-use of any means …”

   “The standards of judgment must be rooted in the whys and wherefores of life as it is lived, the world as it is, not our wished-for fantasy of the world as it should be.“

   Alinsky is making a strong case in this quote for the abandonment of morals and ethics as nothing but impediments to political success.

   For Alinsky, as for Michelle and Barack Hussein Obama, morality and ethics prevent the world from being what “it should be.”

   The Alinsky end game is likely a global utopia in which the “people” have “power.”

   Unfortunately, this utopianism has been the foundation of several über-violent movements of the last century which have resulted in over 100 million deaths.

   end quotes

   And that takes us back some 230 years in time to Federalist No. 65, as follows:

   In many cases it (the court of impeachment in the USA) will connect itself with the pre-existing factions, and will enlist all their animosities, partialities, influence, and interest on one side or on the other; and in such cases there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.

   end quotes

   Political agitation, people.

   The Democrats taking over the House of Representatives are doing their utmost to enlist all the animosities, partialities, influence, and interest of their faction on their side so that an impeachment of Trump would be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt, which takes us back to FEDERALIST No. 65 as follows:

   The delicacy and magnitude of a trust which so deeply concerns the political reputation and existence of every man engaged in the administration of public affairs, speak for themselves.

   The difficulty of placing it rightly, in a government resting entirely on the basis of periodical elections, will as readily be perceived, when it is considered that the most conspicuous characters in it will, from that circumstance, be too often the leaders or the tools of the most cunning or the most numerous faction, and on this account, can hardly be expected to possess the requisite neutrality towards those whose conduct may be the subject of scrutiny.

   end quotes

   There Hamilton is talking about the Democrats taking over the House of Representatives when he makes mention of “the leaders or the tools of the most cunning or the most numerous faction,” which is now the Democrats in the House of Representatives, which takes us back to Saul Alinsky as follows:

   Many Americans have read Alinsky’s books and understand his methods; this is excellent as so few read Mein Kampf, and fewer still have read the Koran, Sira, and Hadith.

   These are the foundational texts of existential opposition to the existence of the United States in its present form.

   The fact that our current President and Secretary of State (wannabe President Hillary Clinton), are followers of Alinsky is beyond disturbing.

   That so many Americans know Alinsky is heartening but few know the motivations behind the agitation that is so central to the Alinsky method and further what it means when a professional agitator acquires the power that they claim to require.

   What kind of effective governance is possible from the permanent agitator when the reins of power are handed to him/her?

   We have seen the results.

   The problem with the Alinsky method is that the end game is amorphous; the end game is the acquisition of power but little is said of what to do with that power once acquired.

   The core of Alinsky’s method is destruction, destruction of the “system” that allows a disparity of wealth.

   There is no discussion of what is to replace this system once it is brought down.

   However, there is little doubt that Alinsky’s idea of a better “system” is one that brings forced equivalence or Marxism.

   Fundamentally, the struggle to get power is the essence of Alinsky, what to do with the power once acquired is another matter altogether.

   end quotes

   Yes, people!

   The future is now.

   The struggle for power is on.

   Which way will it take us as a nation and as a people?

   All I can say is please, stay tuned!

   Reply

5. Paul Plante says

   November 24, 2018 at 7:55 pm

   And in all seriousness, people, should we really be surprised that we have these hack politicians in America making it up as they go, in order to divide us as a people for their benefit, by making people in America confused, blind, shrouded with hate, anger, racism, and mommy issues, so that they are easy to manipulate?

   Is this “making it up as they go,” which most certainly includes the main-stream media in this country, something new?

   Or has it always been going on?

   For an answer to that question, let us drop back in time some 230 years as we can do in here to FEDERALIST No. 67, The Executive Department, from the New York Packet to the People of the State of New York by Alexander Hamilton on Tuesday, March 11, 1788, where we find as follows, to wit:

   THE constitution of the executive department of the proposed government, claims next our attention.

   There is hardly any part of the system which could have been attended with greater difficulty in the arrangement of it than this; and there is, perhaps, none which has been inveighed against with less candor or criticised with less judgment.

   Here the writers against the Constitution seem to have taken pains to signalize their talent of misrepresentation.

   end quotes

   Two hundred and thirty years later, that phrase “taken pains to signalize their talent of misrepresentation,” where “misrepresentation” is defined as “the action or offense of giving a false or misleading account of the nature of something,” still applies to people in this country who hate our present Republican frame of government and wish to replace it with a democracy with them in power and able to deny protection of law to their political enemies, as the Roman dictator Sulla did in Rome in 81 B.C. with his proscriptions.

   Consider this excerpt from an article in the Spokane Conservative Examiner on October 10 2014, for example:

   If actress Gwyneth Paltrow had her way, Barack Obama wouldn’t just be the president — he’d be a full-fledged dictator with all the power to do whatever he wanted without Congress.

   “It would be wonderful if we were able to give this man all of the power that he needs to pass the things that he needs to pass,” she said of Obama during an introduction the Associated Press said was “punctuated by ‘ums.'”

   She also told Obama, “I am one of your biggest fans, if not the biggest, and have been since the inception of your campaign.”

   When she handed Obama the microphone, she told him, “You’re so handsome that I can’t speak properly.”

   end quotes

   And not only does Gwyneth Paltrow get to vote, despite that inability to speak properly, but she commands big dollars as well with which to try and make that happen, whereas the rest of us don’t, which takes us back to FEDERALIST No. 67, as follows:

   Calculating upon the aversion of the people to monarchy, they have endeavored to enlist all their jealousies and apprehensions in opposition to the intended President of the United States; not merely as the embryo, but as the full-grown progeny, of that detested parent.

   end quotes

   Today, as we can see from the Spokane Conservative Examiner on October 10 2014, there are many powerful and important people in this country like Gwyneth Paltrow with access to the main-stream media we the common people do not enjoy who no longer have an aversion to monarchy, and who have no scruples about using the main-stream media to advocate for monarchy, despite our history, because to them, it is past time to scrap this Republican frame of government bequeathed to us by people Alexander Hamilton and Virginia’s James Madison, and to replace it with a borderless “democracy” pursuant to Democrat “Bad Boy Joe” Stiglitz’s vision as a member of Collegium International, an organization of leaders with political, scientific, and ethical expertise, whose goal is to provide new approaches in overcoming the obstacles in the way of a peaceful, socially just and an economically sustainable world, a vision that requires the United States of America to give up its national borders and sovereignty to become a part of a one-world government ruled by technocrats like Democrat Joe Stiglitz.

   Getting back to FEDERALIST No. 67 and the propensity of political people in this country like Barack Hussein Obama to make it up as they go, we have:

   To establish the pretended affinity, they have not scrupled to draw resources even from the regions of fiction.

   end quotes

   Thus we can see that “making it up as they go” is a tried and true time-tested method of politically manipulating the mindless, unthinking and just plain gullible in America like so much putty for partisan political gain, as Joe Stiglitz is doing above here, so we should not be surprised to see the Democrats still resorting to the practice today.

   And as an aside, today, the regions of fiction include the main-stream media in this country which prints narratives, not facts, which takes us back to FEDERALIST No. 67, as follows, and “making it up as they go,” to wit:

   He (the U.S. president) has been decorated with attributes superior in dignity and splendor to those of a king of Great Britain.

   He has been shown to us with the diadem sparkling on his brow and the imperial purple flowing in his train.

   He has been seated on a throne surrounded with minions and mistresses, giving audience to the envoys of foreign potentates, in all the supercilious pomp of majesty.

   The images of Asiatic despotism and voluptuousness have scarcely been wanting to crown the exaggerated scene.

   We have been taught to tremble at the terrific visages of murdering janizaries, and to blush at the unveiled mysteries of a future seraglio.

   Attempts so extravagant as these to disfigure or, it might rather be said, to metamorphose the object, render it necessary to take an accurate view of its real nature and form: in order as well to ascertain its true aspect and genuine appearance, as to unmask the disingenuity and expose the fallacy of the counterfeit resemblances which have been so insidiously, as well as industriously, propagated.

   In the execution of this task, there is no man who would not find it an arduous effort either to behold with moderation, or to treat with seriousness, the devices, not less weak than wicked, which have been contrived to pervert the public opinion in relation to the subject.

   They so far exceed the usual though unjustifiable licenses of party artifice, that even in a disposition the most candid and tolerant, they must force the sentiments which favor an indulgent construction of the conduct of political adversaries to give place to a voluntary and unreserved indignation.

   It is impossible not to bestow the imputation of deliberate imposture and deception upon the gross pretense of a similitude between a king of Great Britain and a magistrate of the character marked out for that of the President of the United States.

   It is still more impossible to withhold that imputation from the rash and barefaced expedients which have been employed to give success to the attempted imposition.

   end quotes

   “Indignation” has as synonyms resentment, umbrage, displeasure, anger, annoyance, irritation, exasperation, vexation, offense, and pique, all of which should be directed at Democrat Joe Stiglitz who is using his political influence to mislead us and further divide us, which again takes us back to the conclusion of FEDERALIST No. 67, as follows:

   Here is an express power given, in clear and unambiguous terms, to the State Executives, to fill casual vacancies in the Senate, by temporary appointments; which not only invalidates the supposition, that the clause before considered could have been intended to confer that power upon the President of the United States, but proves that this supposition, destitute as it is even of the merit of plausibility, must have originated in an intention to deceive the people, too palpable to be obscured by sophistry, too atrocious to be palliated by hypocrisy.

   I have taken the pains to select this instance of misrepresentation, and to place it in a clear and strong light, as an unequivocal proof of the unwarrantable arts which are practiced to prevent a fair and impartial judgment of the real merits of the Constitution submitted to the consideration of the people.

   Nor have I scrupled, in so flagrant a case, to allow myself a severity of animadversion little congenial with the general spirit of these papers.

   I hesitate not to submit it to the decision of any candid and honest adversary of the proposed government, whether language can furnish epithets of too much asperity, for so shameless and so prostitute an attempt to impose on the citizens of America.

   end quotes

   Do you hear that, Joe Stiglitz?

   You should, because there, he is talking about you when he talks about “so shameless and so prostitute an attempt to impose on the citizens of America.”

   Reply

6. Paul Plante says

   December 6, 2018 at 8:31 pm

   Were someone to ask me what it means to be a Democrat, my response after all these years of observing them as an American citizen, and this is since JFK, would be that you are free to pull anything you want out of your ***, and call it truth or fact, even when it is neither, and blatantly so, and you can simply make it up as you go, which brings us to a Washington Examiner article entitled “Some experts believe Trump can be impeached for conduct performed before becoming president” by Melissa Quinn on 6 December 2018 where we are treated to the following, to wit:

   Michael Cohen’s recent plea deal with special counsel Robert Mueller revealing more about President Trump’s involvement in a possible real estate project in Moscow has sparked whispers of impeachment from Trump’s critics once again, and some legal experts say a president can be ousted, at least under certain circumstances, for conduct performed before taking the oath of office.

   end quotes

   Now, to call yourself a “legal expert” in this country today, especially with respect to the main-stream media, which likes to tell us “some legal experts,” as if that empty statement has rational meaning, especially when these so-called “legal experts” are pulling their expert legal opinions from out of their ***, making it up as they go, do you really have to be one?

   Or is it only necessary to have an embossed business card identifying the holder as a “legal expert?”

   Which takes us back to the Washington Examiner article, as follows:

   “My view, which represents the decisive majority opinion, is that President Trump can be impeached for conduct before he took office if there is an exceptionally close connection between that conduct and his acquisition of the office,” Joshua Matz, an author of To End a Presidency: The Power of Impeachment, told the Washington Examiner.

   end quotes

   The “decisive majority opinion?”

   Of what?

   His bowling buddies?

   And who exactly is this Joshua Matz, besides an author of a To End a Presidency: The Power of Impeachment?

   And actually, for the sake of veracity all around, I checked out the book on Amazon and it was really written by Laurence Tribe, with Matz as a co-author, and the review of the book is quite informative, as follows, starting with this very line, to wit:.

   The definitive book on presidential impeachment and how it should be used today.

   end quotes

   Ah, yeah, well, hmmmmmmm, okay, let me see if I am getting the picture here!

   First of all, and this is important, of course – today is not yesterday; today is today.

   So, regardless of how the founding fathers might have established it, back then, which is so yesterday it isn’t funny, that no longer counts, precisely because this isn’t yesterday – this is today, so we need new rules, not old rules, when it comes to Democrats impeaching a Republican president they and their followers simply cannot stand.

   How do I know that?

   Why from the review of the Matz book the Democrats are relying on to whip up their followers into a foam-at-the-mouth frenzy to impeach Trump, as follows:

   To End a Presidency is the definitive book on presidential impeachment and how it should be used today.

   Impeachment is our ultimate constitutional check against an out-of-control executive.

   end quotes

   There you have it, people – the Democrats say Trump is out of control, and then they find some dude who will write them a book they can rely on as “an expert opinion” saying that in the case of an “out-of-control” president, impeachment is the way for them to go to remove the out-of-control president from office, for being out of control, which is something the Democrats cannot tolerate in an American president, having God-like perfection on their side, as they do, which God-like presidential qualities were so recently on display in the person of Hillary Rodham Clinton, which takes us back to the review, as follows:
   .
   But it is also a perilous and traumatic undertaking for the nation.

   In this authoritative examination, Laurence Tribe and Joshua Matz rise above the daily clamor to illuminate impeachment’s proper role in our age of broken politics.

   Now revised with a new epilogue, To End a Presidency is an essential book for anyone seeking to understand how this fearsome power should be deployed.

   end quotes

   Pretty powerful stuff, isn’t it?

   **** the Constitution!

   **** the Federalist Papers!

   The mob wants a lynching, and the Democrats are the party to give them one!

   Having been the target of mob violence being whipped up by the Democrats back when I was a public servant attacking Democrat public corruption to the north of here, I can well appreciate that, given that min FBI records involving my case, there is a photo of me being hung in effigy outside of a venue where the Democrats were whipping up a mob frenzy against myself min an effort to intimidate and coerce me, which is what the Democrats are doing here with their talk of impeachment.

   And speaking of whipping up the howling, shrieking, yowling Democrat mob, this Joshua Matz, who is an attorney based in Washington, DC., and who from 2014 to 2015, served as a law clerk to Justice Anthony M Kennedy of the United States Supreme Court, has quite a few articles about Trump in the British publication, The Guardian https://www.theguardian.com/profile/joshua-matz , to wit:

   June 2017 Trump is ushering in a kleptocracy. That’s why he is being sued

   The public will not stand idly by as Trump turns America into a banana republic. Recent lawsuits – the latest by 196 members of Congress – are trying to stop him

   Published: 14 Jun 2017

   Donald Trump’s panoply of abuses demand more than a special counsel – The public needs a quick, transparent investigation into the president’s foreign entanglements. Robert Mueller will not be able to deliver that

   Tue 23 May 2017 11.54 EDT

   Many want to know Donald Trump’s state of mind. So do the courts – You’ve probably asked yourself: what is Trump thinking? You’re not alone. Lawyers and judges, too, are taking an interest in just this question

   Tue 16 May 2017 12.47 EDT Last modified on Thu 5 Jul 2018 16.50 EDT

   Yes, the courts ‘second-guessed’ Donald Trump’s motives. That’s their job – Some say its irresponsible of courts to probe the president’s motives. Here’s why it’s not

   Tue 9 May 2017 11.54 EDT First published on Tue 9 May 2017 11.44 EDT

   April 2017 No one sabotages Donald Trump better than Donald Trump – Yet another executive order by the US president was blocked by the courts, in part because of his own words. His tweets are a political doomsday device

   Published: 26 Apr 2017

   March 2017 – The aura of lawlessness around Trump is a struggle for us all – The president’s executive order on immigration and refugees is the site of one of many legal battles that will define our new political age

   Published: 9 Mar 2017

   end quotes

   So no wonder the Democrats are relying so heavily in this dude as their “legal expert” as they move to impeach trump for being out of control.

   They are a marriage made in Democrat heaven!

   Reply

7. Paul Plante says

   December 7, 2018 at 7:51 pm

   And getting back to that Washington Examiner article entitled “Some experts believe Trump can be impeached for conduct performed before becoming president” by Melissa Quinn on 6 December 2018, it continues with a Democrat party bull**** spew as follows, to wit:

   In addressing whether a president can be impeached for conduct prior to assuming office, legal experts point to the 2010 impeachment of former U.S. District Judge G. Thomas Porteous.

   Porteous was convicted of four articles of impeachment, which included conduct while he was a state-court judge.

   Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, cited Porteous’ case when discussing whether sitting officials can be ousted for offenses committed before acquiring higher office.

   “We now by constitutional terms — in a country that rarely has impeachment trials — have a precedent that you can be impeached and removed from office both for prior crimes and for lying under oath,” Schiff said during an event in October.

   Gene Healy, a vice president at the Cato Institute who focuses on executive power and the role of the presidency, said Porteous’ case provides a model for answering the question of impeachment for pre-presidential misconduct.

   “When you understand that the impeachment process fundamentally goes to fitness for office, you can’t draw a bright line that says anything that happened before this certain date when the president assumed office, you get a clean slate and the clock starts after an election or confirmation,” Healy told the Washington Examiner.

   “That’s not the way it’s supposed to work.”

   Because impeachment deals with whether one is fit for office, “it stands to reason that conduct that occurred before somebody assumes their post, when it’s exposed, is relevant to that kind of inquiry,” he added.

   end quotes

   Now, how many people out there in America recognize this above for what it really is, which is a mountain of pure bull**** being thrown at us by this Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, and his lickspittle (a person who behaves obsequiously to those in power) Gene Healy, a vice president at the Cato Institute, with this crap that a sitting American president can be impeached because a federal judge was impeached.

   Not hardly, people, is our response as loyal American citizens who know our history and so cannot be deceived by the likes of Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, and his lickspittle Gene Healy, a vice president at the Cato Institute.

   First of all, with respect to a federal judge, in FEDERALIST No. 79, The Judiciary Continued, from MCLEAN’s Edition, New York to the People of the State of New York, Alexander Hamilton informs us as follows with respect to the impeachment of federal judges, to wit:

   The precautions for their responsibility are comprised in the article respecting impeachments.

   They are liable to be impeached for malconduct by the House of Representatives, and tried by the Senate; and, if convicted, may be dismissed from office, and disqualified for holding any other.

   end quotes

   Note that word “malconduct.”

   Then search the Constitution for a similar provision with respect to the presidency, where the Democrat-controlled House of Representatives can allegedly impeach a U.S. president for “malconduct,” and you won’t find one, which takes us back to Federalist No. 79, as follows:

   The want of a provision for removing the judges on account of inability has been a subject of complaint.

   But all considerate men will be sensible that such a provision would either not be practiced upon or would be more liable to abuse than calculated to answer any good purpose.

   The mensuration of the faculties of the mind has, I believe, no place in the catalogue of known arts.

   An attempt to fix the boundary between the regions of ability and inability, would much oftener give scope to personal and party attachments and enmities than advance the interests of justice or the public good.

   The result, except in the case of insanity, must for the most part be arbitrary; and insanity, without any formal or express provision, may be safely pronounced to be a virtual disqualification.

   end quotes

   Now, let us be clear here, people – what the Democrats are saying is that Trump lacks the ability to be an American president, and therefore should be impeached.

   But the only authority they can hang their hats on is one they invented yesterday, by pulling it out of their ***, and making it up as they go, and that takes us to a New York Times article entitled “Senate, for Just the 8th Time, Votes to Oust a Federal Judge” by Jennifer Steinhauer on Dec. 8, 2010, as follows:

   WASHINGTON — The Senate on Wednesday found Judge G. Thomas Porteous Jr. of Federal District Court in Louisiana guilty on four articles of impeachment and removed him from the bench, the first time the Senate has ousted a federal judge in more than two decades.

   Judge Porteous, the eighth federal judge to be removed from office in this manner, was impeached by the House in March on four articles stemming from charges that he received cash and favors from lawyers who had dealings in his court, used a false name to elude creditors and intentionally misled the Senate during his confirmation proceedings.

   end quotes

   So when we American people hear Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, blathering on inanely about “(W)e now by constitutional terms — in a country that rarely has impeachment trials — have a precedent that you can be impeached and removed from office both for prior crimes and for lying under oath,” he is full of ****, because the Porteous impeachment is a one-off, which is no precedent at all with regard to a sitting U.S. president, who, unlike a federal judge, does not have to get confirmed by the Senate.

   Trump did not lie to the Senate during confirmation hearings, because there were none, so where is the precedent, besides in the fertile imagination of Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, who actually does not seem to be endowed with the requisite level of intelligence that would qualify him to sit on such a panel.

   And where is there any evidence, or even an accusation that Trump ever received cash and favors from lawyers who had dealings in his court, given he was never a judge to begin with, or used a false name to elude creditors?

   So again, Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, where is the Constitutional precedent that the impeachment of Judge Porteous justifies the impeachment of Donald Trump?

   Getting back to the New York Times article:

   The behavior amounted to a “pattern of conduct incompatible with the trust and confidence placed in him,” according to the articles against him.

   All 96 senators present voted “guilty” on the first article, which concerned his time as a state court judge and his subsequent failure to recuse himself from matters involving a former law partner, with whom he was accused of trading favors for cash.

   end quotes

   Now, people, that is very specific, is it not?

   So where is there any proof demonstrating Trump has done the same?

   And if you answered that to date, there isn’t any, you would be right and Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, would be dead wrong, which is why the Democrats have him on the intelligence committee.

   Getting back to the New York Times, we have:

   On the other three articles, some senators did support Judge Porteous, with 27 voting in his favor on the article concerning meals, trips and car repair he was accused of receiving from a bail bondsman.

   The senators also voted 94 to 2 to disqualify him from holding future federal office.

   The process was meant to be as solemn as it was unusual.

   Still, it often seemed as if members were struggling to pay attention.

   Some fiddled with their smart phones, and Senator Dianne Feinstein of California had to be poked in the arm by Senator John D. Rockefeller IV of West Virginia, a fellow Democrat, to get her to vote on the third article.

   Mr. Porteous, 64, was appointed to the bench by President Bill Clinton in 1994 and has been suspended with pay since 2008.

   end quotes

   As an aside, we should not be surprised here to see that Judge Porteous was a Bill Clinton judge, and that thought takes us back to this Democrat lickspittle Gene Healy, a vice president at the Cato Institute who focuses on executive power and the role of the presidency, who said Porteous’ case provides a model for answering the question of impeachment for pre-presidential misconduct, which is absolute crap!

   Said the lickspittle Healy: “When you understand that the impeachment process fundamentally goes to fitness for office, you can’t draw a bright line that says anything that happened before this certain date when the president assumed office, you get a clean slate and the clock starts after an election or confirmation.”

   “That’s not the way it’s supposed to work.”

   Because impeachment deals with whether one is fit for office, “it stands to reason that conduct that occurred before somebody assumes their post, when it’s exposed, is relevant to that kind of inquiry,” he added.

   end quotes

   That people, is some poor misguided crack-pot speaking, because contrary to what this Democrat lickspittle is saying, the impeachment process of a sitting United States president most assuredly does not fundamentally go to fitness for office.

   The House of Representatives, a totally separate branch of government and the one most dangerous to our liberty as American citizens, especially now that Democrats are in charge, does not determine the fitness of an American president to be president, because they lack the Constitutional authority to do so.

   So when the Democrat lickspittle Healy says, “you can’t draw a bright line that says anything that happened before this certain date when the president assumed office, you get a clean slate and the clock starts after an election or confirmation,” he is talking through his hat, plain and simple, thinking we are as stupid as he is, and will take that crap as the gospel truth.

   But I for one am not that stupid!

   Are you?

   Reply

8. Paul Plante says

   December 8, 2018 at 8:20 pm

   And we loyal American citizens who are concerned about the direction the Democrats and Democratic Socialists who own U.S. Senator from New York City Charley “Chuck” Schumer lock, stock and barrel, are trying to take this nation of ours owe a debt of gratitude to the Cape Charles Mirror for having the courage to host these types of discussions in here, and the Washington Examiner in this case, as well, for taking the time to print that above story entitled “Some experts believe Trump can be impeached for conduct performed before becoming president” by Melissa Quinn on 6 December 2018, so we American people out in the countryside can see in detail exactly what kind of pure horse**** the Democrat party is spewing down in the pestilential swamp of Washington, D.C., that they are in the process of taking over, to our detriment as American citizens.

   And speaking of a load of pure horse**** being dumped on us by Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, and his lickspittle (a person who behaves obsequiously to those in power) Gene Healy, a vice president at the Cato Institute, with this crap that a sitting American president can be impeached because a federal judge was impeached, the Washington Examiner story continues as follows, to wit:

   “We need to go one level below or unpack by one level what it means to have a business deal with a foreign power,” Jeffrey Engel, co-author of the book Impeachment: An American History, told the Washington Examiner.

   “Obviously that means that the foreign power has some financial interest or financial sway and you could be influenced by money.”

   “And we certainly know the president is influenced by money.”

   end quotes

   We know the president is influenced by money?

   Are you kidding me?

   Are the Democrats proposing impeaching presidents because they are influenced by money?

   If that was the case, the GREAT FUNDRAISER Obama, who was jet-setting all over the country on our dime to attend fundraisers should have been impeached to set a real precedent here.

   And talking about being influenced by money, what about Democrat Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi?

   Are we supposed to actually believe that she is not influenced by money, that in the face of a Tribune Washington Bureau article entitled “Embattled Pelosi’s big survival weapon: money” by Anshu Siripurapu on 6/22/2017, where we are told as follows about our dear Nancy, to wit:

   WASHINGTON — Here’s a huge reason Nancy Pelosi maintains her iron grip on House Democrats, even after another bruising — and in many party circles embarrassing — election loss: her ability to raise lots and lots of money.

   The House Democratic leader has few current peers when it comes to pumping money into colleagues’ campaigns.

   No other potential up-and-coming Democratic challenger to her leadership comes close.

   Since 1990, she’s raised more than $9.2 million for party candidates, including $739,000 in the 2016 election cycle, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks contributions from candidate committees and affiliated PACs.

   Pelosi’s office claims even loftier triumphs, saying she’s raised more than $500 million for Democrats since entering the party leadership in the early 2000s, including $141.5 million in the 2015-2016 cycle.

   The totals, her office says, include money raised for the party not directly controlled by her committees.

   Big donors to the party’s congressional campaign committee were also available to Pelosi through her “Speaker’s Cabinet” program, which gave them special access to the Democratic leader.

   end quotes

   Here we have the person who is third in line to sit in the oval office, and the ramrod of thi8s impeachment effort, and she is seen here to have been openly selling access to her office to the highest bidders, which takes us back to the Washington Examiner article as follows:

   Healy and other legal experts also point to the Constitutional Convention in 1787, when George Mason argued a president who has obtained the office through corrupt means should not be allowed to escape punishment.

   end quotes

   That reminds of an account in “The Dark Side of Camelot” by Seymour Hersh where we were told the Kennedy’s were ready to bribe hold-outs in the electoral college in the southern states $10,000 apiece for their votes if Mayor Daley and the Giancana mafia in Chicago failed to deliver Illinois for Kennedy, which, of course, being good and loyal Democrats with a powerful political machine, they were able to do, which saved the Kennedy family over a hundred grand in bribes they didn’t have to make to get Jack into the white house.

   With respect to George Mason, at an internet site called the National Constitution Center, there is an article entitled “What the Founders thought about impeachment and the President”
   by Scott Bomboy, editor in chief of the National Constitution Center, on May 18, 2017, where we learn as follows concerning what the so-called founders really did think about when they formed the frame of government we are supposed to have in this country, as opposed to the sham version the Democrats and Democratic Socialists are trying to foist off on us, as follows:

   One of the most hotly debated clauses in the Constitution deals with the removal of federal government officials through the impeachment process.

   But what did the Founders who crafted that language think about the process and its overall intention?

   The need for the ultimate check, and in particular the removal of the President, in a system of checks and balances was brought up early at the 1787 convention in Philadelphia.

   Constitutional heavyweights such as James Madison, Benjamin Franklin, James Wilson and Gouverneur Morris debated the Impeachment Clause at the convention, and Alexander Hamilton argued for it in The Federalist after the convention.

   end quotes

   Having read the Federalist Papers through several times, the subject of impeachment is brought up not once, but in several of the papers.

   But to understand the intent of the framers of the Constitution, it is necessary to understand their thoughts on WHY the particular frame of government put forth in the proposed Constitution was sufficient to protect our liberty, which takes us to FEDERALIST No. 47, The Particular Structure of the New Government and the Distribution of Power Among Its Different Parts, from the New York Packet to the People of the State of New York by Virginia’s Jemmy Madison on Friday, February 1, 1788, to wit:

   HAVING reviewed the general form of the proposed government and the general mass of power allotted to it, I proceed to examine the particular structure of this government, and the distribution of this mass of power among its constituent parts.

   end quotes

   The distribution of the general mass of power allotted to the constituent parts of our national government.

   That, people, is really what is at issue here – the distribution of power between the House of Representatives, which has the power to concoct out of thin air whatever bogus charges against a sitting American president when the faction in charge of the House of Representatives, in this case, the Democrats and Democratic Socialists who are now on the ascendant in this country, thanks to the importation of political ideas and philosophies from foreign countries as a part of globalization and the elimination of our national borders, and the office of president, which takes us back to Federalist No. 47, as follows:

   One of the principal objections inculcated by the more respectable adversaries to the Constitution, is its supposed violation of the political maxim, that the legislative, executive, and judiciary departments ought to be separate and distinct.

   In the structure of the federal government, no regard, it is said, seems to have been paid to this essential precaution in favor of liberty.

   The several departments of power are distributed and blended in such a manner as at once to destroy all symmetry and beauty of form, and to expose some of the essential parts of the edifice to the danger of being crushed by the disproportionate weight of other parts.

   end quotes

   The edifice in danger of being crushed right now by the disproportionate weight of the House of Representatives, the most dangerous branch of our national government, is that of the executive, who the Democrats and Democratic Socialists in the House of Representatives would make into their neutered lackey, through misuse of the impeachment process as a club to inflict blunt-force trauma on the executive with, if he or she does not tow the Democratic Socialist party line, which takes us back to Federalist No. 47, as follows:

   No political truth is certainly of greater intrinsic value, or is stamped with the authority of more enlightened patrons of liberty, than that on which the objection is founded.

   The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.

   end quotes

   Ah, yes, people, just as Jemmy Madison tells us, the accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, in this case, the Democrats and Democratic Socialists may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny, and that is really what this impeachment game being played by the democrats and Democratic Socialists is really all about – the imposition on the rest of us of a tyranny with the Democrats and Democratic Socialists in charge, like the pigs in Orwells’s novel “Animal Farm,” first published in England on 17 August 1945.

   And having established that essential point in this discussion on where the Democrats and Democratic Socialists are trying to take this country, to our detriment if we cherish our liberty, here for the moment I will rest.

   Reply

9. Paul Plante says

   January 12, 2021 at 7:11 pm

   Yes, people, making it up as they go big time, and here I am specifically referring to Nancy Pelosi, a San Francisco congresswoman who once again purchased the office of speaker of the house of representatives, what Nancy calls the “people’s house,” and who thinks it is she who is in charge of the national government of the United States of America, trying to order Mike Pence, the vice president of the United States of America and a member of the executive branch of the national government, which branch the Constitution gives Nancy Pelosi no control over, at all, to remove a sitting American president because Nancy Pelosi doesn’t like him, never has liked him, never will like him and wants him gone, period.

   “GET RID OF THE MOTHER******” screeches Nancy at the top of her lungs, as if she were Catherine the Great of Russia picking a new king of Poland.

   And no, I am not making things up here, nor giving out with fake news.

   We are indeed seeing the Democrats in the House of Representatives openly waging war on the office of the executive, which takes us for a moment back to FEDERALIST No. 62, The Senate, for the Independent Journal to the People of the State of New York by either James Madison or Alexander Hamilton writing as Publius circa 1788, wherein was stated as follows and still applies to this day, to wit:

   No government, any more than an individual, will long be respected without being truly respectable; nor be truly respectable, without possessing a certain portion of order and stability.

   end quotes

   Thanks to the continued internecine and childish warfare between the Democrat faction of Nancy Pelosi, and Trump, our worthless national government is no longer respected, precisely because it is no longer respectable, because it no longer possesses a certain portion of order and stability.

   To the contrary, all it has to offer is BULL**** on top of BULL**** which is heaped over by even more BULL**** until the stench emanating from Washington, D.C. has become overpowering, which takes us the the RESOLUTION to remove Trump Pelosi has her Democrats voting on today, to wit:

   RESOLUTION calling on Vice President Michael R. Pence to convene and mobilize the principal officers of the executive departments of the Cabinet to activate section 4 of the 25th Amendment to declare President Donald J. Trump incapable of executing the duties of his office and to immediately exercise powers as acting President.

   Whereas on Wednesday, January 6, 2021, the day fixed by the Constitution for the counting of electoral votes, Congress experienced a massive violent invasion of the United States Capitol and its complex by a dangerous insurrectionary mob which smashed windows and used violent physical force and weapons to overpower and outmaneuver the United States Capitol Police and facilitated the illegal entry into the Capitol of hundreds, if not thousands, of unauthorized persons (all of whom entered the Capitol complex without going through metal detectors and other security screening devices);

   Whereas, the insurrectionary mob threatened the safety and lives of the Vice President, the Speaker of the House, and the President pro tempore of the Senate, the first three individuals in the line of succession to the presidency, as the rioters were recorded chanting ”Hang Mike Pence” and ”Where’s Nancy” when President Donald J. Trump tweeted to his supporters that ”Mike Pence didn’t have the courage to do what should have been done to protect our country” after the Capitol had been overrun and the Vice President was in hiding;

   Whereas the insurrectionary mob attacked law enforcement officers, unleashed chaos and terror among Members and staffers and their families, occupied the Senate Chamber and Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s office along with other leadership offices, vandalized and pilfered government property, and succeeded in interfering with the counting of electoral votes in the joint session of Congress;

   Whereas the insurrectionary mob’s violent attacks on law enforcement and invasion of the Capitol complex caused the unprecedented disruption of the Electoral College count process for a 4-hour period in both the House and the Senate, a dangerous and destabilizing impairment of the peaceful transfer of power that these insurrectionary riots were explicitly designed to cause;

   Whereas 5 Americans have died as a result of injuries or traumas suffered during this violent attack on Congress and the Capitol, including Capitol Police Officer Brian D. Sicknick and Ashli Babbitt, Rosanne Boyland, Kevin Greeson, and Benjamin Phillips, and more than 50 police officers were seriously injured, including 15 officers who had to be hospitalized, by violent assaults, and there could easily have been dozens or hundreds more wounded and killed, a sentiment captured by Senator Lindsey Graham, who observed that ”the mob could have blown the building up. They could have killed us all”;

   Whereas these insurrectionary protests were widely advertised and broadly encouraged by President Donald J. Trump, who repeatedly urged his millions of followers on Twitter and other social media outlets to come to Washington on January 6 to ”Stop the Steal” of the 2020 Presidential election and promised his activist followers that the protest on the Electoral College counting day would be ”wild”;

   Whereas President-elect Joseph R. Biden won the 2020 Presidential election with more than 81 million votes and defeated President Trump 306–232 in the Electoral College, a margin pronounced to be a ”landslide” by President Trump when he won by the same Electoral College numbers in 2016, but President Trump never accepted these election results as legitimate and waged a protracted campaign of propaganda and coercive pressure in the Federal and State courts, in the state legislatures, with Secretaries of State, and in Congress to nullify and overturn these results and replace them with fraudulent and fabricated numbers;

   Whereas President Trump made at least 3 attempts to intervene in the lawful vote counting and certification process in Georgia and to coerce officials there into fraudulently declaring him the winner of the State’s electoral votes, including calls to Georgia Governor Brian Kemp and a State elections investigator, and an hour-long conversation with Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger badgering him to ”find 11,780 votes” and warning of a ”big risk” to Raffensperger if he did not intervene favorably to guarantee the reelection of President Trump;

   Whereas President Trump appeared with members of his staff and family at a celebratory kickoff rally to encourage and charge up the rioters and insurrectionists to ”march on the Capitol” and ”fight” on Wednesday, January 6, 2021;

   Whereas while violent insurrectionists occupied parts of the Capitol, President Trump ignored or rejected repeated real-time entreaties from Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer to appeal to his followers to exit the Capitol, and also ignored a tweet from Alyssa Farah, his former communications director, saying: ”Condemn this now, @realDonaldTrump — you are the only one they will listen to. For our country!”;

   Whereas photographs, cell phone videos, social media posts, and on-the-ground reporting show that numerous violent insurrectionists who invaded the Capitol were armed, were carrying police grade flex cuffs to detain and handcuff people, used mace, pepper spray, and bear spray against United States Capitol Police officers, erected a gallows on Capitol grounds to hang ”traitors,” vehemently chanted ”Hang Mike Pence!” while surrounding and roving the Capitol, emphasized that storming the Capitol was ”a revolution,”, brandished the Confederate battle flag inside the Capitol, and were found to be in possession of Napalm B, while still unidentified culprits planted multiple pipe bombs at buildings near the Capitol complex, another lethally dangerous criminal action that succeeded in diverting law enforcement from the Capitol; and

   Whereas Donald Trump has demonstrated repeatedly, continuously, and spectacularly his absolute inability to discharge the most basic and fundamental powers and duties of his office, including most recently the duty to respect the legitimate results of the Presidential election, the duty to respect the peaceful transfer of democratic power under the Constitution, the duty to participate in legally defined transition activities, the duty to protect and uphold the Constitution of the United States, including the counting of Electoral College votes by Congress, the duty to protect the people of the United States and their elected representatives against domestic insurrection, mob rule, and seditious violence, and generally the duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed: Now, therefore, be it

   Resolved, That the House of Representatives calls upon Vice President Michael R. Pence—

   (1) to immediately use his powers under section 4 of the 25th Amendment to convene and mobilize the principal officers of the executive departments in the Cabinet to declare what is obvious to a horrified Nation: That the President is unable to successfully discharge the duties and powers of his office; and

   (2) to transmit to the President pro tempore of 10 the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives notice that he will be immediately assuming the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.

   Reply

10. Paul Plante says

    January 13, 2021 at 7:23 pm

    “The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.”

    That, people, is Virginian James Madison speaking to us across the gulf of time in FEDERALIST No. 47, The Particular Structure of the New Government and the Distribution of Power Among Its Different Parts, from the New York Packet on Friday, February 1, 1788, to the People of the State of New York, and as we watch the takeover of this country by the Democrat party with the Democrats now having complete control over the executive and legislative branches of our national government, which in turn gives them control over the judiciary, we should ask ourselves this one pertinent question, to wit:

    WHY?

    Why is it that we have voted to impose a tyranny on ourselves?

    And leaving that question hanging for a moment, and this is all with regard to the rioting and anarchy that the nation witnessed in Washington, D.C. on 6 January 2021, which is not all that different from what we witnessed back in the turbulent 60s, to be truthful, I want to go back to FEDERALIST No. 10 by James Madison, to wit:

    “Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.”

    end quotes

    Think about it, people – the founders gave us a REPUBLIC, but people wanted democracy, instead, which is what we are now stuck with to our detriment as a nation and as a people, and that brings us back to the present moment and this from U.S. Sen. Anthony M. Bucco, a Republican who represents New Jersey’s 25th district, to wit:

    “There is no room in our democracy for violence, the destruction of property, or the disruption of that orderly transition.”

    “Democracy will prevail, just as law and order will prevail over disorder and chaos.”

    end quotes

    Which makes the Senator from New Jersey sound real stupid and uninformed, because as we see from not only our own history, but the history of democracies going back in time, and here, all you have to do is a cursory study of the Greeks, democracy is simply another word for violence, the destruction of property, and disorder and chaos, which takes us back in time to 1969 and this from the Harvard Crimson, to wit:

    “Police Tear Gas Routs Demonstrators In Skirmish at Department of Justice”

    By John G. Short

    November 17, 1969

    (Special to the CRIMSON)

    WASHINGTON, D. C.- Police routed 10,000 people – some of them spectators – in a rally of militant antiwar groups here Saturday afternoon, driving them from in front of the Justice Department with tear gas and clubs.

    end quotes

    Yes, people, we really have been here before, many times, actually, and having been alive back then, and you can call up photos from this times to check it out for yourself, those protesters who were being clubbed and beaten back then were white, not Black, which goes to this statement going around today that Black rioters are treated differently than white rioters, which is yet more BULL**** being pumped our way by the ignorant and partisan main-stream media in this country.

    Getting back to The Crimson:

    They arrested 50 demonstrators as Attorney General John Mitchell watched from his office window.

    Demonstrators had been throwing bottles and stones through windows of the building and at police.

    end quotes

    So, okay, it was only the Justice Department building whose windows they were smashing, not the capital, so that is a whole lot less serious than what happened in Washington on 6 January 2021, where a mob estimated between 10,000 and 30,000 were seen around the capitol, or so we are to believe, anyway, and that is because in 1969, it was the Republicans in charge of the Justice Department, so given they were not Democrats, the dominant political force here in the United States of America, it was okay for the mob to attack them, which again takes us back to The Crimson for more, to wit:

    Rally

    The rally began shortly after 4 p. m. when a coalition of the Yippies, the Weathermen, the Mad Dogs, and small anarchist groups from New York City gathered around huge papier mache figures of Spiro Agnew and other men in the government.

    end quotes

    HUH?

    WTF?

    Rioting?

    Insurrection?

    Sedition?

    Civil disobedience?

    Anarchy?

    Treason?

    All of the above?

    And with those questions before us, let us drop back to 1968, when Eugene McCarthy, a little-known Democratic senator from Minnesota, announced on November 20, 1967, that he would seek the party’s nomination for president, this a month after another mammoth demonstration at the Pentagon.

    McCarthy was very straightforward about his political goals—rehabilitating the American political system and getting the antiwar protests off the streets:

    “There is growing evidence of a deepening moral crisis in America — discontent and frustration and a disposition to take extralegal if not illegal actions to manifest protest.”

    “I am hopeful that this challenge…may alleviate at least in some degree this sense of political hopelessness and restore to many people a belief in the process of American politics and of American government…[and] that it may counter the growing sense of alienation from politics, which I think is currently reflected in a tendency to withdraw from political action, to talk of nonparticipation, to become cynical and to make threats of support for third parties or fourth parties or other irregular political movements.”

    end quotes

    So contrary to what the Senator from New Jersey is saying, there is indeed plenty of room in our democracy for violence, the destruction of property, or the disruption of that orderly transition, because democracy is a synonym for political violence, just as Jemmy Madison told us in FEDERALIST No. 10, to wit:

    “Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.”

    Getting back to the political violence our democracy provided for us back in 1969, let’s go back to The Crimson for more, to wit:

    A march led by red, blue and yellow Viet Cong flags began circling the Justice Department building from its front door on Constitution Ave.

    The group had a permit to rally from 5 to 8 p. m.

    The marchers demanded an end to the Chicago trial of the eight people charged with conspiracy to riot at last year’s Democratic National Convention.

    They also demanded the freeing of Bobby Seale, one of the eight, who was sentenced to four years in jail for contempt of court in that trial.

    Shortly after the march had rounded the building and was back on Constitution Avenue, a demonstrator threw a red smoke bomb which exploded next to the building.

    Then, with thousands of demonstrators jammed in the street in front of the Justice Department, members of the crowd hurled rocks and bottles at the windows.

    A line of Mobe marshals briefly ringed the base of the Justice Department building holding their fingers in the V-shape to try to stop the barrage.

    Police moved in from the east and fired two successive rounds of tear gas which drove about a quarter of the crowd back into the Mall to the south.

    In the meantime, other police formed a line across Constitution Avenue to block the main body of the demonstrators.

    Some of these hauled down the American flag from the Justice Department’s pole and ran up their Viet Cong flag.

    Police then took it down.

    end quotes

    There is no room in our democracy for violence, the destruction of property, and democracy will prevail, just as law and order will prevail over disorder and chaos?

    Getting back to the democracy, we have:

    For some 15 minutes demonstrators and police confronted each other until the crowd began to throw rocks and sticks at police.

    Then the police began a massive tear gas attack on the crowd.

    The police first shot gas at the front of the crowd, which began to retreat immediately.

    Then as the 10,000 – both militant demonstrators and less-militant spectators – on Constitution Avenue tried to leave the area, the crowd was bottle-necked by narrow exits.

    Two thousand people trying to get between the Museum of Natural History and a concrete underpass could move no faster than a very slow walk.

    Big clouds of tear gas covered the crowd.

    Police fired more cannisters of gas into the air so that they landed and exploded in the midst of the crowd on the feet and clothing of the retreating demonstrators.

    Many Blinded

    The gas blinded those it hit and made it very difficult for them to breathe.

    Many were overcome and collapsed.

    Many others lay gagging and vomiting over the rail into the underpass.

    A larger group of demonstrators was similarly trapped on Constitution Avenue.

    Police arrested about 30 for disorderly conduct.

    Most of the people from this group headed north towards Pennsylvania Ave Some then headed west to the White House where they were repulsed again, and where more were arrested.

    As they retreated, some groups smashed some store windows.

    A total of 20 windows at the Justice Department were broken.

    Over 100 demonstrators were arrested Saturday on a variety of charges.

    end quotes

    Boy, isn’t democracy just the best thing that ever happened since somebody discovered that if you dropped a piece of plain white bread into the fire, if you got it out soon enough, it made for some great toast!

    So was what happened in Washington, D.C. on 6 January 2021 really an insurrection because Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats say it was?

    Or was it anarchy, plain and simple?

    Stay tuned, for more is yet to come!

    Reply

11. Paul Plante says

    January 14, 2021 at 6:31 pm

    And before we go further in here, let us go back in time for a moment to 1868, and the Articles of Impeachment the Republicans in the House of Representatives brought against Democrat Andrew Johnson, because as this matter of the “Trumpian Insurrection” develops further, it makes for interesting reading, to wit:

    ARTICLE X.

    That said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, unmindful of the high duties of his office and the dignity and proprieties thereof, and of the harmony and courtesies which ought to exist and be maintained between the executive and legislative branches of the Government of the United States, designing and intending to set aside the rightful authority and powers of Congress, did attempt to bring into disgrace, ridicule, hatred, contempt, and reproach the Congress of the United States and the several branches thereof, to impair and destroy the regard and respect of all the good people of the United States for the Congress and legislative power thereof, (which all officers of the Government ought inviolably to preserve and maintain,) and to excite the odium and resentment of all the good people of the United States against Congress and the laws by it duly and constitutionally enacted: and in pursuance of said design and intent, openly and publicly, and before divers assemblages of the citizens of the United States convened in divers parts thereof to meet and receive said Andrew Johnson as the Chief Magistrate of the United States, did, on the 18th day of August, in the year of our Lord 1866, and on divers other days and times, as well before as afterward, make and deliver with a loud voice certain intemperate, inflammatory, and scandalous harangues, and did therein utter loud threats and bitter menaces as well against Congress amid the cries, jeers, and laughter of the multitudes then assembled and within hearing, which are set forth in the several specifications hereinafter written, in substance and effect, that is to say:

    Specification First. In this, that at Washington, in the District of Columbia, in the Executive Mansion, to a committee of citizens who called upon the President of the United States, speaking of and concerning the Congress of the United States, said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, heretofore, to wit, on the 18th day of August, in the year of our Lord 1866, did, in a loud voice, declare in substance and effect, among other things, that is to say:

    “So far as the executive department of the Government is concerned, the effort has been made to restore the Union, to heal the breach, to pour oil into the wounds which were consequent upon the struggle, and (to speak in common phrase) to prepare as the learned and wise physician would, a plaster healing in character and coextensive with the wound.”

    “We thought, and we think, that we had partially succeeded; but as the work progresses, as reconstruction seemed to be taking place, and the country was becoming reunited, we found a disturbing and marring element opposing us.”

    “In alluding to that element, I shall go no further than your convention and the distinguished gentleman who has delivered to me the report of its proceedings.”

    “I shall make no reference to it that I do not believe the time and the occasion justify.”

    “We have witnessed in one department of the Government every endeavor to prevent the restoration of peace, harmony, and Union.”

    “We have seen hanging upon the verge of the government, as it were, a body called, or which assumes to be, the Congress of the United States, while in fact it is a Congress of only a part of the States.”

    “We have seen this Congress pretend to be for the Union, when its every step and act tended to perpetuate disunion and make a disruption of the States inevitable.”

    “We have seen Congress gradually encroach step by step upon constitutional rights, and violate, day after day and month after month, fundamental principles of the Government.”

    “We have seen a Congress that seemed to forget that there was a limit to the sphere and scope of legislation.”

    “We have seen a Congress in a minority assume to exercise power which, allowed to be consummated, would result in despotism or monarchy itself.”

    Specification Second. In this, that at Cleveland, in the State of Ohio, heretofore, to wit, on the 3rd day of September, in the year of our Lord 1850, before a public assemblage of citizens and others, said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, speaking of and concerning the Congress of the United States, did, in a loud voice, declare in substance and effect, among other things, that is to say:

    “I will tell you what I did do.”

    “I called upon your Congress that is trying to break up the Government.”

    [Here, the text of the Articles of Impeachment indicates omitting a portion of the quoted speech.]

    “In conclusion, besides that, Congress had taken much pains to poison their constituents against him.”

    “But what had Congress done?”

    “Have they done anything to restore the union of these States?”

    “No; on the contrary, they had done everything to prevent it; and because he stood now where he did when the rebellion commenced he had been denounced as a traitor.”

    “Who had run greater risks or made greater sacrifices than himself?”

    “But Congress, factions and domineering, had undertaken to poison the minds of the American people.”

    Specification Third. In this, that at St. Louis, in the State of Missouri, heretofore, to wit, on the 8th day of September, in the year of our Lord 1866, before a public assemblage of citizens and others, said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, speaking of and concerning the Congress of the United States, did, in a loud voice, declare in substance and effect, among other things, that is to say:

    “Go on.”

    “Perhaps if you had a word or two on the subject of New Orleans you might understand more about it than you do.”

    “And if you will go back – if you will go back and ascertain the cause of the riot at New Orleans, perhaps you will not be so prompt in calling out ‘New Orleans.’”

    “If you will take up the riot at New Orleans and trace it back to its source or its immediate cause, you will find out who was responsible for the blood that was shed there.”

    “If you will take up the riot at New Orleans and trace it back to the Radical Congress you will find that the riot at New Orleans was substantially planned.”

    “If you will take up the proceedings in their caucuses you will understand that they there knew that a convention was to be called which was extinct by its power having expired; that it was said that the intention was that a new government was to be organized, and on the organization of that government the intention was to enfranchise one portion of the population, called the colored population, who had just been emancipated, and at the same time disfranchise white men.”

    “When you design to talk about New Orleans you ought to understand what you are talking about.”

    “When you read the speeches that were made, and take up the facts on the Friday and Saturday before that convention sat, you will there find that speeches were incendiary in their character, exciting that portion of the population, the black population, to arm themselves and prepare for the shedding of blood.”

    “You will also find that the convention did assemble in violation of law, and the intention of that convention was to supersede the reorganized authorities in the State government of Louisiana, which had been recognized by the Government of the United States; and every man engaged in that rebellion in that convention, with the intention of superseding and upturning the civil government which had been recognized by the Government of the United States, I say that he was a traitor to the Constitution of the United States and you find that another rebellion was commenced having its origin in the Radical Congress.”

    [Here, the text of the Articles of Impeachment indicates omitting a portion of the quoted speech.]

    “So much for the New Orleans riot.”

    “And there was the cause and the origin of the blood that was shed; and every drop of blood that was shed is upon their skirts, and they are responsible for it.”

    “I could test this thing a little closer but will not do it here tonight.”

    “But when you talk about the causes and consequences that resulted from proceedings of that kind, perhaps, as I have been introduced here, and you have provoked questions of this kind, though it does not provoke me, I will tell you a few wholesome things that have been done by this Radical Congress in connection with New Orleans and the extension of the elective franchise.”

    “I know that I have been traduced and abused.”

    “I know it has come in advance of me here, as elsewhere, that I have attempted to exercise an arbitrary power in resisting laws that were intended to be forced upon the Government; that I had exercised that power; that I had abandoned the party that elected me, and that I was a traitor, because I exercised the veto power in attempting and did arrest for a time a bill that was called a ‘Freedman’s Bureau’ bill: yes, that I was a traitor.”

    “And I have been traduced.”

    “I have been slandered, I have been maligned, I have been called Judas Iscariot, and all that.”

    “Now, my countrymen here tonight, it is very easy to indulge in epithets; it is easy to call a man a Judas and cry out traitor; but when he is called upon to give arguments and facts he is very often found wanting.”

    “Judas Iscariot – Judas.”

    “There was a Judas and he was one of the twelve apostles.”

    “Oh yes, the twelve apostles had a Christ.”

    “The twelve apostles had a Christ, and he never could have had a Judas unless he had twelve apostles.”

    “If I have played the Judas, who has been my Christ that I have played the Judas with?”

    “Was it Thad. Stevens?”

    “Was it Wendell Phillips?

    “Was it Charles Sumner?”

    “These are the men that stop and compare themselves with the Savior: and everybody that differs with them in opinion, and to try and stay and arrest the diabolical and nefarious policy, is to be denounced as a Judas.”

    [Here again, the text of the Articles of Impeachment indicates omitting a portion of the quoted speech.]

    “Well, let me say to you, if you will stand by me in this action: if you will stand by me in trying to give the people a fair chance, soldiers and citizens, to participate in these offices, God being willing, I will kick them out.”

    “I will kick them out just as fast as I can.

    “Let me say to you, in concluding, that what I have said I intended to say. I was not provoked into this, and I care not for their menaces, the taunts, and the jeers.”

    “I care not for threats.”

    “I do not intend to be bullied by my enemies nor overawed by my friends.”

    “But, God willing, with your help I will veto their measures whenever any of them come to me.”

    Which said utterances, declarations, threats, and harangues, highly censurable in any, are peculiarly indecent and unbecoming in the Chief Magistrate of the United States, by means whereof said Andrew Johnson has brought the high office of the President of the United States into contempt, ridicule, and disgrace, to the great scandal of all good citizens, whereby said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, did commit, and was then and there guilty of, a high misdemeanor in office.

    Reply

12. Paul Plante says

    January 15, 2021 at 11:04 pm

    So, getting back to today, and the Democrats making it up on the fly as they go, according to the CNN headlines today, the Democrats who impeached Trump on insurrection charges in what has to be the fastest impeachment of a sitting president in the history of impeachments ever have got a real serious problem, because there was no insurrection on 6 January 2021, to wit:

    “FBI Director Wray says over 200 suspects identified in US Capitol riots!”

    “Investigators pursuing signs US Capitol riot was planned!”

    “Key arrests so far from the Capitol riot!”

    “Trump bears some responsibility for Capitol riot, ex-DHS acting Secretary Chad Wolf says!”

    “Already, the public efforts by prosecutors and the FBI to encourage people who participated in the riot to turn themselves in is yielding fruit.”

    end quotes

    And yes, people, you are reading that right – what took place on 6 January 2021 was not an insurrection as Joe Biden and the Democrats have said – it was a riot, or as I call it, anarchy.

    For those not really familiar with the term, since we are not supposed to have anarchy here in the United States of America, although we certainly do, and on a seemingly increasing scale, the Reader’s Digest Great Encyclopedic Dictionary defines an “ANARCHIST” as “one who believes in and advocates anarchism,” and “ANARCHISM” as “the theory that all forms of government are incompatible with individual and social liberty and should be abolished,” while “ANARCHY” itself is defined as “lawless confusion and political disorder.”

    Lawless confusion and political disorder!

    That is what we witnessed in Washington, D.C. on 6 January 2021, not an insurrection.

    As an aside, if a march on the Justice Department in 1969 led by red, blue and yellow Viet Cong flags at a time when we were at war with the Viet Cong was not treason or an insurrection or sedition, but merely a protest, then how do we get an insurrection out of people carrying American flags climbing the Capitol steps?

    Getting back to anarchy, from those definitions, anyone who is sane and rational can readily discern why it is that we are not supposed to have anarchy here in our Republic, and yet, if we go back a bit in time to a San Francisco Chronicle article entitled “Masked anarchists violently rout right-wing demonstrators in Berkeley” by Lizzie Johnson, Erin Allday, Michael Cabanatuan and Nanette Asimov dated 28 August 2017, it is entirely clear that we have had it here for over four years now, despite any claims to the contrary that it can’t happen here, to wit:

    An army of anarchists in black clothing and masks routed a small group of right-wing demonstrators who had gathered in a Berkeley park Sunday to rail against the city’s famed progressive politics, driving them out – sometimes violently — while overwhelming a huge contingent of police officers.

    end quotes

    Now, as we consider the riot in Washington on 6 January 2021, three and a half years later, where a Capitol police officer dies of injuries suffered, keep those words in mind from 2017 about army of anarchists in black clothing and masks routing a small group of right-wing demonstrators who had gathered in a Berkeley park Sunday to rail against the city’s famed progressive politics, driving them out – sometimes violently — while overwhelming a huge contingent of police officers.

    Getting back to that story from our political history, we have:

    The swamping of right-wing political ideas by left-wing demonstrators has become a recurring theme in Berkeley and other California cities.

    end quote

    But are those really an “army of anarchists” as the San Francisco Chronicle claims, or are they something entirely different, such as a paramilitary wing of one of our major political parties, a party with a long and well-documented history of using violence and paramilitary forces to impose its will on others while suppressing the voices of those it does not want heard?

    Afterall, who can forget that in the 1870s, Democrats gradually regained power in the Southern legislatures by using insurgent paramilitary groups, such as the White League and Red Shirts, to disrupt Republican organizing, run Republican officeholders out of town, and intimidate blacks to suppress their voting.

    As to the White League, it was an American white supremacist paramilitary terrorist organization started in 1874 to turn Republicans out of office and intimidate freedmen from voting and political organizing.

    Affiliated with the Democratic Party, the White League was one of the paramilitary groups described as “the military arm of the Democratic Party,” and through violence and intimidation, its members suppressed Republican voting and contributed to the Democrats’ taking control of the Louisiana Legislature in 1876.

    The Red Shirts or Redshirts of the Southern United States were white supremacist terrorist groups that were active in the late 19th century after the end of the Reconstruction era of the United States, and they first appeared in Mississippi in 1875, when Democratic Party private terror units adopted red shirts to make themselves more visible and threatening to Southern Republicans, both white and freedmen.

    The Red Shirts were one of several paramilitary organizations arising in the continuing efforts of white Democrats to regain political power in the South in the 1870s.

    These groups acted as “the military arm of the Democratic Party” and they had one goal: the restoration of the Democrats to power by getting rid of Republicans, which usually meant repressing civil rights and voting by the freedmen, and during the 1876, 1898 and 1900 campaigns in North Carolina, the Red Shirts played prominent roles in intimidating non-Democratic voters.

    So, would a political party with a well-documented history of using paramilitary forces to inflict its will on others be averse to using paramilitary forces to do the same today?

    Reply

13. Paul Plante says

    January 16, 2021 at 9:50 pm

    And talk about high crimes and misdemeanors being committed against We, the American people by FRAUDSTER Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats coupled with hysterical horse**** coming at us from outerspace and making it up as they go while slinging massive amounts of pure, unadulterated bull**** in a veritable blizzard as they impeach Donald Trump based on a FRAUD concocted by Nancy Pelosi and her pack of virulent Democrats intent on installing a DICTATORSHIP OF THE PROLETARIAT here in the United States of America, the prize of all prizes for the Marxists, let’s go to a BUSINESS INSIDER article entitled “Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez tells GOP colleagues they need to remove Trump because he incited a violent mob to ‘possibly kill’ them” by John Haltiwanger on Jan. 8, 2021, where we are treated to the following raft of **** from Democrat DRAMA QUEEN AOC, to wit:

    Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Friday called on her GOP colleagues to join the effort to remove President Donald Trump from office over the Capitol siege that he incited.

    “To my GOP colleagues: know that this President incited an insurrection against and incited his mob to find, harm, and possibly kill not just Democrats, but you, too,” Ocasio-Cortez said.

    “Remove him,” she went on to say of Trump.

    end quotes

    Now, truly, people, when it comes to the MOTHER OF ALL POLITICAL THEATER and GONZO LOLLAPALOOZA EXTRAVAGANZAS, nobody but nobody can hold a candle to the Democrats, and especially a highly accomplished DRAMA QUEEN like AOC as we are seeing here in this Business Insider article where we have AOC telling her alleged “GOP colleagues,” who she will later say she feared, that Trump incited an insurrection against and incited his mob to find, harm, and possibly kill not just Democrats, but them, as well.

    What horse****!

    First of all, there was no “insurrection!”

    Second of all, at least according to the REUTERS article “U.S. now says no evidence of ‘kill capture teams’ at U.S. Capitol” by Brad Heath, Sarah N. Lynch and Jan Wolfe on January 15, 2021, that’s complete bull**** that Trump had hunter-killer teams searching out, of all people, AOC, who is at best a whiny, pipsqueak politician of little or no importance to anything in the grand scheme of things, to wit:

    WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The top federal prosecutor in Washington, D.C. said on Friday there is no “direct evidence” to suggest that rioters who stormed the U.S. Capitol had formed “kill capture teams.”

    The comments by Acting U.S. Attorney Michael Sherwin appeared to be an effort to walk back claims federal prosecutors in Arizona had made in a court filing late on Thursday, in which they alleged there was evidence that rioters intended “to capture and assassinate elected officials.”

    Sherwin said that his office is leading the prosecution effort, but as local offices help to run down suspects in their districts, there may have been a “disconnect” on the evidence obtained so far in the cases.

    Late on Thursday, federal prosecutors had made sweeping claims about the ongoing investigation in a filing as they asked a judge to detain Jacob Chansley, an Arizona man and QAnon conspiracy theorist photographed wearing horns as he stood at the desk of Vice President Mike Pence in the chamber of the U.S. Senate.

    In the filing, they said Chansley left a note for Pence warning that “it’s only a matter of time, justice is coming.”

    “Strong evidence, including Chansley’s own words and actions at the Capitol, supports that the intent of the Capitol rioters was to capture and assassinate elected officials in the United States government,” the memo said.

    A spokeswoman for the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Arizona told Reuters the office plans to file an amended memo today, ahead of Chansley’s appearance in federal court for his detention hearing.

    end quotes

    This is the same AOC who was recently featured in another Business Insider article whining that nobody loves her and everybody is against her, to wit:

    “AOC said she might quit politics, as some centrist Democrats blame progressives for House losses, NYT says”

    Kelsey Vlamis, Business Insider

    November 7, 2020

    Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez told the New York Times in an interview that she might quit politics, depending on the hostility of her own party towards progressive causes.

    “I don’t even know if I want to be in politics,” she told The Times.

    She said the Democratic party has been hostile to progressive causes, like Medicare for All and the Movement for Black Lives.

    The interview happened Saturday, shortly after major news networks called the election for President-elect Joe Biden, and after some Democrats blamed progressive messaging for party losses down-ticket.

    “You know, for real, in the first six months of my term, I didn’t even know if I was going to run for re-election this year.”

    “Externally, there’s been a ton of support,” she said, according to The Times.

    “But internally, it’s been extremely hostile to anything that even smells progressive.”

    end quotes

    BOO HOO HOO, and now, Donald Trump is trying to assassinate her.

    Yeah, okay, AOC, whatever you say!

    We know, everybody hates you because you’re you, and they are not, which makes them hateful and jealous towards you.

    In that, of course, AOC is a lot like another Democrat drama queen we know named Hillary Rodham Clinton,

    Now, as an aside, as Wikipedia tells us, in the history of theatre, in this case theater of the absurd, or opera bouffe, there is long tradition of performances addressing issues of current events, especially those central to society itself, in our case such important issues to society as to whether Donald Trump has any love children, and to see how old this branch of theater really is, the political satire performed by the comic poets at the theaters of ancient Greece had considerable influence on public opinion in the Athenian democracy, and those earlier Western dramas, arising out of the polis, or democratic city-state of Greek society, were performed in amphitheaters, central arenas used for theatrical performances, religious ceremonies and political gatherings with those dramas, like this one today starring Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez having a ritualistic and social significance that enhanced the relevance of the political issues being examined.

    Getting back to the Business Insider article, that saga of AOC almost but not quite getting assassinated by Trump’s hunter-killer teams he sent in specifically to kill AOC, it continued as follows:

    Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Friday implored her Republican colleagues to embrace the push to remove President Donald Trump from office after he provoked an attempted coup at the US
    Capitol earlier in the week.

    end quotes

    A coup?

    First, it’s an insurrection, and now, it’s a coup?

    WOW!

    HOLY COW!

    Who’d a thought it?

    And now that AOC is gettinbg real warmed up in her delivery here, let’s go back for more, to wit:

    “To my GOP colleagues: know that this President incited an insurrection against and incited his mob to find, harm, and possibly kill not just Democrats, but you, too.”

    “He *will* allow opportunities of physical harm against you if you aren’t sufficiently loyal to him.”

    “Remove him,” the New York Democrat said in a tweet.

    end quotes

    So, to cap that all off, even though nobody else knows Trump incited an insurrection and coup and was going to kill not only Democrats, but Republicans, too, and who knows, maybe even independents, as well, and even though the FBI has no evidence to back any of that up, still because she is AOC, she knows it is true, because, well, ah,, she’s AOC, and that is all we need to know!

    Trump’s guilty, hang him!

    AOC says so, and that’s it, nothing more is needed!

    Reply

14. Paul Plante says

    January 18, 2021 at 10:53 am

    And while we are on the subject of a major league assault on-going against our democracy and some real weird **** going down here in OUR America which the Democrats are trying to make theirs, as if America were a possession, which is what is has become, a trinket to be fought over like dogs fight over a bone, and making it up as they go, let’s go to an article in ELLE entitled “Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Says She Feared She’d Die During Capitol Riot After ‘Very Close Encounter’ – ‘I did not know if I was going to make it to the end of that day alive'” by Alyssa Bailey on Jan 13, 2021, where we are treated to the following from the DRAMA QUEEN, to wit:

    When pro-Trump supporters breached the Capitol a week ago, many noted that progressive Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) was unusually absent from Twitter and hadn’t confirmed she was safe during the riot.

    She eventually would post that she was okay on social media that evening, but in a new Instagram video last night, AOC admitted the truth behind her initial absent: She wasn’t safe the entire time.

    In fact, she was afraid she would be killed.

    end quotes

    Oh, good Christ is all I can say – that is what this was all about on 6 January 2021 – it wasn’t an insurrection, it wasn’t a coup, it really was an attempt to kill AOC, because AOC is the most important person in the world, bar none, even more so than Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi – it’s all about AOC.

    Getting back to the drama, it continues as follows:

    AOC described the riots as “a pretty traumatizing event,” going on to say, “I can tell you that I had a very close encounter where I thought I was going to die.”

    Ocasio-Cortez added that she couldn’t get into specifics due to security reasons.

    end quotes

    Which is absolute horsecrap – she thought she was going to die, but because of security reasons, that is all she can say?

    Sounds like some lines from a daytime soap to me, which again takes us back to that story, as follows:

    “I did not know if I was going to make it to the end of that day alive.”

    “Not just in a general sense, but in a very, very specific sense.”

    The Congresswoman added that she did not feel safe staying with other lawmakers in the protected “extraction point” because “there were QAnon and white-supremacist sympathizers and, frankly, white-supremacist members of Congress in that extraction point who I know and who I have felt would disclose my location and would create opportunities to allow me to be hurt, kidnapped, et cetera.”

    “So I didn’t even feel safe around other members of Congress.”

    end quotes

    Other members of members of Congress in that extraction point who she knows and who she felt would disclose her location and would create opportunities to allow her to be hurt, kidnapped, etc?

    Disclose her location to who?

    The “hunter-killer” teams Trump had roaming the halls of the Capitol looking for AOC so they could assassinate her?

    Except according to the REUTERS article “U.S. now says no evidence of ‘kill capture teams’ at U.S. Capitol” by Brad Heath, Sarah N. Lynch and Jan Wolfe on January 15, 2021, that’s complete bull**** that Trump had hunter-killer teams searching out, of all people, AOC, who is at best a whiny, pipsqueak politician of little or no importance to anything in the grand scheme of things, to wit:

    WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The top federal prosecutor in Washington, D.C. said on Friday there is no “direct evidence” to suggest that rioters who stormed the U.S. Capitol had formed “kill capture teams.”

    The comments by Acting U.S. Attorney Michael Sherwin appeared to be an effort to walk back claims federal prosecutors in Arizona had made in a court filing late on Thursday, in which they alleged there was evidence that rioters intended “to capture and assassinate elected officials.”

    end quotes

    So that is simply hysterical horse**** AOC is spewing there, as usual.

    And why is this all about AOC?

    How did it become about her?

    Getting back to that article, it goes on as follows:

    She said that generally, it is “not an exaggeration” to say that many members of Congress were “nearly assassinated.”

    end quotes

    Many members of Congress were nearly assassinated?

    How nearly?

    And when was all of that going on, outside of AOC’s fever dreams?

    And the drama and wild accusations continue as follows:

    AOC confirmed that some members of the U.S. Capitol Police seemed to side with the pro-Trump rioters, saying it was hard to trust the unit as a whole with her safety.

    “Not know[ing] if an officer is there to help you or harm you is also quite traumatizing,” she said.

    end quotes

    Which is some very incredible horse**** flowing from out her mouth as she slanders and smears the Capitol Police Force, which by the way is under the control of Democrat Nancy Pelosi, not Trump, so that if AOC cannot trust the Capitol Police, that is a direct reflection not on Trump but on Nancy Pelosi, who is obviously too incompetent to keep AOC safe.

    There are very dangerous aspersions she is casting out here, without any evidence of any kind to support what she is saying.

    Talk about reckless and irresponsible and inflammatory rhetoric, there we have a classic text-book case of it right there, which against takes us back to the story for more hysterical shrieking from AOC as follows:

    In the video, AOC condemned some of her GOP colleagues, including Republican Senators Ted Cruz and Josh Hawley, for their role encouraging the rioters and generally inciting them by refusing to accept the results of a legitimate presidential election and attempting to overturn them.

    end quotes

    Except according to OUR laws, which AOC is ignorant of and ignores, because laws do not apply to her, her being real special and all, like Hillary, Ted Cruz and Josh Hawley were well withing their legal and Constitutional rights to challenge those votes, to wit:

    3 U.S. Code § 15 – Counting electoral votes in Congress

    Upon such reading of any such certificate or paper, the President of the Senate shall call for objections, if any.

    Every objection shall be made in writing, and shall state clearly and concisely, and without argument, the ground thereof, and shall be signed by at least one Senator and one Member of the House of Representatives before the same shall be received.

    When the two Houses have voted, they shall immediately again meet, and the presiding officer shall then announce the decision of the questions submitted.

    No votes or papers from any other State shall be acted upon until the objections previously made to the votes or papers from any State shall have been finally disposed of.

    end quotes

    Except to my knowledge, that never happened, because the Democrats short-stopped the process so that could not happen, so that objections could not be made as the law provides for.

    So what game is AOC playing at here?

    Stay tuned!

    Reply

15. Paul Plante says

    January 18, 2021 at 10:24 pm

    And staying with the THEATER OF THE TOTALLY BIZARRE that we are being presented with by Nancy Pelosi and her pack of raving Democrats while we are on the subject of the major league assault the Democrats are waging against our democracy while some real weird **** is going down here in OUR America which the Democrats are trying to make theirs, as if America were a possession, which is what is has become, a trinket to be fought over like dogs fight over a bone, and making it up as they go, let’s go back to the article in ELLE entitled “Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Says She Feared She’d Die During Capitol Riot After ‘Very Close Encounter’ – ‘I did not know if I was going to make it to the end of that day alive’” by Alyssa Bailey on Jan 13, 2021, where the DRAMA QUEEN AOC presents us with more hysterical shrieking as follows:

    In the video, AOC condemned some of her GOP colleagues, including Republican Senators Ted Cruz and Josh Hawley, for their role encouraging the rioters and generally inciting them by refusing the accept the results of a legitimate presidential election and attempting to overturn them.

    “This isn’t about the truth to them,” she said.

    “This is about whether they want to be president in 2024.”

    “Let me give you a sneak peek: You will never be president.”

    “What claim will you have?”

    “That you rule over a destroyed society?”

    “That the ashes belong to you?”

    “Let me give you a sneak peek, you will never be president.”

    “You will never command the respect of this country, never.”

    end quotes

    And HOLY COW, and my goodness, but she’s really on a roll there, isn’t she?

    Her problem, of course, is that it is she who will never command the respect of this country because she lacks the maturity and wisdom and demeanor to be worthy of respect.

    Getting back to that spew of pure, unadulterated gross ignorance and hysteria from AOC, we have:

    In light of a Capitol police officer dying in the riot, AOC said, “I don’t want to see the Republican Party talk about blue lives ever again.”

    “This was never about safety for them.”

    “It was always a slogan.”

    “Because if they actually care about the rule of law they would speak up when people break the law.”

    end quotes

    And how about you, AOC?

    Do you actually care about the rule of law?

    And what about “blue lives mattering,” AOC?

    Which thought takes us to AMNY article entitled “Malliotakis faces backlash for Law Enforcement Day post after Capitol putsch, AOC unrelenting” by Mark Hallum & Hazel Shahgholi on January 10, 2021, where AOC goes off on Congresswoman Nicole Malliotakis big time in a real tantrum tirade, as follows:

    Congresswoman Nicole Malliotakis, still just days into her first term in office, continues to face backlash from Twitter users calling for her resignation.

    Among her critics are Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who said her Republican counterpart brought “shame” to the New York delegation with her objection to the electoral vote on Jan. 6 that contributed to a wider movement against Joe Biden’s victory that led to the storming of Capitol that day.

    end quotes

    Like hell, AOC – the law, OUR Law, 3 U.S. Code § 15 – Counting electoral votes in Congress, makes it incandescently clear that she had every right to object to those electoral votes, and by censuring her for exercising her right, what AOC is trying to do is to strip WE, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE of our rights under that law as citizens, which is to say, she is trying to strip us of due process of law and equal protection of law, which is what despots do in a tyranny.

    Getting back to that story, it goes on as follows:

    Despite the blame on chaotic events leading up to what many are calling a putsch and resulting in the death of a U.S. Capitol Police officer being placed on GOP naysayers, Malliotakis went to Twitter to celebrate law enforcement on Jan. 9, displaying a Blue Lives Matter flag hanging next to her office in Washington D.C.

    “This coming from a socialist who only talks about our police when she’s calling to defund them…”

    “And when you aren’t doing that…you’re killing jobs, defending looters, calling those who support police ‘racists’ or pushing a destructive ideology that’s led to nothing but misery,” Malliotakis shot back on Saturday night.

    The backlash continued on Saturday when Democrats at the state level rallied in front of Malliotakis’s office on the Brooklyn side of her district.

    State Senator Diane Savino, who was one of only two members of the Independent Democratic Conference to make it through a purging of representatives who were part of the breakaway group in 2018, placed blamed the actions of Malliotakis and other objectors for the insurrection.

    end quotes

    Insurrection, people?

    When?

    When was there an insurrection?

    Does anyone know?

    Wasn’t the insurrection on April 12, 1861, when early in the morning, Democrat guns around the harbor opened fire on Fort Sumter, a United States facility, so that at 2:30 pm on April 13th, Major Robert Anderson, garrison commander, surrendered the fort to the Democrats and it was evacuated the next day?

    Getting back to that article:

    “Well let me tell you what, the founding fathers were very, very smart people.”

    “They wanted to make sure that members of Congress were not responsible for the election of the President.”

    “They wrote into the constitution that electors would be a temporary body because they didn’t want people who could be beholden to the voters special interests, or worse, an angry mob to be those who cast those votes,” Savino said.

    “And that kind of shit is what led to what happened on Wednesday.”

    “The difference between then and now, you didn’t have millions of voters who have been lied to deliberately by elected officials who are afraid to face them and tell them the truth.”

    end quotes

    More HOLY COW, people!

    Getting back to it, we have, not surprisingly:

    The very next day in a Tweet and interview, Ocasio-Cortez proved she would be an unrelenting force in the movement to impeach Trump for a second time.

    In an interview with ABC7 Eyewitness News, Ocasio-Cortez stated that impeachment should be scheduled urgently as “every second and every minute he [Trump] is in office represents a clear and present danger not just to the US Congress, but frankly to the country.”

    She also called for a complete block on Trump ever running for office again and highlighted that, if action is not swiftly taken, there is the potential for Trump to pardon himself for the charges he was impeached for.

    end quotes

    And here I have to pause to take a rest to let all of this weird drama from DEMOCRAT DRAMA QUEEN AOC sink in, saying in closing, boy, isn’t democracy just the greatest thing on earth because it is more fun than a barrel of monkeys, especially when it is AOC who is the actor on the stage!

    Reply

16. Paul Plante says

    January 19, 2021 at 12:00 pm

    And talk about THEATER OF THE TOTALLY BIZARRE, and an exceedingly shrill AOC waxing hysterical, this blizzard of bull**** being thrown at us by the Democrats is getting weirder and weirder by the moment, as we can see from an article in British women’s fashion magazine marieclaire.com entitled “Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Called Out the Hypocrisy of ‘Blue Lives Matter’ After the Capitol Attack” by Emily Dixon on Jan 14, 2021, to wit:

    Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez condemned out the hypocrisy of the Blue Lives Matter movement in an Instagram Live video Tuesday, after a pro-Trump mob stormed the Capitol last week.

    end quotes

    Hypocrisy, AOC?

    What hypocrisy?

    And for those unfamiliar with the so-called “Blue Lives Matter” movement, according to the Blue Lives Matter NYC website, the organization was established to support police officers and their families during times of need.

    According to Wikipedia, Blue Lives Matter is a countermovement in the United States advocating that those who are prosecuted and convicted of killing law enforcement officers should be sentenced under hate crime statutes.

    So where, outside of the fevered mind of the hysterical AOC, who seems to have some very serious psychological issues she needs to sort through as life among adults overwhelms her ability to cope with reality, is there hypocrisy associated with the Blue Lives Matter movement?

    To see if we can suss out that answer, let’s go back to marieclaire for some more AOC on stage, as follows:

    “I don’t want to hear or see the Republican Party talk about blue lives ever again,” Rep. Ocasio-Cortez said.

    end quotes

    Okay, AOC, in that case, stop listening, because NOBODY, including the Republicans, dances to your dance tune, nor can you make them!

    Getting back to marieclaire:

    “This was never about safety for them.”

    “It was always a slogan, because if they actually cared about rule of law they would speak up when people break the law.”

    end quotes

    And they do – each time BLACK LIVES MATTER or the ANTI-FA paramilitary wing of the Democrat party loot, burn vandalize and destroy, there is plenty of outrage expressed by not only Republicans, but all normal, rational, productive, law-abiding American citizens who aren’t Democrats and have no intention of being Democrats.

    Getting back to marieclaire:

    “They don’t give a damn about the law.”

    “They don’t give a damn about order.”

    “They don’t give a damn about safety.”

    “They give a damn about white supremacy,” she continued.

    end quotes

    Actually, when it comes to not giving a damn about the law, and not giving a damn about order, and not giving a damn about safety, and being obsessed about white supremacy, there AOC is talking about the Democrat party, and BLACK LIVES MATTER, and the Democrat paramilitary wing ANTI-FA, which takes us back to marieclaire for more AOC on stage, as follows:

    “They care about preserving the social order and the mythology of whiteness more than the grandeur of our democracy.”

    “That’s what they care about.”

    “They lust for power more than they care about democracy.”

    end quotes

    WOW!

    That is some powerful stuff, alright, especially preserving the social order and the mythology of whiteness more than the grandeur of our democracy.

    That has quite a ring to it, alright, excepting for the part where she prattles about the “grandeur of our democracy,” a ridiculous statement, given our democracy is a big ******* mess with no grandeur whatsoever, and that is thanks to the efforts of the Democrats these last four years since their champion Hillary Clinton lost to Trump to make it that way in retaliation.

    And with lines like that, I can just see it now – a huge reproduction of the stage musical “Evita” with AOC in the lead role belting out “Don’t cry for me, Argentina” to the thunderous applause of all of her many TWITTER fans in the audience!

    Getting back to marieclaire:

    A few minutes into her full livestream on Tuesday, Ocasio-Cortez said she feared for her life as the pro-Trump rioters rampaged through the Capitol.

    “I had a pretty traumatizing event happen to me and I don’t even know if I can disclose the full details of that event due to security concerns, but I can tell you I had a very close encounter where I thought I was going to die,” she said.

    end quotes

    HUH?

    She had a pretty traumatizing event happen to her and she don’t even know if she can disclose the full details of that event due to security concerns?

    What security concerns?

    And the fact that doesn’t even know makes her sound not only very stupid and ignorant, but very unfit to serve in the United States House of Representatives, as well, where according to FEDERALIST No. 53, “The House of Representatives,” from the New York Packet, an early American version of the Cape Charles Mirror, to the People of the State of New York on Tuesday, February 12, 1788: “No man (woman) can be a competent legislator who does not add to an upright intention and a sound judgment a certain degree of knowledge of the subjects on which he is to legislate.”

    AOC lacks upright intentionh, she lacks sound judgment and she is ******* stupid when it comes to a certain knowledge of the subjects on which she is to legislate.

    All AOC knows is an intense hatred for those who have white skin.

    AOC is obsessed with what color somebody’s skin is – that is as far as her intellect lets her go, which renders her unfit to the the representative of a FREE PEOPLE in OUR House of Representatives which AOC, Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats see3m to think is their possession!

    And then we go back to marieclaire for this burst of pure tear-jerking bull**** from AOC, to wit:

    “You have all of those thoughts where, at the end of your life, these thoughts come rushing to you,” she continued.

    “That’s what happened to a lot of us on Wednesday.”

    “I did not know if I was going to make it to the end of that day alive.”

    “And not just in a general sense, but in a very specific sense.”

    Ocasio-Cortez revealed that she did not take refuge in the protected “extraction point” where lawmakers were instructed to shelter, as the Washington Post reports, fearing that other members of Congress would share her location with the mob.

    “There were QAnon and white-supremacist sympathizers and, frankly, white-supremacist members of Congress in that extraction point who I know and who I have felt would disclose my location and would create opportunities to allow me to be hurt, kidnapped, et cetera,” she said.

    “So I didn’t even feel safe around other members of Congress.”

    end quotes

    And because she doesn’t feel safe around those other members of Congress, they have to leave, period!

    The only people who can serve in congress are those pre-approved by AOC, because she will only serve in congress with people she personally is comfortable with!

    Such is Democrat democracy in America today, which takes us back to marieclaire for even more Democrat drama, to wit:

    Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley wrote on Twitter Tuesday that she shared Ocasio-Cortez’s concerns about the delegated safe room, and noted that some Republican lawmakers did not wear masks while sheltering.

    “The second I realized our “safe room” from the violent white supremacist mob included treasonous, white supremacist, anti masker Members of Congress who incited the mob in the first place, I exited,” Rep. Pressley tweeted.

    Rep. Pressley’s office, too, proved unsafe, according to her chief of staff Sarah Groh.

    Groh told the Boston Globe that after she and Pressley barricaded themselves in the office, alongside Pressley’s husband and other staffers, they realized the security system had been sabotaged.

    “Every panic button in my office had been torn out — the whole unit,” Groh said.

    end quotes

    Given that it is Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats who are in control of the capitol, who could have known beforehand that Rep. Pressley and chief of staff Sarah Groh and Pressley’s husband and other staffers were going to barricade themselves in Groh’s office, instead of Pressley’s, so that they could get there beforehand themselves to sabotage the security system by ripping out every panic button in her office?

    Trump?

    Reply

17. Paul Plante says

    January 20, 2021 at 11:56 am

    Yes, people, THEATER OF THE TOTALLY BIZARRE as exceedingly shrill AOC waxes hysterical and the blizzard of bull**** being thrown at us by the Democrats keeps getting weirder and weirder by the moment, let’s go across the pond to see how the Brits are seeing this AOC show with the article in THE GUARDIAN entitled “Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez thought she ‘was going to die’ during Capitol attack – New York congresswoman said on Instagram Live she had a ‘very close encounter’ that put her life at risk” by Kenya Evelyn in Washington on 13 Jan 2021, to wit:

    The Democratic congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez told thousands of followers via her Instagram Live on Tuesday that she “thought [she] was going to die” as a pro-Trump mob stormed the US Capitol last week.

    “I did not know if I was going to make it to the end of that day alive,” she said.

    Not divulging details due to security concerns, the New York congresswoman revealed she had a “very close encounter” that put her life, and those of her staff, at risk.

    “Wednesday was an extremely traumatizing event.”

    “And it was not an exaggeration to say that many members of the House were nearly assassinated,” she said.

    end quotes

    As a twice-wounded combat veteran, I am and remain quite curious about AOC’s statement that many members of the House were “nearly assassinated.”

    What exactly does “nearly assassinated” mean to a rational person?

    How is somebody “nearly assassinated?”

    That’s like me saying I was almost very nearly killed by a big branch falling off a redwood tree in California when I was 3500 miles away in New York state.

    Getting back to how the Brits see things over here in The Colonies, the article continues with more AOC on stage as follows:

    Ocasio-Cortez – who is also referred to as AOC – spoke at length about the experience, noting she “didn’t feel safe around other members of Congress” because there were colleagues “who would create opportunities to allow [her] to be hurt, kidnapped, etc”.

    end quotes

    Colleagues “who WOULD create opportunities to allow [her] to be hurt, kidnapped, etc?”

    Now, that is an extremely serious charge by AOC of criminal intent on the part of “her colleagues,” and if there is an evidentiary basis for it, then those colleagues should be prosecuted and jailed.

    Conversely,m if there is no evidentiary basis, AOC should be charged with making false and inflammatory statements to whip up mob sentiment against the Republicans, and she should be immediately removed from Congress, which again takes us back to The Guardian, to wit:.

    The congresswoman’s remarks add to several Democratic leaders who have come forward with details that suggest some Republican politicians may also have aided in the invasion.

    In a Facebook live on Tuesday night, the New Jersey representative Mikie Sherrill recalled a “reconnaissance”, or tours being provided by colleagues to groups of Trump supporters at the Capitol on 5 January.

    The grounds had been closed to the public since March due to the coronavirus pandemic.

    “I was told later that members of that mob had zip ties, were wearing body armor and were looking to take prisoners,” the congresswoman said.

    end quotes

    What odious inflammatory bull****!

    Told by whom, given that there is no proof to support it, according to a REUTERS article entitled “U.S. now says no evidence of ‘kill capture teams’ at U.S. Capitol” by Brad Heath, Sarah N. Lynch and Jan Wolfe on January 15, 2021, to wit:

    WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The top federal prosecutor in Washington, D.C. said on Friday there is no “direct evidence” to suggest that rioters who stormed the U.S. Capitol had formed “kill capture teams.”

    The comments by Acting U.S. Attorney Michael Sherwin appeared to be an effort to walk back claims federal prosecutors in Arizona had made in a court filing late on Thursday, in which they alleged there was evidence that rioters intended “to capture and assassinate elected officials.”

    end quotes

    Getting back to the Democrat bull**** spew as the Brits see it:

    While she did not identify the Republican lawmakers, the Democrat vowed to “see they are held accountable, and if necessary, ensure they don’t serve in Congress”.

    Later Tuesday, Sarah Groh, chief of staff to Ayanna Pressley, told the Boston Globe that as the Massachusetts congresswoman and her staff hid from the approaching invaders, they discovered that the emergency system in her office had been manipulated without explanation.

    “Every panic button in my office had been torn out – the whole unit,” she said.

    Pressley told the Globe she was “fearful but that fear is not new”.

    “Being a Black woman and feeling unsafe is not new.”

    “The experiences of Wednesday were harrowing and unfortunately very familiar in the deepest and most ancestral way,” she said.

    The congresswomen join a trove of officials pushing for the president and his Republican allies to be held accountable for inciting the attack.

    Several have called for the 145 members in the House and Senate who voted to reject the election win of Democrat Joe Biden to resign, including Ocasio-Cortez who excoriated her Republicans in Congress, delivering “a message for anyone who is resigning after Wednesday: too late.”

    “Too late”.

    “You were a part of it,” Ocasio-Cortez said.

    Ocasio-Cortez also charged that Josh Hawley of Missouri and Ted Cruz of Texas “do not belong in the United States Senate”, accusing both senators stoking the violence for their own “political ambition”.

    With rumored campaigns for president in 2024, the congresswoman gave them “a sneak peek”, insisting they “will never be president and “will never command the respect of this country, never.”

    “Never.”

    “You should resign,” she said.

    “And so should every member of Congress who voted to overturn the results of our election, because they would rather cling to power than respect our democracy.”

    end quotes

    And there we have it, people, what this sick show being staged by the Democrats is really all about – ABSOLUTE POWER!

    Reply

18. Paul Plante says

    January 20, 2021 at 10:58 pm

    And while we are on the subject of these Democrats making it up as they go and making some very serious criminal charges in the process against Republicans without presenting any evidence to back them up, which is precisely what the Democrats and the enablers in the media accuse Trump of doing, let’s go to an NBC News article entitled “AOC says she feared for her life during Capitol riot: ‘I thought I was going to die’ – The Democrat said it’s ‘not an exaggeration’ to say that many members of the House were nearly assassinated” by Yuliya Talmazan on Jan. 13, 2021, where we have more hysteria mongering from a very shrill AOC, to wit:

    Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., says she feared for her life as a violent mob stormed the Capitol building last week.

    end quotes

    YAWN!

    Oh, pardon me, but this is the very same DRAMA QUEEN AOC who was featured six hundred and two (602) days ago now on 29 May 2019 in an SBS article entitled “‘I wake up and review photos of men who want to kill me’: Ocasio-Cortez” by Sarah Malik, to wit:

    Like a lot of people, American congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s morning routine consists of getting a morning coffee and scrolling through her social media.

    But for Ocasio-Cortez, this daily task often interrupted by routinely reviewing photos of men who want to kill her.

    “I’ve had mornings where I wake up & the 1st thing I do w/ my coffee is review photos of the men (it’s always men) who want to kill me,” she wrote on Twitter.

    end quotes

    Why she reviews photos of men who want to kill her remains a mystery.

    So, given that every day of her life there are men out there, always men, who want to kill AOC, I suppose it would logically follow that on 6 January 2021, there would be men who wanted to kill her, as well, just to keep the narrative she’s peddling going.

    Getting back to NBC, we have more as follows:

    “We were very lucky that things happened within certain minutes that allowed members to escape the House floor unharmed,” she added.

    “Many of us merely narrowly escaped death.”

    end quotes

    Many of us merely narrowly escaped death?

    Is that like she was almost very nearly assassinated?:

    Which takes us to CNN (Cuomo News Network) and an article entitled “Questions swirl around possible ‘insider’ help for Capitol attack” by Marshall Cohen on January 14, 2021, as follows:

    Washington (CNN)One week after the deadly insurrection at the Capitol, there are still more questions than answers on whether any lawmakers or police assisted the pro-Trump rioters.

    The idea of an insurrection is unheard of in modern US history, and the possibility that lawmakers or allies inside the Capitol were helping only contributes to the uncertainty and worry about the event and what’s to come.

    Alleged ‘reconnaissance’ mission

    Rep. Mikie Sherrill, a New Jersey Democrat, made waves Tuesday night when she accused unnamed Republican lawmakers of helping rioters by bringing them into the Capitol one day earlier for a “reconnaissance” mission of sorts.

    CNN has not yet verified those allegations.

    Sherrill said there were “members of Congress who had groups coming through the Capitol that I saw on January 5th for reconnaissance for the next day.”

    CNN has repeatedly asked Sherrill’s office for details about her accusation, but they have not provided any additional information.

    end quotes

    Now, isn’t that what Trump was always being raked over the coals for by this same media – making claims without providing proof?

    So how does she get away with it?

    Let’s go back to CNN and see what they have to say about why they are giving her a free pass here:

    She is a former Navy helicopter pilot and federal prosecutor, and is seen as a moderate member of the Democratic caucus, and not a firebrand who would make accusations without merit.

    end quotes

    So, because she is a former Navy helicopter pilot and federal prosecutor, and is seen as a moderate member of the Democratic caucus, her accusations automatically have merit?

    Is CNN really trying to tell us that Navy officers never lie, or that a federal prosecutor who is a Democrat wouldn’t lie for Nancy Pelosi?

    As to Navy officers lying, how about TAILHOOK, the military scandal and controversy in which United States Navy and U.S. Marine Corps aviation officers were alleged to have sexually assaulted up to 83 women and seven men, or otherwise engaged in “improper and indecent” conduct at the Las Vegas Hilton in Las Vegas, Nevada at the 35th Annual Tailhook Association Symposium from September 5 to 8, 1991?

    In response, the United States Congress, led by the Senate Armed Services Committee, directed the US military to investigate the event, verify the allegations, and prosecute the personnel involved.

    The resulting Navy inquiries were criticized for failing to adequately investigate what had happened.

    Also, it was learned that Secretary of the Navy Henry Garrett had attended the convention, but his involvement had not been disclosed in the Navy’s investigation report.

    As a result, the Department of Defense Inspector General’s Office took over the inquiry.

    Its investigation led to approximately 40 naval and Marine officers receiving non-judicial punishment, mainly for conduct unbecoming an officer and false official statements.

    So there we have a case of Naval officers lying.

    And how about the Navy Times story “Decatur CO fired after providing Navy false reports on ship’s position, investigation finds” by Diana Stancy Correll on April 13, 2020?

    And then there is the Military.com story entitled “Navy CO Was Fired Over ‘Repeated, Vigorous and Obvious False Statements:’ Investigation” on 7 Oct 2019 by Gina Harkins.

    And how can we forget CNN’s own story entitled “Navy officer charged with espionage” by Mariano Castillo, Jim Sciutto and Barbara Starr on April 11, 2016 where we were told Lin was charged with three counts of “false official statement” for failing to report foreign travel and putting false information on documents.

    So you are damn right that Navy officers can and do lie like a rug and CNN is a fool for thinking it could pull the wool over our eyes and have us think differently in the case of this Democrat Mikie Sherrill, that because she is a former Navy helicopter pilot, that that would make her somehow “truthful.”

    And as to federal prosecutors being liars, as well, let’s go to a Washington Post story entitled “Federal prosecutor in D.C. made ‘misrepresentations’ to judge, is referred for internal investigation, court records say” by Spencer S. Hsu and Keith L. Alexander on July 8, 2019, where we have, to wit:

    A federal prosecutor falsely blamed a nonexistent backlog at the D.C. crime lab for delays that contributed to the dismissal of a drug and gun case and the matter has been referred for internal Justice Department investigation, according to the U.S. attorney’s office in the District.

    end quotes

    And then we have the USA TODAY story “Ex-FBI lawyer to plead guilty to falsifying documents in Russia inquiry; first case brought in DOJ review” by Kevin Johnson and Kristine Phillips on 14 August 2020.

    And this doozy from The Seattle Times entitled “Ex-Justice Department lawyer caught in ‘most serious’ internal corruption case in recent memory” from March 8, 2018, to wit:

    A former corporate-fraud prosecutor carried out the “most serious” example of public corruption by a U.S. Department of Justice attorney in years by stealing more than 40 whistleblower fraud cases in 2016 and trying to sell the secret information to companies under federal investigation, prosecutors said.

    The scheme was an attempt to woo potential clients and increase his earnings and standing in his new role as a defense lawyer for one of Washington’s most influential law firms, according to prosecutors and admissions by Jeffrey Wertkin at his sentencing Wednesday.

    After his arrest for one shakedown attempt, Wertkin embarked on an “obstruction binge” at his private law office to destroy additional evidence of his yearlong plot and also tried to frame a former colleague at the Justice Department for the records theft, court files show.

    Wertkin’s sentencing hearing revealed a more extensive and calculating crime than previously was made public, showing he stole and copied dozens of files — taking some at night from his boss’s desk at Justice, copying them and returning them re-stapled — and then reached out to targeted companies in four states to try to drum up business for himself.

    end quotes

    So quit the bull****, CNN, telling us that because Democrat Mikie Sherrill is a former Navy helicopter pilot and federal prosecutor, and is seen as a moderate member of the Democratic caucus, her accusations automatically have merit, even though she cannot back them up with any evidence or facts like Trump is always being accused of doing.

    Reply

19. Paul Plante says

    January 21, 2021 at 9:57 pm

    And recapping the play-action for those of you who are just coming to the game late and are wondering what was going on before the Zamboni came out to resurface the ice, so to speak, using a metaphor here to give the discussion some intellectual flair, simply stated, people, we just had a very serious insurrection against the iron-fisted rule of Democrat Nancy Pelosi in the House of Representatives that was reminiscent of the first Catilinarian conspiracy which was a plot to murder the consuls of Rome in 65 BC, Lucius Manlius Torquatus and Lucius Aurelius Cotta where supposedly, Catiline intended to seize power following an electoral dispute, in which the original set of candidates elected to the office were deemed ineligible. where Nancy Pelosi, AOC, Virginia Congresswoman Elaine Luria and all the other Democrats were almost very nearly assassinated by Republican hunter-killer teams who would have treated Nancy Pelosi like Johan de Witt in Holland who was ripped to pieces by a mob and then eaten.

    Of course, as these things go, there is another set of scholars who argue the insurrection against Nancy Pelosi was really more similar in character to the second Catilinarian conspiracy, that infampous and dastardly plot devised by the Roman senator Lucius Sergius Catilina (or Catiline), with the help of a group of fellow aristocrats and disaffected veterans of Lucius Cornelius Sulla, to overthrow the consulship of Marcus Tullius Cicero and Gaius Antonius Hybrida.

    In any event, people, the forces of Nancy Pelosi were able to beat off the forces of the Republicans trying to stage a coup here, so Nancy and AOC are both safe, thank the good Lord for that because in this, our nation’s hour of crisis, we need them both now more than ever to unite and heal America.

    As to AOC, and my goodness, what that poor woman has had to go through, what with looking at pictures of men, always men, who want to kill her every morning with her coffee, and now this, being almost very nearly assassinated by Trump, we have this from the tear-jerking story of the life of AOC, defender of freedom in ELLE entitled “Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Says She Feared She’d Die During Capitol Riot After ‘Very Close Encounter’ – ‘I did not know if I was going to make it to the end of that day alive'” by Alyssa Bailey on Jan 13, 2021, to wit:

    Ocasio-Cortez also addressed her current health status in the video, saying she still remains traumatized by what happened.

    “My body and my brain have been out of work,” she said.

    For the two days after the riots, “I just slept a lot more than I usually sleep, and that to me is telling me that my body is going through something and my brain is trying to heal.”

    end quotes

    Pray for her, people, she needs it, and let us hope that if we all do pray fervently enough, her brain could one day finally heal and she would be able to feel good about herself as a person again, after that harrowing experience of almost very nearly getting assassinated!

    As to Joe Biden, he is holed up in Washington, D.C., safely surrounded by some 25,000 military troops who are all loyal to Joe Biden, and tanks and razor wire to keep him safe from the American people, like he was a third-world dictator in a banana republic in South America or Africa, where by imperial decree, he has altered our Constitution to make us into a Socialist Democracy and he has given us a new history to replace our old history in order to unite everyone in America and to heal the nation.

    And while we are on the subject of these Democrats making it up as they go and making some very serious criminal charges in the process against Republicans without presenting any evidence to back them up, which is precisely what the Democrats and their enablers in the media were always accusing Trump of doing, let’s go back to the CNN (Cuomo News Network) article entitled “Questions swirl around possible ‘insider’ help for Capitol attack” by Marshall Cohen on January 14, 2021, where we have more hysteria mongering and serious allegations of criminal conduct by Republicans and the Capitol Police from the Democrats, to wit:

    More than 70 people have already been charged with federal crimes related to the attack.

    Most of the publicly disclosed cases involve people who fought with police officers inside the Capitol, made violent threats against Democrats, or were found near the complex with guns or bombs.

    end quotes

    Making threats against Democrats in America is not only a seditious (inciting or causing people to rebel against the authority of a state or monarch) act, but a serious federal felony punishable by fines and up to 20 years in prison and it refers to the act of inciting revolt or violence against a lawful authority, in this case Nancy Pelosi, with the goal of destroying or overthrowing it.

    Prosecutors haven’t yet accused any of those Trump supporters of coordinating with Republican lawmakers or sympathetic police officers, but the massive investigation is still in its early stages.

    “We’re looking at significant felony cases tied to sedition and conspiracy,” Michael Sherwin, the acting US attorney for Washington, DC, told reporters on Tuesday, without specifically saying whether any lawmakers or members of law enforcement were under investigation.

    But Sherwin added, “Our office organized a strike force of very senior national security prosecutors and public corruption prosecutors.”

    “Their only marching orders from me are to build seditious and conspiracy charges related to the most heinous acts that occurred in the Capitol.”

    end quotes

    And here we get to the meat of the matter, why it will be necessary for the Democrats to organize their own armed party military wing whose members are sworn to the Democrat party to protect the Democrats from the American people, to wit:

    Insider help from police and military

    At least two US Capitol Police officers have already been suspended, and at least 10 more are under investigation, for allegedly playing some sort of role in the insurrection, CNN reported.

    There was immediate speculation after the attack that some sympathetic police officers may have helped the rioters, given the fact that the raucous and at-times violent crowd seemed to mill about the Capitol complex with little resistance.

    One rioter even posed for a selfie with a cop.

    end quotes

    And let’s stop there for a moment to examine that statement in some detail using logic and reason: if the dude was standing next to a cop while posing for a selfie, then it logically follows that he was not at the same time “rioting,” where rioting in our language, anyway, means the violent disturbance of the peace by a crowd.

    If a dude is standing next to a cop taking a selfie, then can he at the same time be engaged in a violent disturbance of the peace?

    So how CNN makes him out to be a rioter eludes rationality for the moment, but there is no requirement for CNN to be rational, and so they are not, which brings us back to the story for more as follows:

    Democrats ask for investigation on tours

    On Wednesday, 31 members of Congress sent a letter to the acting House Sergeant of Arms, acting Senate Sergeant of Arms and Acting Chief of the US Capitol Police asking them to investigate the issue of tours further.

    Democratic Rep. Mary Gay Scanlon, one of the co-signers of the letter, confirmed to CNN that she saw groups of tours of people in MAGA apparel one or two days before the attack.

    “I had seen what appeared to be tour groups of folks dressed in MAGA attire, in the halls, in the tunnels,” Scanlon told CNN.

    “I don’t know exactly what day it was.”

    end quotes

    She doesn’t know exactly what day it was, which means it could have been last year for all we know, and of course if the Republicans were going to stage a coup against the iron-fisted rule of Nancy Pelosi in the House of Representatives, the most hated woman in America today now that Hillary Clinton isn’t in the spotlight to take that honor, anymore, they would make sure that when they were drilling their paramilitary forces beforehand as to where to go in the Capitol to assassinate Nancy Pelosi and all the Democrats including AOC, who almost very nearly was actually assassinated, and Elaine Luria, as well, they would make sure to have them dressed up in their MAGA uniforms so everybody would know who they were.

    What infantile horse****!

    Getting back to the source of the horse****:

    “It was just surprising to see that happen because since Covid the building’s been shut down.”

    “There aren’t supposed to be any tours.”

    “So I kind of assumed it must be a new member who didn’t know the rules or something.”

    “But, I mean, I can verify that it happened.”

    “There were people who were roaming around in the halls, apparently under the guidance of congressional staff.”

    Scanlon told CNN she saw a group of 6 to 8 people.

    “Many of the Members who signed this letter, including those of us who have served in the military and are trained to recognize suspicious activity, as well as various members of our staff, witnessed an extremely high number of outside groups in the complex on Tuesday, January 5,” the letter states.

    It says the tours were “unusual” and “concerning” and were reported to the Sergeant at Arms on January 5.

    The letter says the groups “could only have gained access to the Capitol Complex from a Member of Congress or a member of their staff.”

    end quotes

    And there we have it, people – the Republicans are caught red-handed here!

    Look at the stack of evidence against them!

    It’s overwhelming!

    So what is the solution?

    Easy, outlaw the Republican party for treason, sedition, conspiracy and for being just plain mean and ornery, jail all the Republicans who aren’t to be executed, and make America into a one-party rule so that this kind of crap can never happen again.

    Reply

20. Paul Plante says

    January 23, 2021 at 6:50 pm

    And instead of speculating in here, and engaging in idle chit-chat about what we think the Democrats might be going to do to Trump so that we do not offend the sensibilities of some of our more sensitive readers like G Anderson and get them all whipped up into a veritable froth and fury such as has already happened to G Anderson above here who is nice, but at the same time the type of person who when given gold would want silver, and when given silver, would want bronze, which is to say the type of person who can never ever be satisfied, let’s cut right to the chase the way the lawyers among us like to do and go straight to Nancy Pelosi’s Resolution impeaching Donald John Trump, President of the United States, for high crimes and misdemeanors, to wit:

    Resolved, the Donald John Trump, President of the United States, is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors and that the following article of impeachment be exhibited to the United States Senate:

    Article of impeachment exhibited by the House of Representatives of the United States of America in the name of itself and of the people of the United States of America, against Donald John Trump, President of the United States of America, in maintenance and support of its impeachment against him for high crimes and misdemeanors.

    ARTICLE 1: INCITEMENT OF INSURRECTION

    The Constitution provides that the House of Representatives “shall have the sole Power of Impeachment” and that the President “shall be removed from Office on Impeachment, for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

    Further, section 3 of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution prohibits any person who has “engaged in insurrection or rebellion against” the United States from “hold[ing] and office … under the United States.’

    In his conduct while President of the United States — and in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, provide, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed — Donald John Trump engaged in high Crimes and Misdemeanors by inciting violence against the Government of the United States, in that:

    On January 6, 2021, pursuant to the 12th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, the Vice President of the United States, the House of Representatives, and the Senate met at the United States Capitol for a Joint Session of Congress to count the votes of the Electoral College.

    In the months preceding the Joint Session, President Trump repeatedly issued false statements asserting that the Presidential election results were the product of widespread fraud and should not be accepted by the American people or certified by State or Federal officials.

    Shortly before the Joint Session commenced, President Trump, addressed a crowd at the Ellipse in Washington, D.C.

    There, he reiterated false claims that “we won this election, and we won it by a landslide.”

    He also willfully made statements that, in context, encouraged — and foreseeably resulted in — lawless action at the Capitol, such as: “if you don’t fight like hell you’re not going to have a country anymore.”

    Thus incited by President Trump, members of the crowd he had addressed, in an attempt to, among other objectives, interfere with the Joint Session’s solemn constitutional duty to certify the results of the 2020 Presidential election, unlawfully breached and vandalized the Capitol, injured and killed law enforcement personnel, menaced Members of Congress, the Vice President, and Congressional personnel, and engaged in other violent, deadly, destructive and seditious acts.

    President Trump’s conduct on January 6, 2021, followed his prior efforts to subvert and obstruct the certification of the results of the 2020 Presidential election.

    Those prior efforts included a phone call on January 2, 2021, during which President Trump urged the secretary of state of Georgia, Brad Raffensperger, to “find” enough votes to overturn the Georgia Presidential election results and threatened Secretary Raffensperger if he failed to do so.

    In all this, President Trump gravely endangered the security of the United States and its institutions of Government.

    He threatened the integrity of the democratic system, interfered with the peaceful transition of power, and imperiled a coequal branch of Government.

    He thereby betrayed his trust as President, to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.

    Wherefore, Donald John Trump, by such conduct, has demonstrated that he will remain a threat to national security, democracy, and the Constitution if allowed to remain in office, and has acted in a manner grossly incompatible with self-governance and the rule of law.

    Donald John Trump thus warrants impeachment and trial, removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.

    Reply