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

21. Paul Plante says

    January 25, 2021 at 7:24 pm

    So, okay, people, getting back to the play action in here as it actually happened on 6 January 2021, a day that will go down in infamy, versus what the DANGEROUS, DESPOTIC, DICTATORIAL DEMOCRATS are saying happened, simply stated, on 6 January 2021, we had a COUP in this country, defined as “a sudden, violent, and illegal seizure of power from a government,” as in “Trump was overthrown in a Democrat coup.”

    What we know for sure and certain is this:

    At 1:00 P.M. on 6 January 2021, the DAY OF THE DEMOCRAT COUP, pursuant to 3 U.S. Code § 15 – Counting electoral votes in Congress, which happens to be OUR law that applies to everybody in this country including the Democrats on 6 January 2021, all the Democrats in the House of Representatives and Senate and all the Republicans in the House of Representatives and Senate were meeting in joint session to count electoral college votes pursuant to law.

    What we do know for certain is that some Republicans in the House of Representatives and some Republicans in the Senate pursuant 3 U.S. Code § 15 – Counting electoral votes in Congress were going to exercise their lawful duty to their constituents pursuant to so much of that statute which reads as follows:

    Upon such reading of any such certificate or paper (from electoral college), the President of the Senate (Pence) 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

    What we know is that the Democrats DID NOT want that to happen, and to stop it from happening, the Democrats first threatened those Republicans with harm, and when they persisted in exercising their legal rights on behalf of theor constituents, the Democrats called forth their mob to terrorize and intimidate those Republicans and sow such fear and terror into their hearts that out of fear for their lives, they would submit to Democrat demands and declare Joe Biden the new president of the United States of America, which is exactly what happened, where we had a very fearful and frightened Sen. Kelly Loeffler saying out of fear for her very life that while she had “fully intended to object to the certification of the electoral votes . . . , the events that have transpired today have forced me to reconsider, and I cannot now, in good conscience, object to the certification of these electors.”

    And that is how a DEMOCRAT MOB made Joe Biden president of the United States of America on 6 January 2021, a day that will go down in history as a day of infamy in America.

    Reply

22. Paul Plante says

    January 27, 2021 at 11:43 am

    Seriously, people, talk about some real weird **** going down here, and it is a real **** blizzard right now for certain coming at us from the Democrats and their nattering nabobs of negativism in the main-stream media, those hopeless, hysterical hypochondriacs of history, along with further commentary from the effete intellectual snobs and effete corps of impudent snobs, and the ideological eunuchs sitting in trees waiting for something to get killed who form the core of their extensive and very active propaganda machine.

    Of interest is the fact that the Democrats, they who actually revolted against the country after rejecting
    OUR Constitution and OUR values and caused the bloody Civil War that engulfed this nation between April 12, 1861 and May 9, 1865, are impeaching Trump based on section 3 of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution which prohibits any person who has “engaged in insurrection or rebellion against” the United States from “hold[ing] an office … under the United States.’

    As we learned in grade school as children in this country, Amendment XIV, Section 3 prohibits any person who had gone to war against the union or given aid and comfort to the nation’s enemies from running for federal or state office, unless Congress by a two-thirds vote specifically permitted it.

    So, who did Trump serve with then?

    J.E.B. Stuart?

    Longstreet?

    Or was he with Bobby Lee and the Army of Northern Virginia?

    Of course, the Democrats can argue, and have argued, and will continue to argue until the end of time that that Constitutional **** doesn’t apply to them because it was written, as everyone knows, by slave-owning, racist, white supremacist, white nationalist Republicans who want to make America white, which is why Trump is being impeached.

    So, today, WE, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE who are not Democrats and would rather die than ever be a Democrat are confronted with the INCREDIBLE SPECTACLE of an American president who is no longer in office being impeached on grounds that he has gone to war against the very union of which he was the chief magistrate!

    In other words, at least according to the Democrats version of reality, Trump is being impeached because he went to war against the United States of America and staged an insurrection against his own administration and thereby, in a spectacular coup, handed the presidency to Democrat Joe Biden.

    Got it?

    THIS IS A BREAKING STORY – STAY TUNED FOR FURTHER DETAILS AS THEY HAPPEN

    Reply

23. Paul Plante says

    January 27, 2021 at 11:12 pm

    So, yes, people, making it up as they go, and this is hardly frivolous **** these despotic, dictatorial Democrats are trying to put, m forth here with this “insurrection” BULL**** that Trump and Ted Cruz and Josh Hawley have been accused of by Joe Biden, a Junta of generals loyal to Joe Biden, and Nancy Pelosi and Charley “Chuck” Schumer, himself a notorious Democratic Socialist “running dog” (a servile follower, especially of a political system) as we see from a GOTHAMIST article by Raphael Pope-Sussman on Feb. 1, 2017, to wit:

    Hundreds of New Yorkers braved freezing temperatures Tuesday night on Brooklyn’s Grand Army Plaza at a rally calling upon U.S. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer to take a firm stand against the Trump administration.

    The rally was the latest in a series of weekly gatherings poetically dubbed “What the F*ck, Chuck?” outside the senator’s Brooklyn home on Prospect Park West and his offices in Midtown.

    As a series of speakers stood on a platform and shouted over a mobile PA system, protesters cheered and jeered as they held signs with slogans like “Buck Up Chuck”; “Resisting Trump Is Your Primary Duty”; and “Filibuster Filibuster Filibuster.”

    Hae-Lin Choi, of the Democratic Socialists of America and Resist Trump NY, took the stage first, announcing herself as an immigrant and telling the crowd why organizers had called for the protest.

    “We planned this rally to Schumer’s home to help him find the spine and maybe some of the other body parts he needs to grow,” she said, citing Schumer’s early “yea” votes on Trump’s nominees to lead Defense, Homeland Security, and the Central Intelligence Agency.

    Choi said organizers were encouraged by Schumer’s announcement in recent days that he would vote no on eight more nominees, but that they see this as a bare minimum, and they intend to keep up the pressure.

    “Senator Schumer must be bold and stand with the working class,” she cried over the loudspeaker.

    “He has to champion the resistance or get out of the way and we’ll find someone that will.”

    As Choi spoke, the crowd chanted, “Stand up, or get out of the way.”

    end quotes

    That same “running dog” Charley “Chuck” Schumer, who now controls the United States Senate on behalf of this Hae-Lin Choi who is his controller, wants to haul Trump, now a private American citizen, before the hostile Senate that he is in charge of to convict Trump of a very serious crime without any evidence such a crime ever occurred in the first place, which would totally strip Trump of his constitutional protection to a fair trial.

    And with respect to what Democratic Socialist “running dog” Charley “Chuck” Schumer wants to try private citizen Trump for before the hostile Senate of which he is in charge, which would be a star chamber proceeding, which is any judicial or quasi-judicial action, trial or hearing which so grossly violates standards of “due process” that a party appearing in the proceedings (hearing or trial) is denied a fair hearing, let’s go back to the Article of Impeachment now before the Senate, which states as follows, to wit:

    ARTICLE 1: INCITEMENT OF INSURRECTION

    end quotes

    So, people, WHO declared the insurrection?

    More to the point, BY LAW, WHO is the only person who can declare an insurrection?

    According to the Annotations to Article I of OUR Constitution,l the one the Democrats disavow and disregrad, choosing to make things up as they go, instead, essentially rewriting the Constitution to suit them on a daily basis, or pulling it out of their ****, as they are doing here, to wit:

    Clauses 15 and 16. The Militia

    THE MILITIA CLAUSE

    Calling Out the Militia

    The States as well as Congress may prescribe penalties for failure to obey the President’s call of the militia.

    They also have a concurrent power to aid the National Government by calls under their own authority, and in emergencies may use the militia to put down armed insurrection.

    The Federal Government may call out the militia in case of civil war; its authority to suppress rebellion is found in the power to suppress insurrection and to carry on war.

    The act of February 28, 1795, which delegated to the President the power to call out the militia, was held constitutional.

    A militiaman who refused to obey such a call was not ”employed in the service of the United States so as to be subject to the article of war,” but was liable to be tried for disobedience of the act of 1795.

    end quotes

    So, clearly, it is the president who declares an insurrection.

    BUT, this is a special situation, so the Democrats did it their way, to wit:

    NBC NEWS

    “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

    Jan. 13, 2021, 8:18 AM EST / Updated Jan. 13, 2021, 9:49 AM EST

    “Donald Trump’s incitement of a deadly insurrection against the U.S. Capitol is without precedent in our nation’s history and an egregious violation of his oath of office,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., tweeted early Wednesday.

    “Fulfilling our oath to defend our Constitution requires that we act to remove him from office immediately.”

    end quotes

    So there, not surprisingly, we have Democrat Nancy Pelosi stepping up to the plate to declare an insurrection.

    And again not surprisingly, and not to be outdone here, because this really is about AOC and the spotlight is on her because she was almost very nearly assassinated, at least in her own fevered mind, we have AOC declaring insurrection, as follows:

    BUSINESS INSIDER

    “Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez tells GOP colleagues they need to remove Trump because he incited a violent mob to ‘possibly kill’ them”

    John Haltiwanger

    Jan 8, 2021, 1:35 PM

    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.

    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.

    “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.”

    end quotes

    Of course, AOC is a DRAMA QUEEN, so she spiced up her charges of insurrection with a coup besides, which adds quite a bit of drama to the narrative, which is of such importance today in American politics as far as the main-stream media is concerned, because drama sells newspaper and generates advertising revenues.

    And from there, we go to this very dangerous development, to wit:

    CNBC

    “Top military leaders condemn ‘sedition and insurrection’ at Capitol, acknowledge Biden win”

    Amanda Macias @amanda_m_macias

    Published Tue, Jan 12 2021

    WASHINGTON — In an extraordinary letter Tuesday to the U.S. military, the nation’s top commanders condemned last week’s acts of “sedition and insurrection” at the U.S. Capitol, while acknowledging Joe Biden’s election victory.

    And from there we go to here:

    THE PHILADELPHIA INQUIRER

    “Biden slams Capitol mob as ‘domestic terrorists’; Trump acknowledges new administration day after inciting riot and as calls grow for his removal”

    8 January 2021

    President-elect Joe Biden called the participants in the mob “domestic terrorists.”

    “Don’t dare call them protesters,” Biden said.

    “They were a riotous mob, insurrectionists, domestic terrorists.”

    “He unleashed an all out assault on our institutions of our Democracy from the outset and yesterday was but the culmination on that unrelenting attack.”

    end quotes

    So there we have it, people – these are extraordinary times we are in, a sitting president has launched, in the words of AOC, who knows these things better than anyone else, a coup against himself in a bid to topple his own regime, so that it was then necessary for Joe Biden who wouldn’t actually be president until 20 January 2021, to assume the duties of president on 8 January 2021, twelve (12) days before he was actually inaugurated, to declare the insurrection that Trump is now to stand trial for as an American citizen before the U.S. Senate.

    Anything at all wrong with this picture does anyone think?

    Reply

24. Paul Plante says

    January 28, 2021 at 11:26 pm

    Yes, indeed, people, strange times indeed these we find ourselves in, where the Democrats, ever a clear and present danger to OUR Republic, have launched a major offensive against RULE OF LAW here in the United States of America in favor of making it up as they go, and Charley “Chuck” Schumer, said to have suffered a massive erection at the thought of finally being able to schtup Trump but good after Nancy Pelosi impeached him and made him Charley “Chuck” Schumer’s “meat,” is not the only dangerously out-of-control Democrat to be hurling around very serious charges of an insurrection against the government of Donald Trump, Virginia Senator Tim Kaine is doing the same thing, except on a more extensive scale, hurling the indictment of being insurrectionists at American citizens without a shred of proof to back up the charges as we see in a recent indictment of Senator Ted Cruz and Senator Josh Hawley for insurrection, even though there was no insurrection, by Tim Kaine, to wit:

    Senators File Ethics Committee Complaint Regarding Colleagues’ Role in Jan. 6 Insurrection

    January 21, 2021

    WASHINGTON, D.C. – Senators Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Ron Wyden (D-OR), Tina Smith (D-MN), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Mazie Hirono (D-HI), Tim Kaine (D-VA), and Sherrod Brown (D-OH) lodged today a complaint with the Senate Ethics Committee concerning the behavior of Senators Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Josh Hawley (R-MO) related to the deadly insurrection at the U.S. Capitol on January 6.

    end quotes

    Yes, people, so even though there really was no insurrection, there was an insurrection because Nancy Pelosi said there was, AOC said there was, a Junta of generals loyal to Joe Biden said there was, Joe Biden himself said there was, Tim Kaine and the Senate Democrats said there was one, and the main-stream media said there was one, so that makes it very, very conclusive that there had to be an insurrection on 6 January 2021, because they couldn’t say there was one, otherwise.

    Getting back to the Kaine Indictment of Ted Cruz and Josh Hawley, it continues as follows:

    While Congress was debating Senator Cruz’s objection, a violent mob stormed the Capitol.

    These insurrectionists ransacked the building, stole property, and openly threatened Members of Congress and the Vice President.

    Dozens of police officers were injured; five people died, including U.S. Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick.

    By the time the Capitol was secured and the count resumed, four insurrectionists had died.

    end quotes

    Four insurrectionists had died?

    What kind of reprehensible (deserving censure or condemnation) horse**** is that, to be condemning people who are now deceased of being “insurrectionists” with no trial, no evidence and no chance for them to be able to clear their names, which will now be smeared forever by these Democrats?

    And were those people condemned for eternity as insurrectionists by Tim Kaine really involved in any kind of “insurrection” in Washington on 6 January 2021?

    For that answer, let’s go to a CNN story entitled “What we know about the 5 deaths in the pro-Trump mob that stormed the Capitol” by Eric Levenson, Amir Vera and Mallika Kallingal on January 8, 2021, where we have as follows:

    Three other people who had come from out of state died of “medical emergencies” during the riot, police said.

    “One adult female and two adult males appear to have suffered from separate medical emergencies, which resulted in their deaths,” Contee said.

    “Any loss of life in the District is tragic and our thoughts are with anyone impacted by their loss.”

    They were identified as Benjamin Philips, 50, of Ringtown, Pennsylvania; Kevin Greeson, 55, of Athens, Alabama; and Rosanne Boyland, 34, of Kennesaw, Georgia.

    The three were on the grounds of the Capitol when they experienced their medical emergencies, Contee said.

    Kevin Greeson

    Greeson had a history of high blood pressure and suffered a heart attack amid the excitement, his family said in a statement to CNN.

    He was an advocate of Trump and attended the event to show his support.

    end quotes

    Which is all it takes in America today now that the Democrats have seized power to be labeled and condemned as an “insurrectionist” by Virginia Senator Tim Kaine.

    Getting back to CNN, it continues as follows with respect to who these dead “insurrectionists” really are, to wit:

    “He was excited to be there to experience this event,” the statement said.

    “He was not there to participate in violence or rioting, nor did he condone such actions.”

    end quotes

    WHOA!

    Stop the press!

    Scrub that sentence that he was not there to participate in violence or rioting, nor did he condone such actions, because it directly attempts to contradict the fact that he really was an insurrectionist, which we know he was because Tim Kaine said so, and in America today, people, that is really all that is needed for someone to be adjudged an insurrectionist – the word of a Democrat that they were.

    Getting back to CNN:

    The family says they are devastated by the loss.

    “Kevin was a wonderful father and husband who loved life,” the family statement said.

    “He loved to ride motorcycles, he loved his job and his coworkers, and he loved his dogs.”

    end quotes

    And in America today under the Democrats, that is what it takes to be labeled an insurrectionist and condemned for eternity as an insurrectionist against one’s own country such as was this man was by Virginia Senator Tim Kaine – being a wonderful father and husband in a stable, nuclear family who loved life, loved to ride motorcycles, loved his job and his coworkers, and loved his dogs.

    Why?

    Because those are the kind of people in America that Virginia Senator Tim Kaine and the Democrats hate, apparently!

    Getting back to CNN:

    Boyland’s family is also mourning her death, her brother-in-law, Justin Cave, told CNN affiliate WGCL.

    The family is still working to learn more details about the specifics of her death, he said.

    As the family watched Wednesday’s events, they hoped that Boyland wasn’t among the crowd, Cave said.

    “Tragically she was there and it cost her life,” he said.

    “She was a wonderful sister, daughter, and aunt.”

    “Anyone who knew her knows how compassionate she was, she always put others before herself,” Cave said.

    end quotes

    But none of that matters, because she too is damned for eternity as an insurrectionist by Virginia Senator Tim Kaine., and if there is anybody out there who doesn’t think this is the rankest kind of political bull**** ever, condemning people as criminals without evidence, without trial, without due process, the only thing I can think is they would have to be a Democrat, too!

    Reply

25. Paul Plante says

    January 29, 2021 at 7:37 pm

    And talk about an absolutely weird and totally bizarre plot twist as only these zany, totally whacked-out Democrats can give us, where a “plot twist” for those of you who aren’t English Lit. scholars (note for full disclosure and transparency: I’m not either, nor did I go to Harvard) is a literary technique that introduces a radical change in the direction or expected outcome of the plot in a work of fiction, which is what this insurrection BULL**** really is, a work of pure fiction from DEMOCRAT CENTRAL and the script writers and illusionists of Hollywood and Disneyland which are both in the congressional district of BIG DOG DEMOCRAT Adam Schiff who did quite well for himself and the party financially with his prolific fund-raising effort conducted while he was in the process of impeaching Trump the first time the Democrats impeached Trump.

    And here I am referring to a shocking-to-the-senses, blockbuster Cuomo News Network (CNN) story entitled “Pelosi says part of Capitol Hill security issue is ‘the enemy is within the House of Representatives'” by Daniella Diaz, Annie Grayer and Kristin Wilson (the story is so shocking and bizarre it takes not one, not two, but three people to tell it, it is so immense in depth) on January 28, 2021, where we have this incredibly shocking news from straight out of Washington, D.C., a heavily fortified city by an insurgency led by Donald Trump, whose regime was toppled by a very Machiavellian Democrat coup on 6 January 2021 where a violent Democrat mob installed Joe Biden as president in place of the ousted Trump, to wit:

    (CNN)House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told reporters Thursday that she’s committed to addressing the concerns of her colleagues over security but said that effort is hampered because “the enemy is within the House of Representatives,” referencing the rhetoric and behavior of some Republican members of Congress.

    end quotes

    OMG, people, do you know what I am saying?

    Nancy Pelosi is now so hated in America that she cannot even trust anyone around her, and is said to be being fitted out in the latest hi-tech form-fitted titanium battle armor that can withstand a direct hit from a depleted uranium sabo round fired by the main gun on an M-1 Abrams battle tank that the military-industrial complex Pelosi controls is producing for officials like Pelosi who are very much hated and reviled, and might I add in the case of Pelosi, some would say with good reason, although that is considered seditious to think that way these troubled days and so I won’t mention any names.

    Getting back to that shocking and highly disturbing story of Nancy Pelosi now being in constant danger of some Republican coming up behind her to give her a good goose or a wedgie, it goes on as follows:

    “So we want to have a scientific approach to how we protect members,” Pelosi said at her weekly news conference.

    “I do believe and I have said this all along we will probably need a supplemental for more security for members when the enemy is within the House of Representatives, a threat that members are concerned about in addition to what is happening outside.”

    When pressed by reporters about what she meant by that comment, Pelosi said, “it means that we have members of Congress who want to bring guns on the floor and have threatened violence on other members of Congress.”

    Pelosi did not clarify which lawmakers she was referencing.

    end quotes

    But, c’mon, people, do facts really matter here?

    Does Nancy Pelosi really need any kind of proof any of this is true and not absolutely false?

    And of course, she doesn’t!

    It is how Nancy feels, and that is really all we need to know, since in this narrative, Nancy Pelosi is a heroine like Cicero was a hero when he put down the Catiline conspiracy and had the conspirators strangled so they couldn’t tell anyone a different story than the one Cicero had already made up to make him look like he and he alone had saved Rome from a HUGE disaster, the way Nancy Pelosi has single-handedly saved our nation in these last few days after “THE GREAT INSURRECTION” against the administration of Donald Trump.

    Getting back to CNN:

    In response to the letter requesting additional resources and flexibility for security, Pelosi said Thursday the concerns in a letter from lawmakers requesting more flexibility for using their congressional allowances has already been addressed.

    “First of all, I appreciate the letter from the members but most of the questions, items on the list, have already been done,” she said.

    “Perhaps they were not aware, and I take responsibility for them not being aware.”

    Her remarks come after more than 30 House members sent a letter to Pelosi and House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy on Thursday requesting more flexibility for using their congressional allowances toward helping their personal safety by hiring local law enforcement or other security personnel for their home district offices.

    “While the U.S. Capitol is protected by the United States Capitol Police with the support of strong security measures, including vehicle barriers and metal detectors, most Members spend the majority of their time in their Congressional Districts where security is often sparse,” they wrote in the letter.

    “Protecting Members in their District is much harder because local law enforcement agencies are stretched and limited, and often don’t have sufficient staffing or money to provide regular protection to Members.”

    “Except for Leadership, Members do not have security details protecting them.”

    end quotes

    Not to forget that the Democrats do not trust the police, as well, and so need a private army surrounding them at all times at taxpayer expense, of course, to protect them from the American people, the way the Sunnis needed protection from the Iraqi people when Saddam was in power, which takes us back to CNN again as follows:

    As threats continue to mount against members of Congress, concern is growing about the safety of some lawmakers when they travel outside Washington and the security bubble it provides, multiple sources told CNN earlier this week.

    The letter was written by Democratic Reps. Josh Gottheimer of New Jersey and Dean Phillips of Minnesota and addressed to Pelosi, McCarthy, and the chairwoman and ranking Republican member of the House Administration Committee, Reps. Zoe Lofgren of California and Rodney Davis of Illinois.

    This comes after the Committee on House Administration sent a letter to members earlier this month reminding them of various options they had for security-related expenses “in light of the tragic events related to the seditious breach of the Capitol.”

    The January 11 letter circulated to members reminded them that in their districts, they can get reimbursed for having security at a district event or outside district offices.

    The letter instructed members that the House Sergeant at Arms will provide “certain security enhancements” for district offices and that a bullet proof vest and security training are also considered reimbursable expenses.

    end quotes

    That is not enough, dammit!

    They (the Democrats) should each be provided with a bullet-proof SUV with sufficient armor to withstand a strike by an RPG, as well as armored vehicles to precede them and follow them when they are leaving or going to their fortified compounds in their home districts, and enough heavily armed security troops of proven loyalty to the Democrat party to beat off any ground attacks until air support can arrive on the scene, which again takes us back to CNN as follows:

    Yogananda Pittman, the acting chief of the US Capitol Police, on Thursday called for permanent fencing and other enhanced security measures around the Capitol complex.

    “In light of recent events, I can unequivocally say that vast improvements to the physical security infrastructure must be made to include permanent fencing, and the availability of ready, back-up forces in close proximity to the Capitol,” Pittman said in a statement.

    Pittman continued: “I look forward to working with Congress on identifying the security improvements necessary to ensure the safety and security of the Congress and the U.S. Capitol.”

    end quotes

    Now, there is an idea for these very troubled times we are in – wall off the capitol, fence it with razor wire, put in machine gun emplacements, and keep anyone who is not a Democrat out!

    As I say, a very bizarre plot twist, indeed!

    And here I have to say that as I think about this bizarre narrative the Democrats are presenting us with, the metaphorical scene I see playing out here is captured in this short sequence from the movie “Black Rain,” where the Democrats have run Trump to ground in a sub-basement of Mar-A-Lago as he was on the run for his deep underground bunker, to wit:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYzPUa-6BLE

    Reply

26. Paul Plante says

    January 30, 2021 at 11:58 pm

    And speaking of making it up as they go, a specialty of the Democrats, while spewing forth torrents of absolute BULL**** so rapidly that it is almost impossible anymore to not get drowned in the flood, let’s fasten our seat belts as AOC takes us on a trip into outer space in the Yahoo News story “AOC to Ted Cruz: ‘You almost had me murdered 3 weeks ago'” by Christopher Wilson·Senior Writer on January 28, 2021, where we had this burst of hysterical horse**** from the DRAMA QUEEN of America, to wit:

    Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said Thursday that she was willing to work with Republicans to investigate the stock trading app Robinhood, but not Sen. Ted Cruz, who she accused of attempted murder for his role in encouraging the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol.

    end quotes

    Isn’t this **** rich?

    Ted Cruz, in addition to being an insurrectionist, a serious crime in and of itself, is now also guilty of the attempted murder of AOC!

    Can anyone believe this stuff this hysterical and out-of-control woman is screeching about?

    If Ted Cruz is guilty of the attempted murder of AOC, a doubly serious charge given her celebrity status as a high-ranking Democrat, why isn’t he behind bars?

    Why is a monster like that who attempted to murder AOC being allowed to walk free so he can try to murder AOC a second or even a third time?

    What the heck is wrong with that picture, people?

    Getting back to the story, it continues as follows:

    On Twitter, Cruz seconded an Ocasio-Cortez tweet about investigating Robinhood’s decision to halt trading on a number of stocks, including GameStop, on Thursday, to which the New York congresswoman responded.

    “I am happy to work with Republicans on this issue where there’s common ground, but you almost had me murdered 3 weeks ago so you can sit this one out,” Ocasio-Cortez wrote.

    “Happy to work w/almost any other GOP that aren’t trying to get me killed.”

    ” In the meantime if you want to help, you can resign.”

    end quotes

    Yes, indeed, people, when it comes to political speechwriters writing the dramatic lines that these politicians like AOC like to spout to sound like they might have a clue as to what they are talking about, while at the same time making it clear to everybody that can discern these things that they are really the innocent victim, which AOC always is, since this narrative is about her and nobody else since AOC is now the new face of the new Democrat party in America, and so it would only stand to reason that the narrative would be about her, and not Ted Cruz, who almost very nearly murdered AOC, which is quite a story in and of itself and perhaps if we are lucky, when she gets over the trauma of almost having the life throttled out of her by Ted Cruz as he was attempting to murder her, she will be able to give us some more of the details, including clarifying the rumor that some type of “bad touch” might have been involved, as well.

    Getting back to the drama, it goes on as follows, because with AOC, the story of her victimhood here in America at the hands of heteronormative white men like Ted Cruz who is the first person of Cuban or Latino descent to hold the office of Senator from Texas, never ends, to wit:

    Calling out Cruz on Twitter on Thursday, Ocasio-Cortez directed at least partial blame for the riot at the junior Republican senator from Texas.

    “You haven’t even apologized for the serious physical + mental harm you contributed to from Capitol Police & custodial workers to your own fellow members of Congress.”

    “In the meantime, you can get off my timeline & stop clout-chasing,” Ocasio-Cortez added.

    “Thanks.”

    end quotes

    And we know that AOC was almost very nearly assassinated that day, besides Ted Cruz almost murdering her, because we have the “smoking gun” in the form of a confessed insurrectionist as we can clearly see in the CNBC story “Capitol rioter Garret Miller says he was following Trump’s orders, apologizes to AOC for threat” by Dan Mangan on Jan. 25 2021, as follows:

    A Texas man charged with invading the Capitol and threatening Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said Monday that he was effectively following then-President Donald Trump’s orders when he joined a mob that stormed Congress on Jan. 6.

    Garret Miller also apologized to Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., for writing “Assassinate AOC” in a Twitter post.

    He said he would be willing to testify to Congress or in a trial about the riot.

    end quotes

    And my goodness, what a powerful witness this ******* moron would make in a congressional hearing with Adam Schiff probing for all the gory details of how Trump and Ted Cruz conspired with each other to get this ******* moron up from Ted Cruz’s hometown of Texas as their hit man to off AOC, of all people.

    Getting back to that story, we have more details of how AOC was almost very nearly assassinated, as follows:

    The Richardson resident’s apology came as a federal judge in Dallas ordered him detained without bail pending trial, after finding he was both a danger to the community and a flight risk, according to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Texas.

    end quotes

    So, we have some jailhouse remorse going here, as the ******* moron looks at life through those cold steel bars.

    Getting back to it:

    Miller is one of dozens of people charged with participating in the riot, which began shortly after Trump held a rally outside the White House, where he urged supporters to pressure Congress to reject the election of Joe Biden as president.

    end quotes

    Now, notice that he is being charged with being in a riot, not as an insurrectionist, because there was no insurrection, there was a coup, which takes us back to the story as follows:

    In a statement released by defense attorney Clinton Broden, Miller said he had been motivated by Trump’s false claims about having been cheated out of reelection by ballot fraud and said, “I am ashamed of my comments.”

    “I was in Washington, D.C. on January 6, 2021, because I believed I was following the instructions of former President Trump and he was my president and the commander-in-chief.”

    end quotes

    Trump was his commander-in-chief?

    Getting back to it:

    “His statements also had me believing the election was stolen from him,” Miller said.

    “Nevertheless, I fully recognize Joe Biden is now the President of the United States and that the election is over.”

    “Donald Trump is no longer president and I would not have any reason to continue to follow his lead.”

    “While I never intended to harm Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez nor harm any members of the Capitol police force, I recognize that my social media posts were completely inappropriate.”

    “They were made at a time when Donald Trump had me believing that an American election was stolen,” he said.

    Miller said: “I want to publicly apologize to Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez and the Capitol police officers.”

    “I have always supported law enforcement and I am ashamed by my comments.”

    Miller, who was arrested last Wednesday, said that “until very recently,” he had not been interested in or involved with politics.

    “Nevertheless, what Donald Trump had been saying about the election really got to me and I felt I had to support him.”

    “Still, I recognize that I am solely responsible for my actions and that there are no excuses for what I did,” he added.

    “I come from a good and supportive family.”

    “My parents and brothers do not deserve the pain I have caused them.”

    “I accept full responsibility for my actions and I am prepared to testify at any trial or Congressional proceeding,” Miller said.

    Miller is charged in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., with: knowingly entering or remaining in any restricted buildings or grounds without lawful authority; violent entry and disorderly conduct on Capitol grounds; obstructing or impeding any official proceeding; certain acts during civil disorder, and threats in interstate commerce.

    Ocasio-Cortez has said that she feared for her life during the riot and members of Congress were “nearly assassinated.”

    “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 also in a very, very specific sense,” she said on an Instagram Live video on Jan. 12, without giving more details.

    end quotes

    And if that is not enough drama for you for one day, people, simply stay tuned, because when it comes to AOC, the drama is never ending!

    I’m waiting for her to get some Martians involved in the plot to almost very nearly assassinate her, myself.

    That would really add some drama, is my thought, because everybody knows how thoroughly dastardly those Martians can be when they want to, especially when they are conspiring with Trump and Ted Cruz to almost very nearly assassinate AOC!

    Reply

27. Paul Plante says

    February 2, 2021 at 10:14 pm

    Making it up as they go, and dangerously so, people, which takes us back to a press release by Virginia’s Senator Tim Kaine titled “Senators File Ethics Committee Complaint Regarding Colleagues’ Role in Jan. 6 Insurrection” on January 21, 2021, which is already rank BULL**** because there was no insurrection on January 6, 2021, there was a coup, which starts out as follows, to wit:

    WASHINGTON, D.C. – Senators Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Ron Wyden (D-OR), Tina Smith (D-MN), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Mazie Hirono (D-HI), Tim Kaine (D-VA), and Sherrod Brown (D-OH) lodged today a complaint with the Senate Ethics Committee concerning the behavior of Senators Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Josh Hawley (R-MO) related to the deadly insurrection at the U.S. Capitol on January 6.

    end quotes

    Now, seriously, people, are we a nation of RULE OF LAW, or are we nothing more than a large collection of absolute mindless ****** morons who can be fed any kind of horse**** by hack politicians like Tim Kaine as if we were all mushrooms and we wouldn’t know the difference?

    IF there had in fact been a “deadly insurrection” at the Capitol on 6 January 2021, which is a serious crime, as we see from 18 USC Ch. 115: TREASON, SEDITION, AND SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES, 2383. Rebellion or insurrection – Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States (June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 808; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, §330016(1)(L), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147) – instead of what it truly was, a coup, then wouldn’t it logically follow that we would hear about the FBI and the Justice Department arresting and prosecuting people for insurrection?

    One would think so, anyway, so why don’t we then?

    Why is the Justice Department treating it as a riot?

    Department of Justice

    U.S. Attorney’s Office

    District of Columbia

    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

    Friday, January 8, 2021

    “Thirteen Charged in Federal Court Following Riot at the United States Capitol – Approximately 40 charged in Superior Court”

    Thirteen individuals have been charged so far in federal court in the District of Columbia related to crimes committed at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C, on Wednesday, Jan. 6, 2021.

    In addition to those who have been charged, additional complaints have been submitted and investigations are ongoing.

    “The lawless destruction of the U.S. Capitol building was an attack against one of our Nation’s greatest institutions,” said Acting U.S. Attorney Michael Sherwin.

    “My Office, along with our law enforcement partners at all levels, have been expeditiously working and leveraging every resource to identify, arrest, and begin prosecuting these individuals who took part in the brazen criminal acts at the U.S. Capitol.”

    “We are resolute in our commitment to holding accountable anyone responsible for these disgraceful criminal acts, and to anyone who might be considering engaging in or inciting violence in the coming weeks – know this: you will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.”

    “ATF is committed to the rule of law and the protection of all citizens’ Constitutional rights,” said Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) Deputy Director Regina Lombardo.

    “We continue to support our law enforcement partners to ensure those who violated the law during the events at the Capitol this week are brought to justice.”

    “ATF has dedicated all appropriate resources to complete these investigations as soon as possible.”

    “Today’s charges are just the beginning of the FBI’s ongoing efforts to hold those responsible for the criminal acts of violence and destruction that unfolded during the U.S. Capitol building breach on January 6th,” said FBI Director Christopher Wray.

    “To be clear, what took place that day was not First Amendment-protected activity, but rather an affront on our democracy.”

    “The FBI, along with our local, state and federal partners, is committed to ensuring that justice is served.”

    “We will continue to aggressively investigate each and every individual who chose to ignore the law and instead incite violence, destroy property, and injure others.”

    “Deputy U.S. Marshals responded to support U.S. Capitol Police after the incursion into the Capitol building.”

    “Our deputies helped to clear the building and escorted members of Congress back to the main chamber for official business,” said U.S. Marshals Service Director Donald Washington.

    “US Marshals will now bring to bear our fugitive investigations expertise to ensure that individuals charged in federal warrants are brought to face justice.”

    “Respect for the rule of law is a foundational principle for our democracy and the freedoms that it provides.”

    “Unlawful acts will not go unpunished.”

    Thirteen individuals have been charged with federal crimes.

    The defendants and charges are outlined below:

    Cleveland Meredith was charged on Jan. 7, 2021, with making interstate threats to Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

    Richard Barnett, of Arkansas, was charged on Jan. 7, 2021, with knowingly entering or remaining in any restricted building or grounds without lawful entry; violent entry and disorderly conduct on Capitol grounds; and theft of public money, property, or records.

    Barnett allegedly entered a restricted area of the Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi.

    Lonnie Coffman, of Alabama, was charged on Jan. 7, 2021, with possession of an unregistered firearm (destructive device) and carrying a pistol without a license.

    It is alleged that Coffman’s vehicle contained 11 explosive devices known as Molotov cocktails and firearms.

    It is further alleged he was in possession of two firearms.

    Coffman was arrested and is currently being held.

    His detention hearing is scheduled for Jan. 12, 2021.

    Mark Leffingwell, was charged on Jan. 7, 2021, with knowingly entering or remaining in any restricted building or grounds without lawful authority; assault on a federal law enforcement officer; and violent entry and disorderly conduct on Capitol grounds.

    Leffingwell allegedly entered the Senate side of the Capitol and when stopped by law enforcement, struck an officer in the helmet and chest.

    Leffingwell is currently being held and has a detention hearing in district court today.

    Christopher Alberts, of Maryland, was charged on Jan. 7, 2021, with carrying or having readily accessible, on the grounds of the United States Capitol Building, a firearm and ammunition.

    Specifically a Taurus G2C, 9mm handgun and 9mm caliber ammunition.

    The defendant appeared in district court and was released.

    He has a preliminary hearing scheduled for Jan. 28, 2021.

    Joshua Pruitt, was charged on Jan. 7, 2021, with knowingly entering or remaining in any restricted building or grounds without lawful authority.

    The defendant appeared in district court and was released.

    He has a preliminary hearing scheduled for Jan. 28, 2021.

    Matthew Council, of Florida, was charged on Jan. 7, 2021, with knowingly entering or remaining in any restricted building or grounds without lawful authority and violent entry and disorderly conduct on Capitol grounds.

    Council allegedly unlawfully entered the Capitol building, and when stopped by law enforcement, he pushed the officer.

    Cindy Fitchett, of Virginia, was charged on Jan. 7, 2021, with knowingly entering or remaining in any restricted building or grounds without lawful authority; or knowingly, with intent to impede government business or official functions, engaging in disorderly conduct on Capitol grounds; and violent entry and disorderly conduct on Capitol grounds.

    Michael Curzio, of Florida, was charged on Jan. 7, 2021, with knowingly entering or remaining in any restricted building or grounds without lawful authority; or knowingly, with intent to impede government business or official functions, engaging in disorderly conduct on Capitol grounds; and violent entry and disorderly conduct on Capitol grounds.

    Douglas Sweet, of Florida, was charged on Jan. 7, 2021, with knowingly entering or remaining in any restricted building or grounds without lawful authority; or knowingly, with intent to impede government business or official functions, engaging in disorderly conduct on Capitol grounds; and violent entry and disorderly conduct on Capitol grounds.

    Bradley Ruskelas, of Illinois, was charged on Jan. 7, 2021, with knowingly entering or remaining in any restricted building or grounds without lawful authority; or knowingly, with intent to impede government business or official functions, engaging in disorderly conduct on Capitol grounds; and violent entry and disorderly conduct on Capitol grounds.

    Terry Brown, of Pennsylvania, was charged on Jan. 7, 2021, with knowingly entering or remaining in any restricted building or grounds without lawful authority; or knowingly, with intent to impede government business or official functions, engaging in disorderly conduct on Capitol grounds; and violent entry and disorderly conduct on Capitol grounds.

    Thomas Gallagher was charged on Jan. 7, 2021, with knowingly entering or remaining in any restricted building or grounds without lawful authority; or knowingly, with intent to impede government business or official functions, engaging in disorderly conduct on Capitol grounds; and violent entry and disorderly conduct on Capitol grounds.

    In addition, approximately 40 individuals have been arrested and charged in Superior Court with offenses including, but not limited to, unlawful entry, curfew violations, and firearms-related crimes.

    The cases are being prosecuted by the U.S Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia and are being investigated jointly by the FBI; U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives; United States Marshals Service; U.S. Capitol Police Department; and the Metropolitan Police Department.

    The details contained in the charging documents are allegations. Defendants are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.

    # #

    Component(s):

    USAO – District of Columbia

    Press Release Number: 21-002

    Updated January 9, 2021

    Reply

28. Paul Plante says

    February 3, 2021 at 10:06 pm

    So, here we are, back to the critical question before us as a nation and as a people: was there, or was there not an insurrection in Washington, D.C. on 6 January 2021, as was again reported by NPR on their morning news report today?

    Above here, we have Senators Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Ron Wyden (D-OR), Tina Smith (D-MN), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Mazie Hirono (D-HI), Tim Kaine (D-VA), and Sherrod Brown (D-OH) all telling us that there was a “deadly insurrection” at the U.S. Capitol on January 6.

    But is that true simply because a bunch of Democrats who all hate Donald Trump says it is true?

    Was there a “deadly insurrection” at the U.S. Capitol on January 6 as those Democrats say, or is that a bushel basket full of hog**** they are trying to peddle there?

    To get a better idea, let us go to a Congressional Research Service document on the subject entitled “CRS Legal Sidebar Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress – Federal Criminal Law: January 6, 2021, Unrest at the Capitol” on January 12, 2021, where we are informed as follows:

    On January 6, 2021, a crowd gathered on the U.S. Capitol grounds, breached police barriers, entered the Capitol building, occupied portions of the building for an extended period of time, and clashed with law enforcement, resulting in at least five deaths, dozens of injuries, and damage to federal property.

    Multiple participants in the unrest allegedly carried firearms and used flag poles and other objects as weapons, and explosive devices were discovered on or near the Capitol complex.

    end quotes

    So, unrest?

    HMMMMMM.

    What happened to the “deadly insurrection,” then?

    And as to the Congressional Research Service (CRS), it works exclusively for the United States Congress, providing policy and legal analysis to committees and Members of both the House and Senate, regardless of party affiliation.

    As a legislative branch agency within the Library of Congress, CRS has been a valued and respected resource on Capitol Hill for more than a century.

    CRS is well-known for analysis that is authoritative, confidential, objective and nonpartisan.

    Its highest priority is to ensure that Congress has 24/7 access to the nation’s best thinking.

    end quotes

    So, given that CRS is well-known for analysis that is authoritative, confidential, objective and nonpartisan, can we, the American people who are not Democrats or Marxists who are watching this drama play out presume that the CRS is speaking authoritavely and objectively when they call it “unrest” at the Capitol instead of a “deadly insurrection?”

    Can we assume from that that when Senators Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Ron Wyden (D-OR), Tina Smith (D-MN), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Mazie Hirono (D-HI), Tim Kaine (D-VA), and Sherrod Brown (D-OH) tell us that there was a “deadly insurrection” at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, that they are all simply full of ****?

    Getting back to the legal paper, it goes on as follows:

    Members of Congress and the Vice President, who were in the process of fulfilling their constitutional duty of counting the 2020 presidential election electoral votes, were forced to evacuate in response to the unrest.

    end quotes

    The “unrest?”

    But wait, I thought from what the Democrats and their toothless lap-dogs in the main-stream media have been telling us, that they had to evacuate because of a deadly insurrection, not some “unrest.”

    Somebody here does not appear to be telling us the truth, and I don’t think it is the CRS is the one lying to us through its teeth.

    Getting back to the legal analysis:

    In its wake, observers have speculated about the nature and scope of criminal charges that might be brought against a number of the individuals involved.

    Indeed, the first charges have already been filed in federal and D.C. Superior Court.

    That said, investigations are ongoing and additional charges are expected.

    An array of federal, District, and state criminal statutes could have been violated during the unrest, although identifying every potentially applicable statute would be difficult given the breadth and diversity of the activity and the resultant complexity of the investigations.

    For example, some authorities have signaled civil disorder and explosives statutes, as well as the Anti-Riot Act, which are discussed in a prior Legal Sidebar, could be applicable.

    In addition, another CRS product analyzes the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, a federal cybercrime statute that could be relevant assuming initial reports are correct that some individuals involved in the unrest at the Capitol accessed government computers or email accounts.

    Additional products discuss issues related to domestic terrorism, incitement and threats, and some potentially relevant constitutional limitations under the First Amendment, all of which are beyond the scope of this Sidebar.

    So too are the laws of the District of Columbia, under which numerous charges have already been announced.

    This Sidebar focuses, instead, on three specific categories of federal criminal statutes that may have been violated by some of the participants in the unrest at the Capitol: (1) crimes involving federal property; (2) crimes against persons; and (3) crimes against government authority.

    (Additionally, though not discussed further in this Sidebar, inchoate crimes like attempt or conspiracy to commit the substantive crimes described below or other crimes, as well as accomplice liability, may be relevant).

    Crimes Involving Federal Property

    Unlawful Activities on Capitol Grounds and in Capitol Buildings: 40 U.S.C. § 5104

    40 U.S.C. § 5104, the federal law perhaps most applicable to the unrest at the Capitol on January 6, 2021, and that appears to have been used most often in the charges filed so far, prohibits a variety of conduct and activities on Capitol Grounds or in Capitol Buildings.

    The Capitol Grounds are specifically defined by separate statute to include certain streets, roadways, and other areas surrounding the Capitol itself, and Capitol Buildings are defined to include the U.S. Capitol building and also House and Senate office buildings, among other things.

    A non-comprehensive list of conduct proscribed by Section 5104 includes: occupation of Capitol Grounds roads in a manner that obstructs or hinders their proper use; injury of Capitol Grounds statues, seats, walls, fountains, or other erections or architectural features, or any tree, shrub, plant, or turf; knowingly, with force and violence, entering or remaining on the floor of either House of Congress; willfully and knowingly remaining unauthorized on the floor of either House of Congress or any adjacent cloakroom or lobby; willfully and knowingly entering or remaining in either House’s gallery in violation of rules or authorization for admission; willfully and knowingly entering or remaining in any room in any Capitol Building set aside or designated for use of Congress or the Library of Congress with intent to disrupt the orderly conduct of official business; willfully and knowingly uttering loud, threatening, or abusive language, or engaging in disorderly or disruptive conduct, anywhere on the Capitol Grounds or in Capitol Buildings, with intent to impede, disrupt, or disturb the orderly conduct of Congress; willfully and knowingly obstructing or impeding passage through or within the Capitol Grounds or Buildings; willfully and knowingly engaging in an act of physical violence (defined as an act involving assault, other infliction or threat of infliction of death or bodily harm to an individual, or damage or destruction of real or personal property) on Capitol Grounds or in Capitol Buildings; willfully and knowingly parading, demonstrating, or picketing in any Capitol Buildings; except as authorized by Capitol Police Board regulations, carrying or having readily accessible a firearm, a dangerous weapon (including a dagger or knife with a blade over three inches), an explosive, or an incendiary device, or using or discharging any of the preceding items.

    (A separate statute, 18 U.S.C. § 930, also prohibits, with exceptions, knowing possession of a firearm or other dangerous weapon in a “federal facility,” the definition of which would appear to include the Capitol Buildings because they are “owned or leased by the federal government” and have federal employees regularly present for the purpose of performing official duties).

    As described in news reports, on January 6, 2021, a large number of people forced their way into Capitol buildings and offices, damaging or destroying property, disrupting the conduct of official business, in some cases resorting to physical violence, and in several instances carrying weapons or explosive devices.

    As noted above, multiple charges have already been filed under Section 5104 as a result of some of this activity, often referencing the provisions regarding violent entry and disorderly conduct and, at least in one case, carrying a firearm and ammunition.

    Violations of most of the provisions of Section 5104 are punishable by fines and up to six months in prison.

    The provision regarding firearms, dangerous weapons, explosives, and incendiary devices, however, carries a higher maximum punishment of up to five years in prison.

    end quotes

    HMMMMMM, all over again!

    What happened to the “deadly insurrection?”

    Stay tuned!

    Reply

29. Paul Plante says

    February 5, 2021 at 10:09 pm

    And talk about making it as they go and slinging massive amounts of pure unadulterated BULL**** as they go, a Democrat party specialty honed and developed over more than a century, can the Democrats in the House and Senate skip all due process of law protections for an American citizens including grand jury proceedings and charge and try and convict that American citizen of the very serious crime of insurrection, as they are doing in the case of Trump?

    Because the Democrats hate Trump with a passion, should that serve as enough of a legal basis for them to skip grand jury proceedings and instead, act as judge, jury and executioner themselves?

    For an answer, let’s go back in time to just after the Civil War and the US Supreme Court decision in the landmark decision in EX PARTE MILLIGAN(1866), No. 18, Argued: Decided: December 1, 1866, where WE, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE who are not Democrats and do not want to be were informed by the Court as follows:

    THIS case came before the court upon a certificate of division from the judges of the Circuit Court for Indiana, on a petition for discharge from unlawful imprisonment.

    The case was thus:

    An act of Congress – the Judiciary Act of 1789, section 14 – enacts that the Circuit Courts of the United States ‘Shall have power to issue writs of habeas corpus.”

    “And that either of the justices of the Supreme Court, as well as judges of the District Court, shall have power to grant writs of habeas corpus for the purpose of an inquiry into the cause of commitment.”

    “Provided,’ &c.”

    Another act – that of March 3d, 1863, ‘relating to habeas corpus, and regulating judicial proceedings in certain cases’ – an act passed in the midst of the Rebellion – makes various provisions in regard to the subject of it.

    The first section authorizes the suspension, during the Rebellion, of the writ of habeas corpus, throughout the United States, by the President.

    Two following sections limited the authority in certain respects.

    The second section required that lists of all persons, being citizens of States in which the administration of the laws had continued unimpaired in the Federal courts, who were then held, or might thereafter be held, as prisoners of the United States, under the authority of the President, otherwise than as prisoners of war, should be furnished by the Secretary of State and Secretary of War to the judges of the Circuit and District Courts.

    These lists were to contain the names of all persons, residing within their respective jurisdictions, charged with violation of national law.

    And it was required, in cases where the grand jury in attendance upon any of these courts should terminate its session without proceeding by indictment or otherwise against any prisoner named in the list, that the judge of the court should forth-with make an order that such prisoner, desiring a discharge, should be brought before him or the court to be discharged, on entering into recognizance, if required, to keep the peace and for good behavior, or to appear, as the court might direct, to be further dealt with according to law.

    end quotes

    Focus on that, people, the requirement that even people suspected of being disaffected during the Civil War were to be granted grand jury proceedings.

    But let us not stop there, because that might not apply to Trump, who the Democrats have made a special case, because of their intense, burning, seething hatred for the man, to wit:

    Every officer of the United States having custody of such prisoners was required to obey and execute the judge’s order, under penalty, for refusal or delay, of fine and imprisonment.

    The third section enacts, in case lists of persons other than prisoners of war then held in confinement, or thereafter arrested, should not be furnished within twenty days after the passage of the act, or, in cases of subsequent arrest, within twenty days after the time of arrest, that any citizen, after the termination of a session of the grand jury without indictment or presentment, might, by petition alleging the facts and verified by oath, obtain the judge’s order of discharge in favor of any person so imprisoned, on the terms and conditions prescribed in the second section.

    This act made it the duty of the District Attorney of the United States to attend examinations on petitions for discharge.

    By proclamation, dated the 15th September following the President reciting this statute suspended the privilege of the writ in the cases where, by his authority, military, naval, and civil officers of the United States ‘hold persons in their custody either as prisoners of war, spies, or aiders and abettors of the enemy, . . . or belonging to the land or naval force of the United States, or otherwise amenable to military law, or the rules and articles of war, or the rules or regulations prescribed for the military or naval services, by authority of the President, or for resisting a draft, or for any other offence against the military or naval service.’

    With both these statutes and this proclamation in force, Lamdin P. Milligan, a citizen of the United States, and a resident and citizen of the State of Indiana, was arrested on the 5th day of October, 1864, at his home in the said State, by the order of Brevet Major-General Hovey, military commandant of the District of Indiana, and by the same authority confined in a military prison, at or near Indianapolis, the capital of the State.

    On the 21st day of the same month, he was placed on trial before a ‘military commission,’ convened at Indianapolis, by order of the said General, upon the following charges; preferred by Major Burnett, Judge Advocate of the Northwestern Military Department, namely:

    1. ‘Conspiracy against the Government of the United States;’

    2. ‘Affording aid and comfort to rebels against the authority of the United States;’

    3. ‘Inciting insurrection;’

    4. ‘Disloyal practices;’ and

    5. ‘Violation of the laws of war.’

    end quotes

    So, yes, people, conspiracy against the Government of the United States; affording aid and comfort to rebels against the authority of the United States; inciting insurrection; and disloyal practices!

    Sounds an awful lot like what the Democrats have charged Trump with, when you get right down to it, doesn’t it?

    Getting back to that case, it continues as follows:

    Under each of these charges there were various specifications.

    The substance of them was, joining and aiding, at different times, between October, 1863, and August, 1864, a secret society known as the Order of American Knights or Sons of Liberty, for the purpose of overthrowing the Government and duly constituted authorities of the United States; holding communication with the enemy; conspiring to seize munitions of war stored in the arsenals; to liberate prisoners of war, &c.; resisting the draft, &c.; . . . ‘at a period of war and armed rebellion against the authority of the United States, at or near Indianapolis, [and various other places specified] in Indiana, a State within the military lines of the army of the United States, and the theatre of military operations, and which had been and was constantly threatened to be invaded by the enemy.’

    end quotes

    And it needs to be said here that those “enemies” referred to were DEMOCRATS.

    Getting back to the case, it continues thusly:

    These were amplified and stated with various circumstances.

    An objection by him to the authority of the commission to try him being overruled, Milligan was found guilty on all the charges, and sentenced to suffer death by hanging; and this sentence, having been approved, he was ordered to be executed on Friday, the 19th of May, 1865.

    end quotes

    And there is what the Democrats today hope to be able to do with Trump – give him a quick KANGAROO COURT style proceeding where according to Democrat CONSTITUTIONAL SCHOLAR Jamie Raskin, a clown, Trump’s silence can be used against him as a sign of guilt, then convict him and hang him out to dry.

    Getting back to the case:

    On the 10th of that same May, 1865, Milligan filed his petition in the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Indiana, by which, or by the documents appended to which as exhibits, the above facts appeared.

    These exhibits consisted of the order for the commission; the charges and specifications; the findings and sentence of the court, with a statement of the fact that the sentence was approved by the President of the United States, who directed that it should ‘be carried into execution without delay;’ all ‘by order of the Secretary of War.’

    The petition set forth the additional fact, that while the petitioner was held and detained, as already mentioned, in military custody (and more than twenty days after his arrest), a grand jury of the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Indiana was convened at Indianapolis, his said place of confinement, and duly empanelled, charged, and sworn for said district, held its sittings, and finally adjourned without having found any bill of indictment, or made any presentment whatever against him.

    That at no time had he been in the military service of the United States, or in any way connected with the land or naval force, or the militia in actual service; nor within the limits of any State whose citizens were engaged in rebellion against the United States, at any time during the war; but during all the time aforesaid, and for twenty years last past, he had been an inhabitant, resident, and citizen of Indiana.

    And so, that it had been ‘wholly out of his power to have acquired belligerent rights, or to have placed himself in such relation to the government as to have enabled him to violate the laws of war.’

    end quotes

    And again, people, there we are, back to that thorny issue of the grand jury proceedings for American citizens charged by the government with serious crimes such as insurrection, which takes us back to the question of whether the Senate can hold someone who is a citizen in custody and without a grand jury indictment, try them as if they were another form of military tribunal in the United States of America.

    Because Trump is indeed a special case, a man so reviled by the Democrats they would do all in their power to destroy him, should that be enough to strip him of the Constitutional protections that Milligan was entitled to?

    Getting back to the case:

    The CHIEF JUSTICE delivered the following opinion.

    The crimes with which Milligan was charged were of the gravest character, and the petition and exhibits in the record, which must here be taken as true, admit his guilt.

    But whatever his desert of punishment may be, it is more important to the country and to every citizen that he should not be punished under an illegal sentence, sanctioned by this court of last resort, than that he should be punished at all.

    The laws which protect the liberties of the whole people must not be violated or set aside in order to inflict, even upon the guilty, unauthorized though merited justice.

    end quotes

    So, people, do the Democrats have the authority, because they hold power, to strip Trump of his Constitutional rights because of their hatred of him?

    An existential question for our times.

    Reply

    • Stuart Bell says

      February 7, 2021 at 3:24 pm

      Funk the elected democrats and each one of you that voted for them. I hope each of you fail miserably.

      Reply

30. Paul Plante says

    February 7, 2021 at 8:20 pm

    And while we all continue to ponder the existential question of do the Democrats have the authority, because they hold power, to strip Trump of his Constitutional rights because of their hatred of him, OH MY GOD, but have you all heard what has happened to AOC?

    First of all, she was almost very nearly assassinated but was saved, as we can clearly see in this exclusive video of the actual assassin, a Ninja from the looks of things, climbing the wall to actually get to her https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_uKKY-_VpY by the fact that when he was almost very nearly there, OH ******* WHOOPS, down went Fraser, and AOC was thus saved, some say by the hand of an angel which they say can be seen in the video, although I haven’t found it yet, which doesn’t mean an angel really did not knock the Ninja assassin off the wall to save AOC, who incidentally took the occasion to let it be known that in addition to almost very nearly being assassinated, and Ted Cruz attempting to murder her, she also is a survivor of a sexual assault, whether by Ted Cruz, or some other Republican, although it is just as likely that it was by some DEMOCRAT like Harvey Weinstein who was heavily into that kind of stuff, back when he used to pal around with his good friend Hillary Clinton out in the Hamptons, where Hill and Harv could let their hair down and Harv could regale Hill with tales of his latest conquests, because what happens in the Hamptons stays in the Hamptons where people like Hill and Harv are concerned.

    As to the multiple victimhood of this poor woman, which in her case might be setting a record for checking the boxes on all the different ways there are to be a victim in America today, her story, which really is the only story that counts for anything in America today, because she is AOL, and nobody else can be, because I believe she has that copyright-protected, is very poignantly (evoking a keen sense of sadness or regret) told by a dude named Jeet Heer, who is a national affairs correspondent at The Nation and the author of In Love with Art: Francoise Mouly’s Adventures in Comics with Art Spiegelman (2013) and Sweet Lechery: Reviews, Essays and Profiles (2014), so we can see we are dealing with a true intellectual here as opposed to the faux intellectuals one is so apt to come across in the New York Times or Washington Post, or on the Chris Cuomo Show on the Cuomo News Network (CNN).

    As to The Nation, people, it is the oldest continuously published weekly magazine in the United States, having been around a bit before the Cape Charles Mirror, with The Nation covering progressive political and cultural news, opinion, and analysis, so that of course it would be they who are putting AOL up for sainthood, as we see in the story entitled “AOC’s Stirring Call to Reject Insurrection Amnesia” by Jeet Heer on February 3, 2021, and talk about some very catchy headline writing, which is an art, we are seeing a high example of the art being put to use as a potent propaganda tool for AOC, to wit:

    On Monday night, New York Democratic Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez spoke on a live video on her Instagram page about her fears during the January 6 riot in Congress.

    In gripping detail, Ocasio-Cortez described how she hid in the bathroom as she heard banging on the door to her office.

    end quotes

    And everybody stop right there a moment to focus in on where AOC said she was that day, to wit: hiding in the bathroom of HER OFFICE, which would be a sensible place to be hiding if one were as terrified and scared as she was, because when you are really afraid like AOC had to have been that terrible day when Donald Trump mounted an insurrection against himself and incited a mob to depose him in a slick coup to install Joe Biden as dictator of America, it could, ah, well, you know, no need to go into the details, beyond knowing that when the howling mob deposing Trump in the coup was outside the locked door of her bathroom, she was safely sealed up inside, which takes us back to the chilling, but very poignant story of the vulnerability of AOC, which in her case is a strength she can exploit politically, because of her overwhelming victimhood compared to everybody else on the planet who aren’t as much of a victim as is she, this in a nation that is so in love with real victims as opposed to faux victims, to wit:

    “I start to hear these yells of ‘Where is she, where is she?’ and I just thought to myself, they got inside,” Ocasio-Cortez recalled.

    “This was the moment where I thought everything was over.”

    She remembers thinking she was “going to die.”

    end quotes

    So, okay, people, and here, let me say, I personally feel her pain, because there there is so much to feel, which takes us back to the story for this:

    Ocasio-Cortez’s willingness to speak of her vulnerability during January 6, when she spent hours barricaded in the office of colleague Katie Porter, was a powerful reminder of why the Capitol riot still demands redress.

    end quotes

    So, how the **** did that happen?

    With a howling mob outside her bathroom door in her office where she was huddled up into a fetal ball and quaking in terror, which I can certainly understand and empathize with, how did she mange to get from there, the locked bathroom in her office, to the office of colleague Katie Porter, where AOC spent hours barricaded?

    Do they have adjoining bathrooms?

    Or did AOC do some kind of Magyver trick and disguise herself with a mop head so she could sneak out of her bathroom and past the howling mob looking for her to get to the office of colleague Katie Porter?

    Talk about a real conundrum, alright, how’s that for a doozy of one!

    Did AOC actually sprout the wings of angel, and over the mob she did fly?

    STAY TUNED FOR MORE OF THE ADVENTURES OF AOC IN WASHINGTON PLAYING 24/7/365 ON INSTAGRAM IN FULL SURROUND SOUND AND TECHNICOLOR!

    Reply

31. Paul Plante says

    February 8, 2021 at 10:15 pm

    And before we can go to Guardian columnist Moira Donegan making the compelling point that the linkage AOC drew between her sexual assault and the trauma of being trapped in her bathroom on 6 January 2021 with Ted Cruz, who was attempting to murder her, while a Ninja assassin was scaling the Capitol wall to almost very nearly assassinate her before DIVINE INTERVENTION interceded out of love and devotion to AOC, so that the wing of an angel toppled the Ninja from the wall to save AOC, underscored the feminist argument the congresswoman was making about the imperative of listening to the voice of the vulnerable, telling us that “(I)n admitting to fear, in admitting to vulnerability, in admitting to hiding for her life and to having been a survivor of assault, AOC demonstrated that she was unwilling to concede that female vulnerability is incompatible with the dignity of power,” and “(R)efusing to separate those two was a demonstration of her feminist vision, a gesture at what an authentic kind of power might look like,” which is a topic I think we all really should be talking about today, is female vulnerability really incompatible with the dignity of power, or isn’t it, as opposed to some ignorant political BULL**** from the Democrats, since we have ignorant political BULL**** from the Democrats to deal with, let’s get to it by going to an article in the HIGHLY INTELLECTUAL, PROGRESSIVE publication THE NATION entitled “Representative Jamie Raskin Is Going to Prosecute the Hell Out of Donald Trump – The lead impeachment manager’s letter demanding that Trump testify is a masterstroke that signals Raskin will pull no punches” by John Nichols on 5 FEBRUARY 2021, where we have this MASSIVE SPEW OF POISONOUS DEMOCRAT BULL**** to deal with, to wit:

    Donald Trump has spent a lifetime avoiding accountability for his shady business dealings, financial misdeeds, and abuses of power.

    But Representative Jamie Raskin is not about to let the defeated former president get away with the high crime of provoking the deadly January 6 attack on the US Capitol.

    Raskin, the former constitutional law professor whom House Speaker Nancy Pelosi wisely tapped as the lead manager of Trump’s second impeachment tribunal, raised the stakes Thursday, when he asked Trump to testify before or during the trial that is set to begin next week.

    end quotes

    This is such ******* STUPID DRIVEL, people, isn’t it?

    Jamie Raskin, a CLOWN, raised the stakes Thursday when he asked Trump to testify before or during the trial that is set to begin next week?

    Raised what stakes?

    So he asked Trump to testify?

    So what?

    Bit let’s go back to the article to see if maybe the writer of the stupid article, John Nichols, who is a national affairs correspondent for The Nation and the author of the new book “The Fight for the Soul of the Democratic Party: The Enduring Legacy of Henry Wallace’s Anti-Fascist, Anti-Racist Politics” (Verso) as well as being the author of the exciting yet droll and melodramatic “Horsemen of the Trumpocalypse: A Field Guide to the Most Dangerous People in America,” from Nation Books, and co-author, with Robert W. McChesney, of “People Get Ready: The Fight Against a Jobless Economy and a Citizenless Democracy,” can somehow redeem himself here so we are not left with the impression he is an idiot, to wit:

    And when he (Raskin) pointedly signaled that refusal to testify would likely be used against the defendant.

    end quotes

    HUH?

    Refusal to testify would be used against him?

    What the **** country is this DANGEROUS SHAM taking place?

    Russia?

    China?

    Zimbabwe?

    Kenya?

    Some other South American or African ****HOLE where your failure to testify is taken as a sign of guilt?

    Because it sure should not be taking place here, where if a defendant chooses not to testify, this fact cannot be held against him or her in court.

    In America, the prosecutor can’t force an accused to testify and the right to remain silent exists in part because the accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty, and can’t be forced to hurt his case by testifying against himself.

    Except Trump is a SPECIAL CASE, because of the seething hastred the Democrats have for him, and Jamie Raskin is not an American bound by any of our laws or rules or customs; to the contrary, he is a DEMOCRAT who hates our laws and rules along with Trump, and so, he is totally free to do as he wants, which is what dictators do.

    As to the DEMOCRAT Jamie Raskin telling WE, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE that because the DEMOCRATS hold Washington, D.C. with superior military force and a CORDON OF STEEL to protect the DEMOCRATS from the American people, he can now turn our laws and Constitution on its ear by holding Trump guilty until Trump can prove himself innocent, Jamie Raskin is nothing more than a WINDBAG A-HOLE, as we clearly can see from the United States Supreme Court decision in Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609 (1965), No. 202, Argued March 9, 1965, Decided April 28, 1965 where we have as follows:

    Comment to the jury by a prosecutor in a state criminal trial upon a defendant’s failure to testify as to the matters which he can reasonably be expected to deny or explain because of facts within his knowledge or by the court that the defendant’s silence under those circumstances evidences guilt violates the Self-Incrimination Clause of the Fifth Amendment of the Federal Constitution, as made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth, Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U. S. 1. 380 U. S. 610-615.

    60 Cal. 2d 182, 383 P.2d 432, reversed.

    end quotes

    That’s the way things are supposed to be done in America, but as Jamie Raskin and THE NATION are making patently clear, this is NOT America now that the Democrats have taken charge and are going to Africanize the United States of America so that the rulers can simply say who is guilty and get the matter over with without wasting time on a trial.

    Pronounce them guilty and then hang them, says our DEMOCRAT Jamie Raskin, which takes us to State v. Wentworth, 118 N.H. 832, 395 A.2d 858 (1978), where the Supreme Court of New Hampshire prescribed a model charge, which is set out below, for use by trial judges in their instructions to the jury on the issue of reasonable doubt, which charge was upheld by the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in Tsoumas v. State of New Hampshire, 611 F.2d 412 (1980), and in State v. Aubert, 120 N.H. 634, 421 A.2d 124 (1980), the New Hampshire Supreme Court, in reversing a conviction on the basis of an improper reasonable doubt charge, indicated that trial judges should not depart from the model charge set forth in State v. Wentworth, to wit:

    BURDEN OF PROOF,

    PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE, REASONABLE DOUBT

    Under our constitutions, all defendants in criminal cases are presumed to be innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

    The burden of proving guilt is entirely on the State.

    The defendant does not have to prove his innocence.

    The defendant enters this courtroom as an innocent person, and you must consider him to be an innocent person until the State convinces you beyond a reasonable doubt that he is guilty of every element of the alleged offense.

    If, after all the evidence and arguments, you have a reasonable doubt as to defendant’s having committed any one or more of the elements of the offense, then you must find him not guilty.

    A “reasonable doubt” is just what the words would ordinarily imply.

    The use of the word “reasonable” means simply that the doubt must be reasonable rather than unreasonable; it must be a doubt based on reason.

    It is not a frivolous or fanciful doubt, nor is it one that can easily be explained away.

    Rather, it is such a doubt based upon reason as remains after consideration of all the evidence that the State has offered against it.

    The test you must use is this: If you have a reasonable doubt as to whether the State has proved any one or more of the elements of the crime charged, you must find the defendant not guilty.

    However, if you find that the State has proved all of the elements of the offense charged beyond a reasonable doubt, you should find the defendant guilty.

    end quotes

    EXCEPT if your name is Donald Trump and EXCEPT if you are hated by the DEMOCRATS, and EXCEPT if the prosecutor is Jamie Raskin, then that model charge does not apply and the “state” need not prove its case, which it can’t do in this case because there is NO EVIDENCE of an insurrection having taken place, and the burden is on Donald Trump to present evidence that will prove him innocent.

    Getting back to that story:

    After the Maryland Democrat and his colleagues outlined the charges against the former president, which were endorsed by a bipartisan majority in the House, Trump’s lawyers delivered a legal brief that denied irrefutable facts about their client’s incitement of insurrection.

    Raskin did not blink.

    end quotes

    And of course Raskin did not blink!

    He lacks the intelligence to do so which again takes us back to the article as follows:

    As a constitutional scholar and a savvy legislative strategist, Raskin understands that the impeachment managers cannot let Trump get away with his old tricks.

    So the lead impeachment manager has flipped the script.

    Instead of letting the former president game the trial, by making false claims and seeking to impugn the process, Raskin has called Trump’s bluff.

    Harvard Law professor Laurence Tribe, who describes Raskin as “the best constitutional lawyer in all of Congress,” recognized the genius in this move immediately.

    “If Mr. Trump declines the chance to clear his name by showing up and explaining under oath why his conduct on January 6 didn’t make him responsible for the lethal insurrection that day, it’ll be on him,” observed Tribe, shortly after the representative sent his letter.

    “He can’t have it both ways.”

    end quotes

    What incredible BULL****, people.

    THERE WAS NO LETHAL INSURRECTION ON 6 JANUARY 2021!

    Larry Tribe is talking out of his *** there, while demonstrating how ignorant he is as well as Raskin when it comes to American Constitutional law, which takes us back to THE NATION, as follows:

    “The President will not testify in an unconstitutional proceeding,” Trump senior adviser Jason Miller told Fox News.

    But, as Tribe noted, “This is a transparent copout.”

    “His cowardice is obvious.”

    end quotes

    And Larry, your lack of brains is also obvious, but we already knew that so let’s go back to THE NATION, to wit:

    But it was clear that Raskin had outmaneuvered the former president.

    By requesting that Trump testify under oath, and by signaling that a refusal to testify could be used against him, the representative was seizing control of the narrative.

    end quotes

    Yes, in typical DEMOCRAT fashion, Jamie Raskin was seizing control of the narrative by twisting and distorting and perverting and making a mockery of the narrative in order to justify African-style summary justice here where a defendant is guilty, period, or they wouldn’t have been charged in the first place, which puts us all on a very dangerous footing here, because once the DEMOCRATS can pull this “GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT” BULL**** on one American citizen, they can pull it on all of us whenever they choose, and as they are demonstrating here, they will choose to do this often for anyone who dares to defy their FASCIST RULE, which again takes us back to that spew of DEMOCRAT horse**** in THE NATION, to wit:

    That’s vital in any standoff with Trump, who in the past has used his social media platforms and bully pulpit to run circles around his accusers.

    Raskin played his hand brilliantly Thursday.

    First, the key member of the House Judiciary Committee showcased his confidence in the case the impeachment managers will put against Trump.

    Second, he made it clear that he and his team are prepared to make this trial a high-stakes clash that will engage every American — and that will put Republican senators on the spot.

    Raskin’s understanding of the impeachment process, which he has studied for decades as an academic and as a legislator, is his strength in this regard.

    He knows that the trial, while it has many of the trappings of a courtroom drama, is, in reality, a political battle.

    Impeachment is the tool by which the legislative branch of the federal government checks and balances the executive branch.

    But the lofty threshold for conviction in an impeachment trial — 67 of 100 Senate votes — means that this checking and balancing can occur only when partisans are forced to hold one of their own to account.

    Most Senate Republicans have indicated that they are unwilling to make their oath to defend the US Constitution a higher priority than their loyalty to the party’s former president.

    Last week, 45 of them, including minority leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) voted for a resolution by Kentucky Republican Rand Paul that alleged that the impeachment of a former president was unconstitutional.

    Paul’s argument was absurd — the Constitution does not, in any sense, bar accountability for ex-presidents.

    But the vote provided a measure of the Republican resistance to holding Trump to account.

    A cautious and predictable approach is unlikely to break loose the 17 Republican votes that are needed to convict Trump in the Senate.

    The House impeachment managers have to up the ante.

    Calling on Trump to testify does that.

    And it is a safe bet that Raskin and his colleagues will continue to push the envelope.

    Good.

    Confidently challenging Trump puts this trial in perspective not just for members of the Senate but for all Americans.

    The senators will serve as the jurors but, because this is a political trial, the people can influence the deliberations of those senators.

    The more clarity that Raskin and his colleagues bring to the process — either by questioning Trump or by pointing out the adverse inferences that extend from a refusal to testify — the better.

    If Americans are sufficiently appalled by what they see and hear next week, and if they communicate their outrage to reluctant Republican senators, accountability becomes a possibility.

    Even for Donald John Trump.

    Reply

32. Paul Plante says

    February 9, 2021 at 12:01 pm

    And since today is the big day in the on-going production of “THEATER OF **** SO STUPID AND BIZARRE YOU WOULD THINK IT WAS PURE INSANITY,” which it truly is, with the opening of the second impeachment trial of Trump, we need to go to a February 2, 2021 from the idiotic and highly dangerous-as-a-copperhead buffoon Congressman Jamie Raskin press release entitled “Impeachment Managers File Trial Brief, Explain Senate’s Obligation to Hear Case Against Donald Trump,” where we find the following ridiculous HORSE**** as follows:

    The brief lays out the case for the conviction of former President Donald J. Trump for “incitement of insurrection against the Republic he swore to protect.”

    end quotes

    Except there was NO insurrection against the Republic, and that is the first time I ever remember hearing a DEMOCRAT refer to our nation as what it is supposed to be, a REPUBLIC, instead of what they always call it – “OUR precious democracy” https://www.youtube.com/watch/Iz-8CSa9xj8 .

    And then we come to this rank bull**** from DANGEROUSLY OUT-OF-CONTROL DEMOCRAT Jamie Rasjin, to wit:

    “Since the dawn of the Republic, no enemy — foreign or domestic — had ever obstructed Congress’s counting of the votes.”

    end quotes

    Yeah, right Jamie, you ******* idiotic moron!

    As we who are real Americans, not DEMOCRATS learned back in seventh grde or so, maybe earlier, in fact, since it is very basic American history, or was until it got thrown out by AUTOCRAT Joe Biden on his first day in office in favor of the history of Black slaves in this country who Joe would have us believe really are responsible for everything we have in America todasy because white people never got off their asses or lifted a hand to make America what it is today, while the Civil War CAUSED BY THE DOMESTIC ENEMIES OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, the DEMOCRATS, was still raging, no electoral votes were counted from any of the eleven southern states that had joined the Confederate States of America.

    And then we come to this steaming pile of DEMOCRAT horse****:

    “No President had ever refused to accept an election result or defied the lawful processes for resolving electoral disputes.”

    end quotes

    Oh, really, Jamie?

    How about back in 1876 when the DEMOCRATS were screeching at the top of their little lungs, which is so very “DEMOCRAT” of them, “TILDEN OR BLOOD” https://elections.harpweek.com/09Ver2Controversy/Cartoon-medium.asp?UniqueID=11&Year=1876 .

    Some more grade school history Jamie quite obviously missed out on, which is why he is such a ******* moron today, and yes, people, there is absolutely nothing whatsoever in our Constitution that prohibits a ******* moron like Jamie Raskin from serving as a representative for people in a congressional district who themselves would rather be represented by a ******* moron, as opposed to someone rational, intelligent and able to think and use reason, because in America, where 3even the insane can vote, the will of the people prevails, which takes us to this final dose of DEMOCRAT horse**** from out the mouth of DEMOCRAT Jamie Raskin , to wit:

    “To reaffirm our core constitutional principles — and to deter future Presidents from attempting to subvert our Nation’s elections — the Senate should convict President Trump and disqualify him from holding or enjoying ‘any Office or honor, Trust, or Profit under the United States.’”

    “That outcome is not only supported by the facts and the law; it is also the right thing to do.”

    “President Trump has demonstrated beyond doubt that he will resort to any method to maintain or reassert his grip on power.”

    “A President who violently attacks the democratic process has no right to participate in it.”

    “Only after President Trump is held to account for his actions can the Nation move forward with unity of purpose and commitment to the Constitution.”

    “And only then will future Presidents know that Congress stands vigilant in its defense of our democracy.”

    “Failure to convict would embolden future leaders to attempt to retain power by any and all means — and would suggest that there is no line a President cannot cross.”

    “The Senate should make clear to the American people that it stands ready to protect them against a President who provokes violence to subvert our democracy.”

    end quotes

    Except Trump is gone, isn’t he?

    Didn’t I see Trump peacefully leave the white house on 20 January 2021 when his term of office ended?

    For a president who according to the ******* moron Jamie Raskin, has demonstrated beyond doubt that he will resort to any method to maintain or reassert his grip on power, the dude went out pretty peacefully didn’t he?

    I thought so, anyway, but hey, it’s winter, it’s cold, there’s snow on the ground and more coming down right now so let the show begin, Jamie!

    The entertainment as you make a real *** out of yourself on national TV will be appreciated!

    Reply

33. Paul Plante says

    February 9, 2021 at 9:50 pm

    And while we are on the subject of real ****HOLE nations where somebody has to prove their innocence and their failure to testify can be used as a sign of guilt against them, as this OUT-OF-CONTROL, MORONIC DEMOCRAT Jamie Raskin is proposing being the standard in the Trump impeachment trial before a bunch of DEMOCRATS in the U.S. Senate with a seething hatred of Trump, where Trump’s failure to testify would be taken as a sign that he was guilty, which is droll given the DEMOCRATS have already proclaimed him guilty with no possible way to prove he was innocent, according to the law in Kenya, EVERYONE charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.

    So Trump would be getting a far more fair trial in Kenya than the DEMOCRATS are going to give him in the corrupt ****HOLE of Washington, D.C.

    As to Zimbabwe, in terms of Section 18 (3) of the Zimbabwean Constitution, every accused person has the right to a fair trial, which includes the right to be presumed innocent until “legally” proven guilty.

    So Trump would have a far better chance of a fair trial in Zimbabwe, as well, than Washington, D.C.

    And what about Russia?

    Would Trump have a better chance at a fair trial in Russia than in Washington, D.C.?

    Since Article 49 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation guarantees the presumption of innocent so that EVERYONE accused of committing a crime is considered innocent until his guilt is proved according to the rules fixed by the federal law and confirmed by the sentence of a court which has come into legal force, so the answer is in the affirmative – Trump’s chances of getting a fair trial in Russia would be far better than what he will get in Washington, D.C. with the hate-filled DEMOCRATS in charge.

    And how about a dictatorship like Egypt?

    Would Trump stand a better chance at a fair trial in Egypt rather than Washington, D.C.?

    Given that Egypt’s constitution stipulates that all those accused of a criminal offense are “presumed innocent until proven guilty in a fair legal trial in which the right to defend oneself is guaranteed,” the answer again would be in the affirmative.

    And how about Somalia?

    According to their Practice Relating to Rule 100. Fair Trial, (a) The accused shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to the … in Islam states: “A defendant is innocent until his guilt is proven in a fair trial.” … II represent customary IHL rules and therefore apply to the situation in Somalia.

    So even in Somalia, Trump would stand a far better chance at a fair trial than the DEMOCRATS intend to give him in Washington, D.C.

    So, are we the only nation on earth that presumes somebody is guilty, so they have to prove their innocence?

    Not really.

    We’re joined there, not surprisingly, by North Korea and Myanmar, countries whose legislative system, like the DEMOCRATS in this country, believe that the suspects are guilty until and unless they get any evidence against it.

    So well done, DEMOCRATS!

    Overnight, you have made us the equal of some of the worst ****HOLE nations on the face of the earth!

    Reply

34. Paul Plante says

    February 10, 2021 at 11:00 pm

    And before we go back to the latest installment of that zany DEMOCRAT PARTY production “THEATER OF **** SO STUPID AND BIZARRE YOU WOULD THINK IT WAS PURE INSANITY” starring that goofy BOZO Jamie Raskin, described by Harvard Law professor Larry Tribe, whose brain seems to be turning a little mushy, as “the best constitutional lawyer in all of Congress,” which doesn’t say very much about the caliber of constitutional lawyers in all of Congress, if Jamie Raskin is put up as “best in breed,” the clown who all of America loves almost as much as they love AOC and Hillary, for some necessary background, let’s first go back to the article in THE NATION entitled “Representative Jamie Raskin Is Going to Prosecute the Hell Out of Donald Trump – The lead impeachment manager’s letter demanding that Trump testify is a masterstroke that signals Raskin will pull no punches” by John Nichols on 5 February 2021, where we have as follows:

    Raskin played his hand brilliantly Thursday.

    First, the key member of the House Judiciary Committee showcased his confidence in the case the impeachment managers will put against Trump.

    Second, he made it clear that he and his team are prepared to make this trial a high-stakes clash that will engage every American — and that will put Republican senators on the spot.

    Raskin’s understanding of the impeachment process, which he has studied for decades as an academic and as a legislator, is his strength in this regard.

    He knows that the trial, while it has many of the trappings of a courtroom drama, is, in reality, a political battle.

    end quotes

    What Jamie Raskin knows as a hack Democrat politician is that if he wants to score some big bucks fundraising off of being the one who finally took down Trump, the second DEMOCRAT GREAT WHITE HOPE to do the deed after Adam Schiff, the first DEMOCRAT GREAT WHITE HOPE totally botched the job last year, although Adam did quite well in fundraising notwithstanding, he has to put on a SHOW, a SPECTACLE, because that is what the jeering DEMOCRAT MOB that is howling for Trump’s head on a platter so they can stick it on a spike up on the capitol wall as a warning to anyone else who might be so foolish as to challenge DEMOCRAT ONE-PARTY RULE.

    And that gives us our segue to the “Rep. Jamie Raskin Opening Statement Transcript: Trump’s Second Impeachment Trial” on February 9, 2021, the first day of Trump’s second impeachment trial, where we have as follows:

    Rep Jamie Raskin: (00:02) Thank you very much, Mr. President, distinguished members of the Senate.

    Good afternoon.

    My name is Jamie Raskin.

    It’s my honor to represent people of Maryland’s 8th congressional district in the House, and also to serve as the lead House manager.

    Because I’ve been a professor of constitutional law for three decades, I know there are a lot of people who are dreading endless lectures about the Federalist Papers here.

    Please breathe easy.

    Okay?

    I remember well, W. H. Auden’s line that a professor is someone who speaks while other people are sleeping.

    end quotes

    YAWN!

    Oh, sorry!

    Now, here is a very important point – TO UNDERSTAND THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, YOU DO NOT NEED TO BE A PROFESSOR OF CONSTITUTIONAL LAW like Jamie Raskin.

    The United States Constitution was not written for lawyers like Jamie Raskin who can take its plain meaning and twist and pervert and distort it for partisan political reasons – the Constitution was written for common people and while Jamie has been a professor of it for thirty years, I myself have been conducting my own study since 1970, which is fifty-one years.

    And there is a very simple reason our Jamie is staying as far away from the Federalist Papers as he can, because the Federalist Papers DO NOT support his case of impeachment against Trump, who is being impeached based on the following resolution:

    Resolution impeaching Donald John Trump, President of the United States, for high crimes and misdemeanors.

    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.’

    end quotes

    As serious problem for Jamie Raskin is with respect to this so-called insurrection, and let me say that in no way, shape or manner do I condone the stupid, mindless, senseless violence that took place in Washington. D.C. on 6 January 2021, but that stupidity was not an insurrection – it was exactly what it is being called by law enforcement – a riot.

    To date, as far as I can discern, the only person in the United States of America charged with insurrection is Donald Trump, himself, who happened to be the chief executive.

    So how can there be an insurrection with only one person involved?

    And while we wait for Jamie to unravel that mystery, let’s go back to the transcript where we have:

    Rep Jamie Raskin: (03:47) The transition of power is always the most dangerous moment for democracies.

    Every historian will tell you that.

    We just saw it in the most astonishing way.

    We lived through it.

    And you know what?

    The framers of our Constitution knew it.

    That’s why they created a Constitution with an oath written into it that binds the President from his very first day in office until his very last day in office, and every day in between.

    Under that Constitution and under that oath, the President of the United States is been in to commit high crimes and misdemeanors against the people at any point that he’s an office.

    Indeed, that’s one specific reason the impeachment, conviction, and disqualification powers exists, to protect us against presidents who try to overrun the power of the people in their elections and replace the rule of law with the rule of mobs.

    end quotes

    Ah, yes, people, RULE OF MOBS, and haven’t we been seeing an awful lot of that as BLACK LIVES MATTER mobs burn down America, and ANTI-FA mobs attack public buildings including federal courthouses.

    In the history of the DEMOCRAT party, how many incidents of mob violence are there related to presidential elections or politics?

    Certainly there was the 1876 election between Republican nominee Rutherford B. Hayes and Democrat Samuel J. Tilden, where the DEMOCRATS, screeching “TILDEN OR BLLOOD,” threatened to march on Washington in armed gangs.

    So when Jamie Raskin talks of “rule of mobs,” he is talking about his own party.

    And then Jamie takes us back to the classroom to give us a lecture on the Constitution itself, to wit:

    Let’s start with the text of the Constitution, which in article one, section two gives the House the sole power of impeachment when the President commits high crimes and misdemeanors.

    end quotes

    Seriously, people, how many of you out there did not already know that?

    Getting back to Jamie:

    There can be no doubt that this is a valid and legitimate impeachment, and there can be no doubt that the Senate has the power to try this impeachment.

    We know this because article one, section three gives the Senate the sole power to try all impeachments.

    The Senate has the power, the sole power, to try all impeachments.

    end quotes

    And there, people, we just have had several thousand dollars worth of college education min just those few words – the House of Representatives can indeed bring impeachment charges against an American president, and the Senate can try those charges – none of that is disputed, except by Trump’s pack of ******* idiot lawyers (what a bunch of losers they are).

    What is at issue is whether the House of Representatives can prefer FALSE CHARGES against an American president, i.e. charging him with inciting an insurrection when there is om evidence of an insurrection having occurred, and whether the Senate can then convict based on false charges.

    Stay tuned for the show has only just begun.

    Reply

35. Paul Plante says

    February 11, 2021 at 11:21 am

    And I want to take a moment here in this very important subject to ALL American citizens to make it incandescently clear that when I do speak in here, it is as an American citizen; not a dues-paying member of the faction or dangerous mob known as “DEMOCRATS,” although there is hardly anything democratic about that crowd, and not a dues-paying member of the other faction calling itself the Republicans, nor do I belong to or endorse ANY group.

    As an American citizen, I abide by the words in OUR Constitution as they are actually written, not as how some vicious Democrat like Jamie Raskin ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tammany_Hall#/media/File:Nast-Tammany_crop.jpg )wishes to twist them, distort them, pervert them, or simply leave them out for partisan political purposes, in this case, the complete and total destruction of an American citizen they simply cannot stand, AND THERE IS THE VERY SLIPPERY SLOPE this pack of Democrats on the hunt for Trump (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tammany_Hall#/media/File:Tammany_Tiger_Hunted_1893.jpg ) now have us on, as they take upon themselves the combined role of judge, jury and executioner here over the life of an American citizen, as detested and reviled as Trump is, something he brought on himself, it is admitted, because he is about as stupid a man as there possibly could be, tempting the Democrats to come after him, which they most assuredly would do and did, and then giving them the slightest excuse to do so, which brings us to this impeachment trial based on an insurrection that is only an insurrection because the Democrat faction said it was.

    That’s it.

    But an insurrection against what?

    And what is an insurrection in the first place, besides a word freely bandied about these day by the Democrats and their sycophants in the main-stream media?

    According to its definition, an insurrection is a violent uprising against an authority or government; or an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government; or the act or an instance of revolting esp. violently against civil or political authority or against an established government, with the U.S. Code, supposedly OUR law, stating “the crime of inciting or engaging in such revolt [whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or against the authority of the United States…shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years.”

    But think very carefully about this, people, because it is THE CRITICAL QUESTION here – was what was going on in the Capitol on 6 January 2021 a legitimate exercise of governmental authority?

    Or was it what it really was- a blatant attempt to totally eviscerate OUR Constitutional safeguards that are supposed to protect WE, THE AMERICAN people, from tampering in OUR presidential elections by the Democrats, as clearly was the case here.

    We are told that they were there to count electoral college votes.

    And that process, they say, was disrupted.

    And somehow, out of that, they get an insurrection.

    But can there be such a thing as an insurrection against an ILLEGITIMATE EXERCISE of governmental authority by the CONGRESSIONAL DEMOCRATS?

    And yes, people, if we go back to OUR history, not the totally distorted and twisted and perverted version of history Joe Biden signed into law with an executive order on 20 January 2021, back to FEDERALIST No. 68 titled “The Mode of Electing the President” from the New York Packet to the People of the State of New York by Alexander Hamilton on Friday, March 14, 1788, we find what the LEGITIMATE EXERCISE of governmental authority should have looked like on that day, to wit:

    It was desirable that the sense of the people should operate in the choice of the person to whom so important a trust was to be confided.

    This end will be answered by committing the right of making it, not to any preestablished body, but to men chosen by the people for the special purpose, and at the particular conjuncture.

    It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice.

    A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations.

    It was also peculiarly desirable to afford as little opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder.

    This evil was not least to be dreaded in the election of a magistrate, who was to have so important an agency in the administration of the government as the President of the United States.

    But the precautions which have been so happily concerted in the system under consideration, promise an effectual security against this mischief.

    The choice of SEVERAL, to form an intermediate body of electors, will be much less apt to convulse the community with any extraordinary or violent movements, than the choice of ONE who was himself to be the final object of the public wishes.

    And as the electors, chosen in each State, are to assemble and vote in the State in which they are chosen, this detached and divided situation will expose them much less to heats and ferments, which might be communicated from them to the people, than if they were all to be convened at one time, in one place.

    Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption.

    end quotes

    REPRESENTATIVE GOVERNMENT, people, and on 6 January 2021, we saw that go up in flames long before the mob of whomever in the end they were even reached the Capitol, because WE, THE PEOPLE did not get to choose who our electors were going to be, and in the United States of America today, there are only two states, Nebraska and Maine, that do not follow this winner-take-all method, which happens to be a PERVERSION of OUR Constitution, but hey, who gives a flying **** any more about OUR Constitution?

    So what was taking place in the Capitol on 6 January was a SHAM, a FARCE, and a perversion of OUR Constitution, not a LEGITIMATE EXERCISE of governmental authority by OUR government, because the Democrats are not “OUR” government; to the contrary, they are the greatest danger to our liberty that we face today, period!

    Reply

36. HumanPuddin says

    February 11, 2021 at 4:17 pm

    You have actually outdone yourself this time. I have always admired how well you copy and paste things to beat the opposition into submission. This time you may have beat yourself.

    Reply

    • Paul Plante says

      February 11, 2021 at 7:36 pm

      What’s HumanPuddin made of?

      Sounds yucky to me.

      And of course I have beat myself talking about the Constitution as if there really were a Constitution to talk about, which there is not, as was proved by the DEMOCRATS on 6 January 2021 when they took a long walk right on around the TWELFTH AMENDMENT of OUR Constitution, or what used to be OUR Constitution, which Amendment states in clear and unequivocal statutory language that “(T)he Electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate.”

      (NOTE: In the interests of full transparency here, yes, I did just cut-and-paste that specific language from the Twelfth Amendment, because while I could have copied it, or posted from memory, it just was so much easier to use cut-and-paste, and in the further interests of full transparency, the stuff I do cut-and-paste is stuff I already know about beforehand and as stated, I use cut-and-paste for the sake of effici8ency and expediency.)

      So tell us then, HumanPuddin, from what you know, was that Constitutional Amendment complied with before 6 January 2021?

      Or wasn’t it?

      And if it wasn’t, then how do YOU get any kind of legitimacy out of the FARCE, the EMPTY RITUAL, that was was presented to us REAL AMEERICAN CITIZENS who are not DEMOCRATS as a legitimate exercise of governmental authority on 6 January 2021?

      And for the record, IF somehow there really was an “insurrection” on 6 January 2021, then the proper classification of it would have been a rebel protest against a dictatorship and incipient police state.

      As to “nationhood,” HumanPuddin, and the grade school question of why does any nation need a Constitution, the answer is as follows:

      * A Constitution is necessary because of the following reasons: It is an important law of the land.

      * It determines the relationship of the citizens with the governments.

      end quotes

      So, who do you see the Constitution applying to, HumanPuddin?

      IS THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION LAW OF THE LAND FOR THE DEMOCRATS?

      OR ISN’T IT?

      And let me say how thankful I am that instead of sitting there sucking your thumb like so many people in America today who lack the ability to engage in critical thinking, or thinking of any kind, for that matter, that you instead chose to stand up for something, I’m not exactly sure what, by coming in here to challenge me and to thereby give me an opportunity to expand this topi as I have done above, although you would have done the PEOPLE a better service by articulating how you think I might have beat myself here, which would make the discussion that much more interesting and informative, as it should be.

      In closing, did you bother to check out the article in the Bangor Daily News entitled “Poll: Most Americans think US democracy is not working” by The Associated Press on February 8, 2021, where we learned as follows about something we already knew, to wit:

      WASHINGTON — Only a fragment of Americans believe democracy is thriving in the U.S., even as broad majorities agree that representative government is one of the country’s bedrock principles, according to a new poll from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research.

      Just 16 percent of Americans said democracy is working well or extremely well, a pessimism that spans the political spectrum.

      end quotes

      Which thought about “democracy” not working brings us to FEDERALIST No. 10, titled “The Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic Faction and Insurrection,” which it clearly is not, from the New York Packet to the People of the State of New York by James Madison on Friday, November 23, 1787, to wit:

      From this view of the subject it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction.

      A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual.

      Hence it is that such 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.

      Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.

      end quotes

      So, we are right now witnessing those spectacles of turbulence and contention as this so-called “democracy” being forced on us by the DEMOCRATS is being found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property, which takes us to FEDERALIST No. 51, “The Structure of the Government Must Furnish the Proper Checks and Balances Between the Different Departments” from the New York Packet to the People of the State of New York by either James Madison or Alexander Hamilton on Friday, February 8, 1788, to wit:

      In republican government, the legislative authority necessarily predominates.

      The remedy for this inconveniency is to divide the legislature into different branches; and to render them, by different modes of election and different principles of action, as little connected with each other as the nature of their common functions and their common dependence on the society will admit.

      It may even be necessary to guard against dangerous encroachments by still further precautions.

      As the weight of the legislative authority requires that it should be thus divided, the weakness of the executive may require, on the other hand, that it should be fortified.

      end quotes

      And as to how very dangerous it is becoming here in the United State of America to have an opinion counter to that the Democrats are mandating, check out the REUTERS article entitled “Exclusive: U.S. mulls using law designed to prosecute Mafia against Capitol rioters” by Mark Hosenball and Sarah N. Lynch on February 3, 2021, where we had as follows:

      Federal prosecutors in Ohio convinced a judge to detain Caldwell’s co-defendant Donovan Crowl by citing recent writings by the group’s leader Elmer Stewart Rhodes.

      After the riots, Rhodes urged members to begin organizing in “friendly red” counties – jurisdictions that lean Republican – saying the Biden administration represents an “illegitimate regime.”

      end quotes

      Saying the Biden administration represents an “illegitimate regime” right now is a good way to get yourself charged with sedition and organized crime.

      So of course you would say that the Joe Biden administration is legitimate.

      A good way for you to stay out of prison.

      Reply

37. Paul Plante says

    February 11, 2021 at 9:16 pm

    And while I am busily cutting-and-pasting here, because it is so efficient to do, saving all kinds of time having to type out the words, instead, let’s put this question from high school history on the table, to wit:

    BEFORE THIS, HAS THERE EVER BEEN A SUCCESSFUL COUP D’ETAT IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA?

    A. Of course there has been.

    B. Of course not, because there is no way that could ever happen in America because we don’t do those kinds of things here.

    Which of course would make answer B the incorrect answer, because if you are a DEMOCRAT, then that is how you get power – you take it with bullets and naked steel!

    So, high school quiz time, if answer B is wrong, how is answer A correct?

    (here some five year old has probably already asked Alexa or whomever about the question and got back the answer being the very famous Wilmington Insurrection of 1898, which occurred on the morning of November 10, 1898, when a throng of some 2,000 armed white men took to the streets of the Southern port town of Wilmington, North Carolina, and spurred on by white supremacist politicians and businessmen, the mob burned the offices of a prominent African-American newspaper, sparking a frenzy of urban warfare that saw dozens of blacks gunned down in the streets.

    As the chaos unfolded, white rioters descended on City Hall and forced the town’s mayor to resign along with several black aldermen.

    By nightfall, the mob had seized full control of the local government, some 60 black citizens lay dead and thousands more had fled the city in panic.

    While it took the form of a race riot, the Wilmington uprising was actually a calculated rebellion by a cabal of white business leaders and Democratic politicians intent on dissolving the city’s biracial, majority-Republican government.

    Once in power, the conspirators banished prominent black leaders and their white allies from the city and joined with other North Carolina Democrats in instituting a wave of Jim Crow laws suppressing black voting rights.

    Despite its illegality, state and federal officials ultimately allowed the power grab to proceed unchecked, leading many historians to cite the Wilmington insurrection as the only successful coup d’etat in American history.

    Reply

38. MJM says

    February 12, 2021 at 11:56 am

    I don’t know you do it Paul. I have 2 questions for you. Does your mind ever sleep ? Is your desk perfectly neat or a mess ?

    Reply

    • Paul Plante says

      February 12, 2021 at 6:01 pm

      My mind is always AWAKE and my consiousness is always AWARE and my desk is a mess, but I generally can find what I need in the mess without a lot of trouble, having created the mess in the first place, and seriously MJM, all I’m doing is regurgitating my tenth grade or so civics updated with facts that have occurred since, so there really is not all that much effort required of me in here, especially since I can now cut-and-paste, where in the old brute-force method days, I would have to have the book in front of me to copy out of.

      Reply

39. Paul Plante says

    February 12, 2021 at 7:42 pm

    DESPICABLE DEMAGOGUERY!

    A KANGAROO COURT!

    THIRD-WORLD JUSTICE IN AMERICA!

    AN INCREDIBLE SMEAR JOB!

    A MOCKERY OF A FAIR TRIAL!

    VINDICTIVE DEMS BLATANTLY DEMONIZE AMERICAN CITIZENS WHO ARE NOT DEMOCRATS FOR NOT BEING DEMOCRATS!

    Those, people, are the screaming headlines that come to my mind after that incredible performance yesterday, 11 February 2921, by Democrat Jamie Raskin in the Democrat-controlled U.S. Senate where he was seeking to inflame the passions of the Democrats in America to form lynch mobs by showing video after video of violence that he ascribed solely to Trump supporters, as if our very own Jamie were a mind reader whose clairvoyance let him know what was in the hearts and minds of each and every person in those videoes, even though there was no evidence he even knew who they were.

    “TRUMP SUPPORTERS,” screams our Jamie in a frenzy!

    “IF WE DON’T CONVICT TRUMP THEY SURELY WILL KILL US ALL!”

    Which brings us to an Associated Press story entitled “Convict Trump or face dire democracy damage, prosecutors say” by LISA MASCARO, ERIC TUCKER, MARY CLARE JALONICK and JILL COLVIN on Feb. 11, 2021, where WE, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE are confronted with the following DIRE WARNING (BE VERY SCARED), to wit:

    WASHINGTON (AP) — Dire harm from Donald Trump’s false and violent incitements will vex American democracy long into the future unless the Senate convicts him of impeachment and bars him from future office, House prosecutors insisted Thursday as they concluded two days of emotional arguments in his historic trial.

    end quotes

    Yes, people, two days of EMOTION as opposed to two days of LAW and FACTS!

    In other words, a SHOW TRIAL reminiscent of the ones they used to have in the old Soviet Union to punish political enemies, and very well done, as you would expect from a DEMOCRAT in America, which takes us back to the story, as follows:

    Making their case, they presented piles of new videos of last month’s deadly Capitol attack, with invaders proudly declaring they were merely obeying “the president’s orders” to fight to overturn the election results as Congress was certifying his defeat to Democrat Joe Biden.

    end quotes

    And since we are talking political violence in a country noted for political violence by BLACK LIVES MATTER and the DEMOCRAT paramilitary force, the ANTI-FA, for comparison purposes, especially with respect to the attacks on Capitol police officers on 6 January 2021, a DEMOCRAT ANTI-FA specialty, given their seething hatred towards RULE OF LAW, LAW AND ORDER, and the police specifically, let me post a video entitled “Huge fight between Miami cops and Antifa hooligans when a police car gets demolished” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zELPAzq5_WE

    Watch the attacks on the police officers in the Raskin videos, and watch the attacks on the Miami cops by the DEMOCRAT PARAMILITARIES, and you will note they use the same tactics, which raises the question of who was attacking those police officers, and the answer is people with prior experience fighting police, which is the ANTI-FA!

    Getting back to the story, the deluge of BULL**** from Jamie Raskin and crew continues as follows:

    Trump is accused of inciting the invasion, which prosecutors said was a predictable culmination of the many public and explicit instructions he gave supporters long before his White House rally that unleashed the Jan. 6 attack.

    end quotes

    The invasion?

    But wait, isn’t Trump charged with insurrection?

    Getting back to the story again:

    “If we pretend this didn’t happen, or worse, if we let it go unanswered, who’s to say it won’t happen again?” argued prosecutor Rep. Joe Neguse, D-Colo.

    end quotes

    What a moronic question!

    Who indeed, Joe, given that you Democrats, as we clearly see in this video entitled “Pro- and anti-Trump protesters clash in Berkeley” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6E2mOqQoFeQ are NEVER going to renounce VIOLENCE and RELINQUISH it as the political tool the DEMOCRATS have made good use of since the end of the INSURRECTION and CIVIL WAR they caused when they renounced OUR Constitution and OUR American way of life so they could hold Black people in bondage as slaves.

    Consider the very famous Wilmington Insurrection of 1898, which occurred on the morning of November 10, 1898, when a throng of some 2,000 armed white men took to the streets of the Southern port town of Wilmington, North Carolina, and spurred on by Democratic politician Alfred Moore Waddell giving a very inflammatory speech characteristic of a DEMOCRAT demanding that white men “do your duty” and look for black people voting.

    And if you find one, he said, “tell him to leave the polls and if he refuses kill, shoot him down in his tracks.”

    “We shall win tomorrow if we have to do it with guns.”

    end quotes

    Getting back to the tripe, we have:

    Even out of office, Democrats warned, Trump could whip up a mob of followers for similar damage.

    end quotes

    Oh, good ******* *****, people!

    Will the DEMOCRAT BULL**** and FEAR-MONGERING never end?

    Even out of office Trump could whip up a mob of followers for similar damage?

    Oh, really!

    Well, here is yet another video, this one from the morning of 20 January 2021, entitled “Donald Trump Leaves the White House for the Last Time as U.S. President” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3isEMZ0Xbo and if you study his body language, he certainly does not look like somebody who even out of office could whip up a mob of followers for similar damage.

    Going back to the BULL*** we have:

    The Democrats, with little hope of conviction by two-thirds of the evenly divided Senate, are also making their most graphic case to the American public, while Trump’s lawyers and the Republicans are focused on legal rather than emotional or historic questions, hoping to get it all behind as quickly as possible.

    end quotes

    The purpose of this SICK SHOW isn’t justice, it is about whipping up MOB SENTIMENT against Republicans and HATRED towards Republicans for partisan political purposes as the DEMOCRATS seek to increase their stranglehold and death grip on OUR national government as they impose FASCIST ONE-PARTY RULE on the FREE people of the United States of America.

    And the show goes on, so stay tuned for more as it comes!

    Live, late-breaking, YADA YADA!

    Reply

40. Paul Plante says

    February 13, 2021 at 7:09 pm

    A TRAVESTY OF JUSTICE, people, assuming that in America, thoughts of equal justice still exist, which becomes more and more doubtful by the day, where as is the case here with the Trump trial in the U.S. Senate, the last place on earth you would expect to find even a smattering of justice, so partisan are they all, and rabidly so, on the serious CRIMINAL CHARGE of INSURRECTION against the government of the United States of America at the same time he was the chief executive officer of that government, which means he would have mounted an insurrection against himself, a travesty is a cheap mockery of something where a travesty of justice is a court case, or a trial before the U.S. Senate in this case, that makes a mockery of OUR system of justice here in the United States of America.

    And I forgot to include SLIMEBALL LAWYER TACTICS to the list of screaming headlines above as the GOOFBALL DEMOCRAT lawyer Jamie Raskin showed not only America, but the rest of the world as well, just how far down into the muck and slime he could take the concept of justice as he choked the life out of the concept of a FAIR TRIAL, which this CHARADE was most definitely not.

    For example, LAW SCHOOL 101: Witnesses generally may not speculate about another person’s state of mind, thought processes, or attitudes.

    BUT there is an exception to that when you are dealing with someone as hated as Trump in a highly publicized DEMOCRAT SHOW TRIAL which is in reality nothing more than a highly partisan KANGAROO COURT, which is an INSULT to every American in this country who is not a DEMOCRAT!

    Now, first of all, people, the HIGH CRIME or MISDEMEANOR charged is INSURRECTION, to wit:

    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.’

    end quotes

    That’s it!

    So we are back to the necessary question, given the nature of the crime charged, of when did the crime of insurrection actually occur?

    Does anyone really know?

    DID JAMIE RASKIN PROVE AN INSURRECTION TOOK PLACE?

    Yes?

    Or No?

    And did he even have to?

    And that answer is given the venue, no he really didn’t have to do a ******* thing other than putting on a show to stir up and inflame the passions of the Democrats and get them into the kind of murderous and snarling, snapping, foam-at-the-mouth rages DEMOCRAT mobs are so famous for, and then let every Republican senator know that IF they do not convict Trump, they can expect to find one of those berserk DEMOCRATS mobs howling for their blood right there on their very doorsteps, which is the exact kind of voter intimidation the DEMOCRATS have been famous for since the end of the Civil War they started when they staged an armed insurrection against OUR national government back when.

    IF, however, this had been a REAL TRIAL, not a DEMOCRAT MOCKERY, in a REAL COURT OF LAW, not a KANGAROO COURT as is the case in the United States Senate, according to LAW SCHOOL CRIMINAL LAW 101, the correct answer to the very basic middle school civics question “What does a prosecutor have to prove in a criminal case?” is as follows:

    In virtually every criminal case, the prosecution must prove that the defendant had a particular intent.

    end quotes

    So, did Jamie Raskin even attempt to prove that Trump had an intent on 6 January 2021 to mount an insurrection against himself to topple his own regime and thereby hand the reins of power to Joe Biden fourteen days early?

    And of course not, because the very concept is ludicrous (so foolish, unreasonable, or out of place as to be amusing; ridiculous; as in “it’s ludicrous that Donald Trump would mount an insurrection on 6 January 2021 to topple his own government”).

    So our Jamie instead fell back on the OLD DODGE of “I DON’T HAVE TO PROVE A ******* THING BECAUSE EVERYBODY ALREADY KNOWS THERE WAS AN INSURRECTION AND THAT TRUMP CAUSED IT, SO LET’S JUST MOVE TO THE PENALTY STAGE WITHOUT WASTING FURTHER TIME ON DETERMINING FACTS AND ESTABLISHING GUILT!”

    And in the U.S. Senate, that OLD DODGE is as good as gold, whereas in a REAL TRIAL in a REAL COURT OF LAW, as CRIMINAL LAW 101 tells us, or used to, anyway, we have:

    Criminal elements are set forth in criminal statutes, and with exceptions, every crime has at least three elements: a criminal act, also called actus reus; a criminal intent, also called mens rea; and concurrence of the two.

    In this case, the criminal act would be incitement of insurrection.

    EXCEPT NO INSURRECTION WAS EVER PROVEN!

    So this whole SHAM is nothing more than yet another HUGE STEAMING PILE OF DOG**** dumped on the American people by these hate-filled, vindictive DEMOCRATS who intend to destroy Trump, no matter how low they have to go to do so, nor how slimy the tricks they have to employ to do so, because DEMOCRATS have no sense of JUSTICE nor do they possess a sense of SHAME.

    And that takes us to a BBC article entitled “Capitol riots: Five takeaways from the arrests” by Sam Cabral & Roderick Macleod, BBC News, Washington on 9 February 2021, where we have the following to consider:

    The storming of the US Capitol last month left five people dead, over 100 police officers injured and millions of dollars in damage to the building.

    Most of the rioters were allowed to leave the building without facing arrest, but a month-long search for offenders has resulted in charges against a reported 221 people.

    end quotes

    And let us stop right there and ask Jamie Raskin this critical question, to wit:

    IF THERE WAS REALLY AN INSURRECTION THAT DAY, WHY WAS MILITARY FORCE NOT CALLED OUT TO QUELL IT?

    And more to the point:

    WHO ALLOWED ALL OF THOSE SO-CALLED INSURRECTIONISTS TO SIMPLY WALK AWAY AND DISAPPEAR?

    Would have to be NANCY PELOSI, would it not?

    So WHY did NANCY PELOSI let all those people get away scott free?

    So that her ANTI-FA assaulting those police in those videos Jamie Raskin was showing at the trial could get clear of the building without getting caught and betraying the scheme?

    That’s the only rational answer, is it not?

    For if Nancy had been positive that all the people on the building were really Trump supporters, as Jamie Raskin is trying to sell, Nancy could have had that building sealed up tighter than a drum, with all those so-called “insurrectionists” sealed up inside, where with military precision, the insurrection could then have been put down and ALL the insurrectionists taken into custody, instead of being allowed to simply walk away as was the case here, and let there be no doubt of that whatsoever!

    Reply

41. Paul Plante says

    February 13, 2021 at 10:33 pm

    And the news just came out, people – another SLEAZE MERCHANT DEMOCRAT has just bit the dust as the DEMOCRATS failed in their second effort to totally destroy Donald Trump, who they hate with such a passion it is amazing that they don’t all self-combust from the heat of their hate!

    And to see how the story is being spun, let’s take a trip to THE GUARDIAN story “Donald Trump acquitted in impeachment trial” by Sam Levine and Lauren Gambino on 13 Feb 2021, where we have as follows keeping in mind that these are Brits who neither understand what a Constitutional Republic is, them still tugging the forelock to their queen, nor do they like Trump, writing the story, to wit:

    Donald Trump has been acquitted by the Senate in an impeachment trial for his role in the 6 January attack on the US Capitol – a verdict that underscores the sway America’s 45th president still holds over the Republican party even after leaving office.

    end quotes

    To which I reply, OH ******* BULL****!

    How about Trump was acquitted of inciting an insurrection on 6 January 2021, because DEMOCRAT SLEAZE MERCHANT Jamie Raskin, the second DEMOCRAT GREAT WHITE HOPE to take down Trump after the abject failure of the first DEMOCRAT GREAT WHITE HOPE to take down Trump, the clown Adam Schiff from Hollywood and Disneyland who totally “Biffed” the job, FAILED TO PROVE HIS CASE, which is how we provincials do things over here in The Colonies, as opposed to how they do things over there where they are in the oppressive country we earned our freedom from back in 1776!

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

    The House of Representatives impeached Trump in his final days in office on one charge of “incitement of insurrection” of the siege on the US Capitol.

    end quotes

    And they totally failed to prove that the crime of insurrection had in fact been committed, given that the word “insurrection” is not just an empty word, but has meaning in law.

    Getting back to the story once again:

    During their short presentation on Friday, Trump’s lawyers argued that Trump was using the same kind of rhetoric politicians frequently use and said the trial was a “political witch-hunt” and that Trump a victim of “constitutional cancel culture”.

    Those arguments largely seemed to be an effort to distort the case against Trump and muddy the waters over the unique context under which Trump encouraged angry supporters to disrupt the activities of the US government as it facilitated the peaceful transfer of power.

    In the end, the grave warnings from the House managers, led by congressman Jamie Raskin, that Trump continued to pose a threat to the nation and democracy itself resulted in the most bipartisan vote to convict an impeached president in American history.

    “If this is not a high crime and misdemeanor against the United States of America then nothing is,” Raskin implored senators in closing, saying Trump must be convicted and barred from running for office again “for the safety and security of our democracy and our people”.

    Embracing Trump’s combative and fact-bending approach, his lawyers declared Trump “innocent of the charges against him” and denounced the trial as a “final, desperate attempt” by Democrats to disqualify their most despised political opponent from public office.

    “You do not have to indulge the impeachment lust, the dishonesty and the hypocrisy,” Michael van der Veen, one of Trump’s lawyers, told senators, using just a fraction of the defense’s allotted time.

    The Democratic managers summoned the weight of history, reminding the senators of the consequential votes taken by the forebears in that very chamber to abolish slavery, pass the civil rights act and impose sanctions on apartheid South Africa.

    “There are moments that transcend party politics, and that require us to put country above our party because the consequences of not doing so are just too great,” said congressman Joe Neguse, one of the managers.

    “Senators, this is one of those moments.”

    end quotes

    And yes, people, it was!

    Reply

42. Paul Plante says

    February 15, 2021 at 10:22 pm

    And while we are all sitting here in the aftermath of TRUMP TRIAL II starring DEMOCRAT CONSTITUTIONAL SCHOLAR Jamie Raskin, described by Harvard Law professor Larry Tribe, whose mind seems to have turned more a little mushy, as “the best constitutional lawyer in all of Congress,” which doesn’t say very much about the caliber of constitutional lawyers in all of Congress at all, if Jamie Raskin is put up as “best in breed,” the clown who all of America loves almost as much as they love AOC and Hillary, pondering what just went down here in the United States of America, where we have been told over and over and over by the media and the Democrats that there was an insurrection in Washington, D.C. on 6 January 2021, which I would call a REVOLUTION and a COUP, instead, to understand how either could be, let us go back and consider HOW the process to select an American president should have worked according to how the United States Constitution is actually written, and supposedly is law of the land, but in actuality, isn’t, which is where the REVOLUTION and COUP come into the picture, let’s go to a site called WUSA9 VERIFY and the article “Can Congress reject Electoral College votes?” by Eliana Block updated: 5:14 AM EST January 6, 2021, where we have as follows:

    WASHINGTON — States electors, whose numbers are based on their total Congressional representation, meet to place official votes for the Electoral College, a system derived back in the 18th century.

    end quotes

    A system derived back in the 18th century, people, by WHITE HETERONORMATIVE MEN to keep the BLACK MAN down, as everybody today knows, that was struck down by DEMOCRACY on 6 January 2021, and is no more, regardless of what the Constitution might say, because a lot of people, well most people, er, it could be a majority, I guess, don’t like what the Constitution says, so they don’t want to do it that way anymore , and in a DEMOCRACY, it is the majority that rules, not the Constitution, especially a Constitution written a long time ago by HETERONORMATIVE WHITE MEN, which takes us to the Democrat strategy document “Resistance Rising: Socialist Strategy in the Age of Political Revolution” on June 25, 2016, where we have as follows:

    Economic democracy would be complemented in the political sphere by a new system that combined an overhauled form of representative democracy (our current system) with direct democracy, a system in which individuals participate directly in the making of political decisions that affect them.

    end quotes

    Representative democracy, as was embodied in the Constitution with respect to the electoral college, on 6 January 2021 was formally replaced with direct democracy, and without a peep of protest, on 6 January 2021, received a bullet to its head fired from the gun of Nancy Pelosi, herself.

    Getting back to the article, it continues:

    Electors from all 50 states met on December 14 to place their official votes for their states.

    end quotes

    An EMPTY RITUAL, people, given that 48 states are WINNER TAKE ALL, which means the electoral college votes were already awarded on election day to whomever won the popular vote, an incentive for ballot box rigging if there ever was one, but that is what democracies are all about.

    So when those electors from those 48 states met on December 14, their votes had already been cast for them, by governor Andy Cuomo in the case of the state of New York, which is as far from representative democracy as one can get and still be somewhere in this universe, which takes us back to that article as follows:

    On January 6, that vote count is finalized and election results are certified.

    But what does that vote cast look like, and can Congress reject the Electoral College’s decision if faithless electors happen?

    Here’s a look.

    What’s the official process for electors casting their votes?

    ANSWER:

    The state’s electors will meet on December 14, 2020, and send six copies of their votes to the President of the Senate, that state’s Secretary of State, the Archivist of the United States and to the federal judge in the district where the electors met.

    Congress will count the votes during a joint session on January 6, 2021.

    end quotes

    And that is the EMPTY RITUAL that was being played out in the Capitol on 6 January 2021 when the supposed “insurrection” took place.

    But an insurrection against what?

    An insurrection against an EMPTY RITUAL that if not conducted on 6 January 2021 would not have meant a thing nor changed anything?

    But can there be an insurrection against something that is really nothing?

    Getting back to that article:

    PROCESS:

    Each governor sends a certificate showing which slate of electors won the popular vote, to the Archivist of the United States.

    The governor then delivers six identical certificates to the state’s electors.

    Then, on Monday, December 14, 2020, electors will meet to vote for the president and vice president.

    end quotes

    Except, people, they really didn’t meet on 14 December 2020 to vote for the president and the vice president, because in WINNER TAKES ALL states, the electoral college votes were already awarded on election day, and there is not a thing any of those so-called “electors” can do about that, so if they didn’t do a ******* thing on 14 December 2020, Joe Biden would still be president, Constitution and representative democracy be damned, which takes us back to the article for more EMPTY RITUAL, to wit:

    After they vote and sign each certificate, each state sends its six copies to various places: one to the President of the Senate, Mike Pence, two go to the Secretary of State for that state, two go to the Archivist of the United States, and one to the federal judge in the district where the electors met.

    The first day of the newly elected Congress is set for January 3, 2021.

    Congress will read the results out loud and count them up in a joint session, on January 6, 2021 at 1:00 p.m.

    In the end, the President of the Senate, Mike Pence, will announce whether any candidates received the majority vote.

    end quotes

    Which is STUPID, because we already knew that Joe Biden had the votes, and there was nothing Mike Pence could do to change that, so besides participating in an EMPTY RITUAL that means nothing, what purpose was Mike Pence fulfilling by telling us on 6 January 2020 what we already knew?

    Aiding the “peaceful” transfer of power?

    Let’s go back to the article and see:

    The U.S. code does allow Congress to object to electoral votes.

    Here’s how it works: an objection needs to be in writing and signed by at least one Senator and one Representative.

    end quotes

    So, yes, there are some empty words in something called the “law” that says objections can be made, but the reality is that despite any words on a piece of paper called “law” allowing objections to be made, objections are futile, as we see by going back to that article, to wit:

    In terms of what counts as a valid objection, Mulji (lawyer) said that the laws are vague.

    “There isn’t a ton of guidance about… what does and doesn’t count as an objection,” Mulji said.

    “Because these are internal rules of Congress, it’s up to the houses of Congress to decide whether the objections are valid.”

    end quotes

    Which takes us to an article in something called THE CONVERSATION entitled “Why Trump’s Senate supporters can’t overturn Electoral College results they don’t like – here’s how the law actually works” by Donald Brand, Professor, Political Science Department, College of the Holy Cross on January 5, 2021, to wit:

    On Jan. 6, the United States Congress will gather in a joint session to tally the votes of the Electoral College, which cast its ballots in state capitols last month.

    In his role as president of the Senate, Vice President Mike Pence is slated to officially announce Joe Biden as the country’s next president.

    This formal certification process – the final step in the U.S. presidential election – is the latest target of President Donald Trump’s desperate, untenable and possibly criminal effort to overturn the 2020 results.

    In his refusal to concede, Trump is pressuring Pence and Republicans in Congress to delay or oppose certification.

    Can they really subvert the Electoral College?

    The answer, both legally and politically, is no.

    No rubber stamp

    The congressional joint session on Jan. 6 is not a mere formality.

    The Electoral Count Act of 1887 requires Congress to convene and review – rather than simply rubber stamp – Electoral College results.

    end quotes

    Except we all know that despite the law, they do and did simply rubber stamp the Electoral College results, which takes us back to that article for some essential American history on that law, to wit:

    This statute was a delayed response to the contested presidential election of 1876.

    That year, Republicans backing candidate Rutherford B. Hayes alleged voter fraud in four states favoring Democrat Samuel Tilden, forcing Congress to appoint an independent commission to resolve 20 disputed electoral votes.

    The nominally bipartisan commission, comprised of five senators, five House representatives and five Supreme Court justices, awarded the disputed electors to Hayes, allowing him to narrowly prevail in the Electoral College by 185 to 184 electoral votes.

    The proceedings left a cloud over Hayes, who got the sobriquet “Rutherfraud B. Hayes.”

    Congress was chastened, too, by the prolonged electoral dispute.

    To minimize the likelihood that they would ever again decide the outcome of a presidential election, lawmakers in 1887 passed the Electoral Count Act.

    It puts the onus for resolving electoral disputes on the states.

    As long as they do so, certifying their election results no later than six days before the Electoral College meets to cast its votes, then states will enjoy “safe harbor” protection.

    That means their results will be considered “conclusive” when Congress convenes to certify the vote on Jan. 6.

    In 2020, every state certified its election results before the Dec. 8 “safe harbor” deadline.

    Joe Biden won 306 electoral votes, surpassing the 270 votes needed to become president-elect, and Donald Trump won 232.

    Congress is legally obliged to defer to those state decisions.

    end quotes

    So seriously, people, if before December 8, 2020, all the states had certified that Joe Biden had won the election, what was the purpose of the EMPTY RITUAL on 6 January 2021, the day of the alleged insurrection, which takes us back to this final statement from the VERIFY article, to wit:

    “Now, this is a fun intellectual exercise, but of course, we know the results of the Electoral College, we know that Joe Biden has won a majority of those electoral votes,” Mulji said.

    end quotes

    Which takes us in turn to an article in THE HILL for a literal storm of pure BULL**** entitled “Pelosi sets up call on election challenge: ‘No situation matches Trump presidency'” by Joseph Choi on 01/03/21, where we had as follows:

    Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) in a Sunday letter told her Democratic colleagues they would discuss the process for expected challenges to the Electoral College results from House Republicans during a call on Monday.

    “Over the years, we have experienced many challenges in the House, but no situation matches the Trump presidency and the Trump disrespect for the will of the people,” Pelosi wrote in her letter.

    end quotes

    And what the **** is up with this horse**** from Nancy, making out as if the law provided for “special case” treatment because of Donald Trump?

    Before the joint session is even held, there is Nancy already seeking to sabotage it to ensure that DEMOCRAT Joe Biden is declared the winner, which takes us back to that story, as follows:

    Pelosi outlined a plan for the Democratic lawmakers as they prepare to certify the Electoral College votes this week.

    More than 100 House Republicans are expected to challenge the results of the election in various battleground states, and a dozen Senate Republicans have vowed to do so.

    She said the result would end with President-elect Joe Biden and Vice President-elect Kamala Harris being “officially declared the next President and Vice President of the United States,” but acknowledged this declaration might have to take place in “the middle of the night.”

    end quotes

    So there we have Nancy herself confirming what I am saying, that what took place on 6 January 2021 in the Capitol was nothing more than another empty photo op – a chance for Nancy Pelosi and Charley “Chuck” Schumer to once again be seen on national TV – as they rubber-stamped the vote taly for Joe Biden, which again takes us back to THE HILL, to wit:

    “On Monday, we will have a clearer picture of how many state votes will be subject to an objection,” Pelosi said.

    “Our choice is not to use the forum to debate the presidency of Donald Trump.”

    “While there is no doubt as to the outcome of the Biden-Harris presidency, our further success is to convince more of the American people to trust in our democratic system.”

    end quotes

    And good ****** luck with that, Nancy, say not only I but a goodly percentage of the American people DO NOT place any trust whatsoever in our so-called “democratic system,” as we see in this Associated Press article “Poll: Most Americans think US democracy is not working” on February 8, 2021, to wit:

    WASHINGTON — Only a fragment of Americans believe democracy is thriving in the U.S., even as broad majorities agree that representative government is one of the country’s bedrock principles, according to a new poll from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research.

    Just 16 percent of Americans said democracy is working well or extremely well, a pessimism that spans the political spectrum.

    Nearly half of Americans, 45 percent, think democracy isn’t functioning properly, while another 38 percent said it’s working only somewhat well.

    end quotes

    So, what then was the insurrection against on 6 January 2021?

    Or was it really a REBELLION against a corrupt and intentionally broken system of electing American presidents?

    Reply

43. Paul Plante says

    February 17, 2021 at 8:18 pm

    “Our choice is not to use the forum to debate the presidency of Donald Trump.”

    “While there is no doubt as to the outcome of the Biden-Harris presidency, our further success is to convince more of the American people to trust in our democratic system.”

    Think about those words for a moment, in isolation of whatever took place in the Capitol building in Washington. D.C., which building incidentally was burned down by the British on August 24, 1814, on 6 January 2021, when pursuant to the Constitution and law, the joint houses of the legislative branch of OUR national government were to meet according to written law to count electoral college votes, precisely because those words were uttered by DEMOCRAT BIG CHEESE Nancy Pelosi in an article in THE HILL entitled “Pelosi sets up call on election challenge: ‘No situation matches Trump presidency’” by Joseph Choi on 01/03/21, THREE DAYS BEFORE the events of 6 January 2021, where we had as follows:

    Pelosi outlined a plan for the Democratic lawmakers as they prepare to certify the Electoral College votes this week.

    end quotes

    And here is where all the BULL**** concerning the “legitimacy” of the presidency of Joe Biden enters into the picture, because Nancy makes it really quite obvious that the system of selecting the president is really quite rigged in the House of Representatives under the rule of Nancy Pelosi!

    EACH one of those representatives is supposed to be exactly that – the representative of the AMERICAN citizens who happen to reside in his or her congressional district, now some 711,000 unfortunate souls in most cases, unfortunate because most of them get no representation in congress, as opposed to the U.S. Constitution calling for at least one Representative per state and that no more than one for every 30,000 persons.

    So where does BIG DOG DEMOCRAT Nancy Pelosi get off dictating to those representatives three days early what their strategy was going to be as a BLOC to thwart the will of the American people by making Joe Biden the president?

    “Our choice is not to use the forum to debate the presidency of Donald Trump?”

    What kind of a real *****-up statement is that in light of the fact that the proceeding on 6 January 2021 is clearly spelled out in easy-to-understand written law that each of those BOZO DEMOCRATS taking their direction from Nancy Pelosi, which language makes it clear to someone who is not an idiot or a moron that the proceeding on 6 January 2021 had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the presidency of Donald Trump, or anybody else, for that matter.

    It was to consider the validity of electoral college votes.

    But even that is a BULL**** premise, because the electoral college votes had already been awarded after the election.

    So what game is Nancy playing at here, people?

    Stay tuned, more to come!

    Reply

44. Paul Plante says

    February 19, 2021 at 10:33 pm

    So, people, let us do a recap here for a moment after what I would have to call the most BULL****, worthless and disgusting presidential election I have ever had the displeasure of witnessing, a presidential election that makes a complete mockery of what presidential elections in this country are supposed to be, and instead opens our elections to whomever can make the most outlandish promises while promising to loot the greatest amount from OUR national treasury to reward his followers as Joe Biden has done and is doing while these events are still very much fresh in our minds, to see what it is that we all just saw subsequently, which was a true MARXIST REVOLUTION on 6 January 2021 that toppled OUR Republic like the rotten tree it had become, and replaced it with a MARXIST DEMOCRACY, which thought of necessity takes us back to this sentence from the article in THE HILL entitled “Pelosi sets up call on election challenge: ‘No situation matches Trump presidency’” by Joseph Choi on 01/03/21, THREE DAYS BEFORE the events of 6 January 2021, to wit:

    “While there is no doubt as to the outcome of the Biden-Harris presidency, our further success is to convince more of the American people to trust in our democratic system.”

    end quotes

    Without looking to the right or left, focus in on the specific wording of that sentence, considering that it would be three more days until the events of 6 January 2021 occurred.

    Now, here is a high school civics question: In that one sentence three days before whatever occurred on 6 January 2021, when by law, electoral votes were to be counted, how many different things did Nancy Pelosi really say on 3 January 2021?

    First of all, on 3 January 2021, wasn’t Nancy GUARANTEEING to HER followers that have no fear whatsoever, for she was going to put Joe Biden in the white house:

    “While there is no doubt as to the outcome of the Biden-Harris presidency …”

    How on 3 January 2021, three days before the counting of the electoral college votes, could Nancy Pelosi be telling her followers “there is no doubt as to the outcome?”

    Given that the electoral college votes would not be counted for 3 more days, how could Nancy Pelosi possibly know the outcome beforehand?

    And this is no ******* tin-hat conspiracy theory given that I am not making up what Nancy Pelosi said on 3 January 2021.

    She said she already knew the outcome of something that had not even happened yet, did she not?

    That’s what I mean by not looking to the right or left, but straight down the center at words from out of the mouth of Nancy Pelosi herself as reported in the main-stream media which clearly belie a strong suspicion that Nancy Pelosi had to know the election was safely enough rigged that the outcome was already guaranteed, and let us not be so stupid as to pretend presidential elections in this country can’t be rigged, what with our proven history of rigging presidential elections in this country, which thought takes us to the rest of that sentence as follows:

    “Our further success is to convince more of the American people to trust in our democratic system.”

    end quotes

    Intriguing, wouldn’t you say?

    “Our further success?”

    HMMMMMM.

    Used in that context, the word “further” in that sentence would have to mean, “additional to what already exists or has already taken place, been done, or been accounted for.”

    So, people, let’s use some logic here.

    If the further success of the DEMOCRATS, because that is who Nancy Pelosi was addressing those words to on 3 January 2021, before the events of 6 January 2021, was to convince more of the American people to trust in their “democratic system,” then what was the first success?

    Given that on 3 January 2021, Nancy Pelosi was GUARANTEEING to her followers what the outcome of the electoral college count on 6 January 2021 was going to be, it was in the bag, don’t worry, wouldn’t the first success have to be the successful rigging of the presidential vote in 2020 to guarantee that outcome?

    Reply

45. Paul Plante says

    February 21, 2021 at 10:31 pm

    “Our further success is to convince more of the American people to trust in our democratic system.”

    That, as we have already seen was BIG DOG DEMOCRAT Nancy Pelosi speaking on the public record in the article in THE HILL entitled “Pelosi sets up call on election challenge: ‘No situation matches Trump presidency’” by Joseph Choi on 01/03/21, THREE DAYS BEFORE the events of 6 January 2021.

    So when Nancy was talking about convincing more of the American people to trust in “our democratic system” on 3 January 2021, who was it she was really talking to?

    And as an aside, I always find it quite interesting how these scribes in the main-stream media who exist to take down and regurgitate what horse crap hack politicians like Nancy Pelosi spew forth with never stop to ask people like Nancy what it was they just said as when they talk about convincing more of the American people to trust in “our democratic system.”

    WHAT DEMOCRATIC SYSTEM?

    And who exactly are they trying to get to trust in it?

    And WHY?

    What can possibly be trustworthy with any system Nancy Pelosi is involved with, given that she is selling her version of “democracy” to the highest bidders as we see from this 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

    So in a word, the “democracy” of Nancy Pelosi is a crock of ****!

    So who then are the people Nancy is talking about or referring to when she said on 3 January 2021 “Our further success is to convince more of the American people to trust in our democratic system.”

    Crooked people?

    People without brains who are unable think?
    wants to

    Reply

46. Paul Plante says

    February 22, 2021 at 11:31 am

    “Democracy nowadays is communism.”

    – Engels, The Festival of Nations in London written at the end of 1845

    Reply

47. Paul Plante says

    February 22, 2021 at 10:26 pm

    Arriving at the majority and with it instead of reforming capitalism and running its administration socialists will get set to its abolition; they will not accept any administrative posts of capitalist society before arriving at the position of its abolition.

    The task of socialist delegates (MPs) is not to help run the capitalist governing process, but to incapacitate the process itself, to facilitate the abolition of capitalism by the immense majority of socialists.

    Because, socialists neither support nor oppose the reforms of capitalism.

    Their only and immediate aim is to establish socialism.

    Without informed majority participation in order to reach at a democratic decision in the interest of all the conception of vote and democracy is meaningless.

    We need participatory democracy.

    Socialists do not trust political leaders, since the existence of leaders means the existence of followers and both remaining drowned in political ignorance.

    Leader/follower relation is anti-democratic.

    Organization and leadership are not the same thing; there can be organization without leadership.

    Leadership is not necessary when an organization is democratic.

    The immense majority of people of society can create socialism consciously in their own interest and with their own initiative.

    A socialist party does not require a leader, socialists are all equals.

    In Marxian conception socialism and communism are synonymous.

    Marx and Engels have used the two terms alternatively to mean the same thing – post-revolutionary participatory democratic socialist administration of things – affairs of life – in lieu of the capitalist administration of men.

    In Marx’s view the principle of communism or socialism is: From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs.

    – The Death of the State in Marx and Engels … Saint-Simon [17 October 1760 – 19 May 1825]

    Reply

48. Paul Plante says

    February 22, 2021 at 10:28 pm

    Democracy is the road to socialism.

    – Karl Marx

    Reply

49. Paul Plante says

    February 23, 2021 at 7:31 pm

    Of the Principle of Democracy

    There is no great share of probity necessary to support a monarchical or despotic government.

    The force of laws in one, and the prince’s arm in the other, are sufficient to direct and maintain the whole.

    But in a popular state, one spring more is necessary, namely, virtue.

    What I have here advanced is confirmed by the unanimous testimony of historians, and is extremely agreeable to the nature of things.

    For it is clear that in a monarchy, where he who commands the execution of the laws generally thinks himself above them, there is less need of virtue than in a popular government, where the person intrusted with the execution of the laws is sensible of his being subject to their direction.

    Clear is it also that a monarch who, through bad advice or indolence, ceases to enforce the execution of the laws, may easily repair the evil; he has only to follow other advice, or to shake off this indolence.

    But when, in a popular government, there is a suspension of the laws, as this can proceed only from the corruption of the republic, the state is certainly undone.

    A very droll spectacle it was in the last century to behold the impotent efforts of the English towards the establishment of democracy.

    As they who had a share in the direction of public affairs were void of virtue; as their ambition was inflamed by the success of the most daring of their members; as the prevailing parties were successively animated by the spirit of faction, the government was continually changing: the people, amazed at so many revolutions, in vain attempted to erect a commonwealth.

    At length, when the country had undergone the most violent shocks, they were obliged to have recourse to the very government which they had so wantonly proscribed.

    When Sylla thought of restoring Rome to her liberty, this unhappy city was incapable of receiving that blessing.

    She had only the feeble remains of virtue, which were continually diminishing.

    Instead of being roused from her lethargy by Caesar, Tiberius, Caius Claudius, Nero, and Domitian, she riveted every day her chains; if she struck some blows, her aim was at the tyrant, not at the tyranny.

    The politic Greeks, who lived under a popular government, knew no other support than virtue.

    The modern inhabitants of that country are entirely taken up with manufacture, commerce, finances, opulence, and luxury.

    When virtue is banished, ambition invades the minds of those who are disposed to receive it, and avarice possesses the whole community.

    The objects of their desires are changed; what they were fond of before has become indifferent; they were free while under the restraint of laws, but they would fain now be free to act against law; and as each citizen is like a slave who has run away from his master, that which was a maxim of equity he calls rigor; that which was a rule of action he styles constraint; and to precaution he gives the name of fear.

    Frugality, and not the thirst of gain, now passes for avarice.

    Formerly the wealth of individuals constituted the public treasure; but now this has become the patrimony of private persons.

    The members of the commonwealth riot on the public spoils, and its strength is only the power of a few, and the license of many.

    Athens was possessed of the same number of forces when she triumphed so gloriously as when with such infamy she was enslaved.

    She had twenty thousand citizens, when she defended the Greeks against the Persians, when she contended for empire with Sparta, and invaded Sicily.

    She had twenty thousand when Demetrius Phalereus numbered them, as slaves are told by the head in a market place.

    When Philip attempted to lord it over Greece, and appeared at the gates of Athens, she had even then lost nothing but time.

    We may see in Demosthenes how difficult it was to awaken her; she dreaded Philip, not as the enemy of her liberty, but of her pleasures.

    This famous city, which had withstood so many defeats, and having been so often destroyed had as often risen out of her ashes, was overthrown at Chaeronea, and at one blow deprived of all hopes of resource.

    What does it avail her that Philip sends back her prisoners, if he does not return her men?

    It was ever after as easy to triumph over the forces of Athens as it had been difficult to subdue her virtue.

    How was it possible for Carthage to maintain her ground?

    When Hannibal, upon his being made praetor, endeavored to hinder the magistrates from plundering the republic, did not they complain of him to the Romans?

    Wretches, who would fain be citizens without a city, and be beholden for their riches to their very destroyers!

    Rome soon insisted upon having three hundred of their principal citizens as hostages; she obliged them next to surrender their arms and ships; and then she declared war.

    From the desperate efforts of this defenceless city, one may judge of what she might have performed in her full vigor, and assisted by virtue.

    – Epilogue: Securing the Republic; Montesquieu, Spirit of Laws,

    Reply

50. Paul Plante says

    February 24, 2021 at 10:13 pm

    So, yes, indeed, people, making it up as they go, and very dangerously so, and here I am bringing us back to pretty much the present moment, forty-seven (47) days AFTER the very slick and very well-orchestrated 6 January 2021 COUP that felled our Constitution with a single hammer blow and replaced it with a Marxist democracy of the oppressed classes in America now being in control of the national government and national treasury, and an article in The Independent entitled “Garland says laws must be ‘fairly and faithfully enforced,'” which makes him sound like he is running for president, via AP news wire on 21 February 2021, where we have as follows:

    President Joe Biden’s nominee for attorney general says the Justice Department must ensure laws are “fairly and faithfully enforced” and the rights of all Americans are protected, while reaffirming an adherence to policies to protect the department’s political independence.

    Judge Merrick Garland who is set to appear Monday before the Senate Judiciary Committee, plans to tell senators that the attorney general must act as a lawyer for the people of the United States, not for the president.

    end quotes

    Which is just plain ******** ignorant and stupid, federal judge Merrick Garland telling senators that the attorney general must act as a lawyer for the people of the United States, not for the president, unless of course, as a federal judge and Obama Democrat, Merrick Garland can just make up this **** in his head regardless of what might happen to be written down as law, and whatever he says is what the law is, as opposed to what is written.

    As to what is actually written about the position and duties of the United States Attorney General, and you would have thought a real slick Harvard law school grad who is a federal appeals court judge would have been all over this, given it is high school stuff, let’s simply go to the Department of Justice website, where we have as follows:

    The United States Department of Justice

    Organization, Mission & Functions Manual: Attorney General, Deputy and Associate

    OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

    The position of Attorney General was created by the Judiciary Act of 1789.

    In June 1870 Congress enacted a law entitled “An Act to Establish the Department of Justice.”

    This Act established the Attorney General as head of the Department of Justice and gave the Attorney General direction and control of U.S. Attorneys and all other counsel employed on behalf of the United States.

    The Act also vested in the Attorney General supervisory power over the accounts of U.S. Attorneys and U.S. Marshals.

    The mission of the Office of the Attorney General is to supervise and direct the administration and operation of the Department of Justice, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Drug Enforcement Administration, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Bureau of Prisons, Office of Justice Programs, and the U.S. Attorneys and U.S. Marshals Service, which are all within the Department of Justice.

    The principal duties of the Attorney General are to:

    * Represent the United States in legal matters.

    * Supervise and direct the administration and operation of the offices, boards, divisions, and bureaus that comprise the Department.

    * Furnish advice and opinions, formal and informal, on legal matters to the President and the Cabinet and to the heads of the executive departments and agencies of the government, as provided by law.

    * Make recommendations to the President concerning appointments to federal judicial positions and to positions within the Department, including U.S. Attorneys and U.S. Marshals.

    * Represent or supervise the representation of the United States Government in the Supreme Court of the United States and all other courts, foreign and domestic, in which the United States is a party or has an interest as may be deemed appropriate.

    * Perform or supervise the performance of other duties required by statute or Executive Order.

    end quotes

    So, a high school civics question here: IF according to written law, the duty of the United States Attorney General is to furnish advice and opinions, formal and informal, on legal matters to the President as provided by law, then how exactly is it that as Biden’s attorney general, Merrick Garland is going to act as a lawyer for the people of the United States, and not for the president?

    And how the hell does this even happen, that we are having people like this Merrick Garland, who is obviously an uninformed idiot, at best, being appointed to high government offices when they don’t know a ******* thing about the offices they are being appointed to, like Merrick Garland who appears delusional and thinks that as attorney general, he is going to to act as lawyer for the people, instead of the president of the United States of America, given that if we go back to the Justice Department site under the heading “The Role of the United States Attorney,” we find thusly:

    The United States Attorney does not act as an attorney for individuals in their private legal affairs or lawsuits.

    end quotes

    What is incredible is that not one single senator seems to have confronted him on those statements, which raises the question of whether a single one of those morons knows the difference him or herself.

    So, as as a lawyer for the people of the United States, and not for the president, people, what can each of us expect Merrick Garland to do for us?

    Is Merrick Garland going to be the lawyer for each and every one of us, all at the same time?

    In that case, what is he going to do if one of us sues another of us in court for assault?

    Is he going to be the lawyer for both of us at the same time?

    Or is he going to take sides?

    And what if the person being sued for assault is a DEMOCRAT while the person doing the suing is not?

    What then?

    Will Merrick Garland go against the DEMOCRAT?

    Getting back to that story, it continues as follows, to wit:

    “It is a fitting time to reaffirm that the role of the attorney general is to serve the Rule of Law and to ensure equal justice under the law,” Garland says in his prepared statement.

    end quotes

    Now, as can be clearly seen from the following correspondence to U.S. Congressman Antonio Delgado, I would be among the very first in this nation to agree that this is indeed a fitting time to reaffirm that the role of the attorney general is to serve the Rule of Law and to ensure equal justice under the law, to wit:

    17 January 2021

    U.S. Congressman Antonio Delgado
    1007 Longworth HOB
    Washington, DC 20515

    Dear Congressman:

    As this new year begins, I hope it finds you well, and I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for your confirmation in a May 22, 2020 e-mail to me from your regional representative Madison Wellman on the record and for the record the fact that with respect to my civil and human rights being stripped from me by the Town of Poestenkill in your Congressional District in retaliation for my having given evidence of endemic corruption in Poestenkill to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, there will be no aid or comfort coming my way from the federal government, which is something I was first informed of in early 1992 by an FBI agent named Tom Dauenhauer with whom I had been involved with in the Hobbs Act investigation of endemic public corruption in Poestenkill and Rensselaer County.

    In that conversation with FBI agent Dauenhauer, which occurred on Broadway in Albany in front of the Post Office building where the FBI was at that time located, the FBI agent took pains to explain to me just how stupid I had been in trying to blow the whistle on public corruption in New York state, and since he was in a mood to teach, I figured I might as well stay for the whole lesson, which included a primer on how I was sold down the river by an assistant U.S. attorney named Barbara Cottrell, in exchange for her name being placed on a list of appointees to a federal judgeship, and how evidence I had provided of corruption in Rensselaer County and Poestenkill had been destroyed by the U.S. Attorney’s Office.

    He then told me that he had been ordered to have no contact with me, and his advice to me at that point was quite explicit: I had very powerful political enemies in New York, and that as a result, I would be wisest if I would run somewhere far from here and go into hiding, because while I was still here, they would remain relentless in their efforts to do me harm in as public a manner as possible to make me an example to discourage anyone else who would think of doing as I dared to do, which was to blow the whistle on corruption in Rensselaer County and Poestenkill.

    And my life has been made into a living hell ever since, because I am not a runner.

    Thank you for confirming that that is not going to change for me in this lifetime if the federal government has any say in the matter.

    As to your suggestion that I try working with the Town of Poestenkill for a solution, when it is the Town of Poestenkill that is engaged in retaliation against me to make my life a living hell, I would respond that that is quite impossible.

    Respectfully,

    Paul R. Plante, NYSPE

    end quotes

    Which brings us back to The Independent, as follows:

    He highlights a key mission for the division: to protect the rights of all Americans and particularly the most vulnerable.

    “That mission remains urgent because we do not yet have equal justice.”

    end quotes

    And as that 17 January 2021 correspondence from myself to the Congressman makes patently clear, we do not yet have equal justice in this country, not in spite of the Department of Justice, but because of the Department of Justice playing politics with our lives and determining who gets protection of law, and who doesn’t.

    So is Merrick Garland going to step in here as my lawyers and rectify any of that?

    Or is all that talk about equal justice just a lot of hot wind and blather given that the United States Department of Justice is a very political agency that does play politics based on who is in office to appoint an attorney general like Merrick Garland?

    Reply

51. Paul Plante says

    February 25, 2021 at 10:46 pm

    And we are on the subject of making it up as they go, and dangerously so, we need to go back for a moment to the article in The Independent entitled “Garland says laws must be ‘fairly and faithfully enforced’” via AP news wire on 21 February 2021, where we have this excellent example of what is called in politics, “THE BIG LIE,” as follows, to wit:

    And as federal prosecutors continue to bring cases following the Jan. 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol, Garland calls the insurrection a “heinous attack that sought to distrust a cornerstone of our democracy: the peaceful transfer of power to a newly elected government.”

    end quotes

    For those who are unfamiliar with the term, if not the technique, the “big lie” is a propaganda technique used for political purpose, defined as “a gross distortion or misrepresentation of the facts, especially when used as a propaganda device by a politician or official body”.

    The German expression was coined by Adolf Hitler, when he dictated his 1925 book Mein Kampf, to describe the use of a lie so “colossal” that no one would believe that someone “could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously”.

    And Vladimir Lenin, a hero of all the Marxists in this country who seized control of our national government on 6 January 2021 in one very slick and very well organized COUP that toppled our Constitutional Republic and replaced it with a Marxist democracy, used this political aphorism to great advantage when he was in power in Russia, to wit: “A lie told often enough becomes the truth.”

    And now we have Joe Biden’s attorney general pick, federal appeals court judge Merrick Garland, using that same Leninist aphorism that a lie told often enough becomes the truth in this following sentence from that article, to wit:

    And as federal prosecutors continue to bring cases following the Jan. 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol, Garland calls the insurrection a “heinous attack that sought to distrust a cornerstone of our democracy: the peaceful transfer of power to a newly elected government.”

    end quotes

    Which first of all raises the question of what insurrection?

    What insurrection can Merrick Garland, a federal judge who isn’t supposed to be playing at politics, although that does not seem to really faze him much as he plays at politics here, possibly be talking about, given there is no evidence that any insurrections ever took place?

    Now, with respect to Trump, who was charged by Nancy Pelosi with inciting an insurrection, if there was indeed any credible evidence that an insurrection had in fact taken place, and Nancy Pelosi is as far from credible evidence as one can get and still be on the planet, as we can see from a review of our own history, after failing to get Trump convicted by the senate, Nancy Pelosi could simply have taken the evidence before a grand jury after Trump got out of office and had him indicted for insurrection, but she never did, so far as we know, and if she had in fact done so, it is impossible we would not have heard her crowing about it, which takes us to that history from an August 18, 2000 Memorandum Opinion for the Attorney General entitled “Whether a Former President May Be Indicted and Tried for the Same Offenses for Which He was Impeached by the House and Acquitted by the Senate,” as follows:

    Two well-informed participants did, however, understand the Impeachment Judgment Clause to imply that an acquittal, like a conviction, would not bar criminal prosecution for the same offences.

    James Wilson, a leading figure at the Constitutional Convention (and member of the Committee of Detail, which drafted the Impeachment Judgment Clause), and at the Pennsylvania ratifying convention, and later an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, revealed such an under­standing in remarks during the Pennsylvania ratifying convention.

    Assuming, as many did during the ratification debates, that Senators as well as executive and judicial officers would be liable to impeachment, Wilson responded to the charge that the Senate could not serve as an effective impeachment court for its own members.

    Noting that one third of the Senate faced re-election every two years, Wilson suggested that voters would throw out those who behaved improperly and that enough new Senators would regularly be added so that personal connections or collective involvement in the impeachable acts would not prevent fair trials.

    Moreover, he argued, ‘‘Though they may not be convicted on impeachment before the Senate, they may be tried by their country; and if their criminality is estab­lished, the law will punish.”

    Edmund Pendleton, the President of the Virginia Supreme Court and of the Virginia Ratifying Convention, apparently interpreted the Impeachment Judgment Clause in this way as well.

    Shortly after the completion of the Constitutional Convention, Madison sent Pendleton a copy of the Con­stitution for his consideration.

    In his generally favorable response, Pendleton con­fessed his leeriness of impeachments because of their susceptibility to partisan misuse, but noted that the impeachment power “is in the hands of the House of Representatives, who will not use it in the case Supposed, or if they do, and meet the obstruction, may yet resort to the courts of Justice, as an Acquital would not bar that remedy.’’

    end quotes

    So why hasn’t Nancy Pelosi done that, given that she must be possessed of voluminous evidence that there was actually an insurrection that Trump had incited?

    And that answer, based on facts, is that there is as of yet no such evidence of an insurrection, which would seem to make Merrick Garland out as nothing more than a common garden-variety liar with his specious claim that “the insurrection was a heinous attack that sought to distrust a cornerstone of our democracy: the peaceful transfer of power to a newly elected government,” and what a load of horse**** that is, because what took place on 6 January 2021 was a SHAM, an empty ritual that if it didn’t happen would have changed nothing at all.

    And who has been arrested so far, and for what?

    For that answer, let’s go to a BBC article entitled “Capitol riots: Who has the FBI arrested so far?” published 27 January 2021, where we have as follows:

    The suspects in the Capitol riot are a varied group: they include a West Virginia lawmaker, a Florida firefighter and a left-wing activist from Utah.

    It’s been over two weeks since the Capitol Hill riot – how much progress has law enforcement made bringing the perpetrators to justice?

    How many arrests so far?

    Michael Sherwin, US Attorney for the District of Columbia, says they have identified 400 suspects and arrested 135 to date in connection with the Capitol siege.

    He said the list of suspects is “growing by the hour,” but conceded they might not have probable cause to charge all 400.

    end quotes

    And what have they been arrested for?

    Well, there is Riley June Williams, 22, a real live whack-job from Harrisburg, who is said to have stolen a laptop from Nancy Pelosi that she allegedly claimed she hoped to sell to Russian intelligence, and she is facing multiple charges, including aiding and abetting the theft of government property.

    No insurrection though.

    And there is a man named Kevin Seefried allegedly seen in viral photos carrying a Confederate flag in the Capitol during the riots who was charged on 14 January along with his son, Hunter, in a Wilmington, Delaware court on charges including entering a restricted building, violent entry and disorderly conduct.

    But no insurrection.

    And the list goes on and on, but no insurrection!

    And were these all right-wing maniacal Trump supporters as we are being told over and over and over and over by the media, as they too engage in “THE BIG LIE,” who were engaged in an insurrection which Biden AG pick Merrick Garland says was a heinous attack that sought to distrust a cornerstone of our democracy: the peaceful transfer of power to a newly elected government?

    How about John Sullivan?

    According to the BBC, we have as follows concerning that individual, to wit:

    A left-wing activist was also arrested after tweeting video of himself inside the US Capitol as protesters breached security.

    John Sullivan, 26, was charged with entering a restricted building and violent entry or disorderly conduct.

    He claimed in media interviews that he was just “documenting” the rampage, though the affidavit notes he has no press credentials.

    The court document says Mr Sullivan can be heard saying in a video he filmed of the Capitol riot: “Let’s burn this shit down.”

    He has identified himself in media interviews as a Black Lives Matter supporter, but rejects any association with antifa, a loosely affiliated group of far-left protesters.

    Following the death of George Floyd last year, Mr Sullivan founded an activist group called Insurgence USA that advocates for racial justice.

    He was charged in July 2020 with felony riot and criminal mischief over civil unrest in Provo, Utah.

    end quotes

    So if we have a left-wing wingnut who has been previously arrested for felony riot involved in the violence in Washington, D.C. on 6 January 2021, then who is really responsible for all the violence in the Capitol on 6 January 2021, people?

    Reply

52. Paul Plante says

    February 26, 2021 at 10:22 pm

    And while we are on the subject of Biden pick for attorney general of the United States of America, that being federal appeals court judge Merrick Garland, an Obama-ite with a nice smile who seems to be none too bright, which I believe is why Mitch McConnell never gave him a hearing, because frankly, the dude is a flake unfit to be a Supreme Court justice, playing partisan politics here while feeding us a platter of pure BULL**** which he is passing off as steak tartare, let us go back this following sentence from the article in The Independent entitled “Garland says laws must be ‘fairly and faithfully enforced’” via AP news wire on 21 February 2021, where we have as follows, to wit:

    And as federal prosecutors continue to bring cases following the Jan. 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol, Garland calls the insurrection a “heinous attack that sought to distrust a cornerstone of our democracy: the peaceful transfer of power to a newly elected government.”

    end quotes

    A heinous attack that sought to distrust a cornerstone of our democracy?”

    The peaceful transfer of power to a newly elected government?

    HUH?

    Does anyone have a clue as to what he could possibly be on about with either of those two inane (silly; stupid) statements, and especially that first one about a heinous attack that sought to distrust a cornerstone of our democracy?

    That makes absolutely no sense at all, does it?

    In fact, it is a stupid statement, where the word “sought” has as its synonyms the following: requested, tried, asked, attempted, solicited, endeavoured, wanted, desired, searched, looked, claimed, pursued, required, called, striven, requests.

    So, a heinous attack that asked to distrust a cornerstone of our democracy?

    A heinous attack that claimed to distrust a cornerstone of our democracy?

    Stupid any way you try to put it, and this is a man Barack Obama wanted to put on the United States Supreme Court, if you can feature that, and now Joe Biden wants to make him attorney general so he can be the people’s lawyer, not Joe’s.

    And what exactly is this “cornerstone of our democracy” that this so-called heinous attack sought to distrust, where “distrust” can be taken to mean the feeling that someone or something cannot be relied upon, as in “our distrust of the national government under the control of the Democrats,” or doubt the honesty or reliability of; regard with suspicion, as in “we the American people regard with suspicion the manner in which Joe Biden was made president of the United States of America?”

    Does Merrick Garland, a federal judge who is supposed to uphold OUR Constitution and OUR laws, expect us to believe that this UNCONSTITUTIONAL FARCE that was played out in the capitol on 6 January 2021, where Nancy Pelosi made sure that neither the provisions of OUR Constitution regarding the electoral college nor the federal law on counting ballots were followed or adhered to, was a legitimate exercise of governmental authority?

    And what of this horse**** about the “peaceful transfer of power to a newly elected government?”

    Didn’t that happen on 20 January 2021 just as the Constitution requires?

    Didn’t Trump peacefully leave the white house shortly after 8:00 A.M. on 20 January 2021, even though the Constitution gave him until noon?

    What about an ABC news story entitled “Trump leaves White House hours before Biden’s inauguration: ‘Have a good life'” by Emily Shapiro on January 20, 2021, where we were informed as follows:

    President Donald Trump, holding hands with Melania Trump, left the White House for the final time as commander in chief shortly after 8 a.m. Wednesday.

    Trump boarded Marine One to head to Joint Base Andrews for a farewell speech hours before Joe Biden is sworn in as 46th president of the United States.

    end quotes

    Is that fake news?

    Is that not true?

    Is Trump still in Washington holding the white house with superior military force?

    No, wait, that is Joe Biden?

    So what on earth is Merrick Garland on about with this horse**** about a “peaceful transfer of power to a newly elected government?”

    If Trump left peacefully hours before our Constitution said Joe Biden was ACTUALLY president, which is noon on the 20th, not just some schmoe who thought he was president, then how is it that Merrick Garland doesn’t believe there was a peaceful transfer of power from Trump to the newly elected government of Joe Biden?

    Is he stupid?

    Or just woefully uninformed?

    Either way, of course, he is a great pick to be attorney general under Joe Biden.

    Reply

53. Paul Plante says

    February 28, 2021 at 9:57 pm

    And while we are on the subject of making it up as they go, and making wild and reckless claims and charges without presenting any evidence or proof to back them up, which is what the main-stream media was always accusing Trump of doing, with no evidence to support their charge that Trump was making things up, which is what the main-stream media has been doing for as long as I can remember, how about the Hearst publication story “FBI arrests Capital Region man for Capitol siege involvement” by Edward McKinley of the Albany, New York Times Union updated Jan. 19, 2021, where we had as follows, to wit:

    ALBANY — A Capital Region man was arrested Saturday night for his participation in the storming of the U.S. Capitol, the FBI Albany office announced.

    Brandon Fellows, a 2012 Niskayuna High School graduate who has a Schenectady address on his driver’s license, was charged with violent entry of restricted grounds for his role in the siege at the U.S. Capitol during the certification of the Electoral College results Jan. 6.

    Fellows has bragged about his role in the violence on his social media accounts, according to court filings, as well as to members of the media.

    end quotes

    As an aside, a picture of this Brandon Fellows, a typical example of the type of very ignorant morons being produced by what we are told is an “educational system,” is being used by Hearst in the same way the Nazis in Germany very effectively used pictures of Marinus van der Lubbe, an unemployed 24-year-old Dutch laborer with Communist sympathies, to turn the passions of the public against the Communists in Germany after the Reichstag fire which gave Adolph Hitler absolute power in Germany as a dictator, with this WHACK-JOB who graduated as a certified imbecilic moron from Niskayuna High School in 2012 being touted by Hearst as the quintessential (representing the most perfect or typical example of a class) Trump supporter, to put forth an impression that the only people in the United States of America were complete idiots like this moron Brandon Fellows who graduated from Niskayuna High School in 2012, which takes us to their website for a moment, as follows:

    Mission Statement

    The faculty, staff, students, parents and community of Niskayuna High School believe that our mission is to educate students to become lifelong learners who believe in their own potential.

    We will provide opportunities for all students to acquire knowledge, develop skills, and form attitudes that will enable them to take a responsible and active role in their local and global communities.

    end quotes

    And in the case of this moronic idiot Brandon Fellows, what a large load of hot, steaming pig**** that all is, because they failed big time with this moron Fellows, which takes us back to the Times Union article for more horse****, as follows:

    Fellows, who Bloomberg reported lives in a converted school bus in the Capital Region, has not been shy about his participation in the insurrection that has led to five deaths.

    end quotes

    The insurrection?

    What insurrection?

    WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT A CLAIM OF INSURRECTION?

    This mindless idiot Fellows was charged with violent entry of restricted grounds, which is a long way away from an insurrection, but hey, we are talking about Hearst and YELLOW JOURNALISM, which is their forte, so what the hell need do they have for facts?

    And looking at those four sentences we have so far from Hearts alone, we have:

    1) The storming of the U.S. Capitol, as if it were July 14, 1789 all over again with Parisian revolutionaries and mutinous troops storming and dismantling the Bastille, a royal fortress and prison that had come to symbolize the tyranny of the Bourbon monarchs, which dramatic action signaled the beginning of the French Revolution, a decade of political turmoil and terror in which King Louis XVI was overthrown and tens of thousands of people, including the king and his wife Marie Antoinette, were executed;

    2) A siege at the U.S. Capitol during the certification of the Electoral College results Jan. 6, as if it were February 23, 1836 all over again with a Mexican force numbering in the thousands and led by General Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna beginning a 13-day siege of the Alamo;

    3) Fellows bragging about his role in the violence; and

    4) An insurrection!

    So how is that for a fine example of the type of YELLOW JOURNALISM (journalism that is based upon sensationalism and crude exaggeration, as in “equating insurrection with smoking pot is the worst yellow journalism”) Hearst publications have been world famous for since the Spanish-American War?

    But there is more, as follows:

    He told Bloomberg that his profile on the dating app Bumble, however, has been “blowing up” ever since his participation in the insurrection against the U.S. government.

    end quotes

    HUH?

    His participation in the “insurrection” against the U.S. government?

    Where the U.S. government is defined by rational, logical, lucid and non-idiotic or non-moronic or non-imbecilic people as the executive and legislative and judicial branches of the federal government of the United States, what a real stupid statement that is, given that on 6 January 2021 Donald Trump just happened to be the executive branch of the U.S. government that this so-called insurrection was aimed at.

    And what exactly was the role this Fellows moron played in that insurrection against the administration of Donald Trump on 6 January 2021?

    Fir that answer, let’s go to a WNYT NewsChannel 13 story on the same subject titled “U.S. Capitol protestor from Niskayuna: ‘I have one regret'” by Dan Levy on February 14, 2021, where we had more of that “insurrection” horse**** as follows:

    SCHENECTADY – When NewsChannel 13 sat down for a chat with Brandon Fellows on Saturday afternoon, he wore the same fake beard and sunglasses he had on at the U.S. Capitol the day of the
    insurrection.

    He insists he didn’t know he wasn’t supposed to be inside the Capitol, and he says Capitol Police officers invited him and others into the building on that infamous afternoon.

    He also says he has video evidence to prove it.

    “A lot of us did wait until we had permission from police to go in,” he said.

    “The general sentiment among most people was don’t be violent, don’t destroy things, and don’t steal things.”

    end quotes

    Ah, I don’t know about anyone else, but so far, I am having some trouble here connecting any of this with any supposed insurrection on 6 January 2021 against the administration of Donald Trump, but let’s dig a little deeper where we have:

    Fellows says, at one point, he wandered into Oregon Sen. Jeff Merkley’s office and put his feet up on a table, as he and others passed around what appeared to be a marijuana joint.

    “I do regret potentially smoking what may have been weed,” he said.

    “I think that discredits me and makes me look stupid to a lot of people.”

    end quotes

    WOW!

    The moron is not a complete idiot, afterall

    Yes, Brandon, it does discredit you and yes, it does make you look real stupid to people all across the world, BUT, does it make you an insurrectionist?

    Let’s go back to the story and see:

    Fellows is facing two misdemeanors — entering the Capitol unlawfully and disorderly conduct.

    end quotes

    HMMMMMM!

    Where’s the charges of being in an insurrection?

    Oh, there aren’t any, because there wasn’t one, which will not stop the main-stream media that makes it up as they go from continuing to claim there was an insurrection, even though they have no evidence to back up their claims.

    And so it goes!

    Reply

54. Paul Plante says

    March 2, 2021 at 7:44 pm

    And will this making it up as they go, while bombarding us with a continual blizzard of pure BULL**** never end, and here, I am talking about the so-called “main-stream media,” and especially the National Propaganda Radio (NPR) news release entitled “Sen. Coons Has Questions For FBI’s Wray About White Supremacist Threat” Heard on Morning Edition on March 2, 2021 7:15 AM ET, where we heard as follows:

    NPR’s Noel King talks to Democratic Sen. Chris Coons of Delaware ahead of a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing with FBI Director Christopher Wray about the Jan. 6 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol.

    end quotes

    Here it is, people, 2 March 2021, and despite having absolutely NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that an insurrection took place on January 6, 2021, fifty-five (55) days later, National Propaganda Radio is still telling us, despite having no proof, that yes, we have to believe them that an insurrection actually did take place on 6 January 2021, because they are the main-stream media.

    Which takes us to an Albany, New York Times Union article entitled “Two Capital Region men facing more charges in Capitol riot – Brandon Fellows, 26, of Niskayuna and James Bonet, 29, of Glens Falls hit with additional charges” by Robert Gavin on Feb. 17, 2021, where we have as follows:

    ALBANY — Two Capital Region men who allegedly smoked marijuana inside the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6 and separately boasted on social media about “taking” the building that afternoon are now taking on more criminal charges.

    end quotes

    These two morons smoking pot in the capitol on 6 January 2021, of course, are the deadly WHITE NATIONALIST/WHITE SUPREMACIST threat that the Democrat Chris Coons is so worried about, and smoking pot in the capitol is the insurrection that National Propaganda Radio keeps blathering about: “OMG, THEY SMOKED POT, IT’S AN INSURRECTION, CALL OUT THE NATIONAL GUARD!”

    But hey, let’s give them the benefit of the doubt, because to be in the main-stream media these days, it’s far better to not have an intellect that can get in the way of pitching BULL****, and go back to the Times Union to see what more they have for us on these dangerous pot-smoking deadly WHITE NATIONALIST/WHITE SUPREMACISTS, to wit:

    A federal grand jury in Washington, D.C., indicted Brandon Fellows, 26, of Niskayuna, on Feb. 6 on five counts, including a felony obstruction charge, for his actions on Jan. 6.

    Fellows, who smirked throughout his arraignment in Albany last month, was initially facing misdemeanor charges.

    James Bonet, 29, of Glens Falls, initially charged with two federal misdemeanors, is now facing four charges, including felony charges, according to court documents filed Tuesday in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C.

    end quotes

    While it is good to see these moronic idiots having to face the consequences of being a stupid, moronic idiot while over the age of 18, does being a moronic idiot smoking pot in the capitol translate as an act of insurrection?

    Getting back to the Times Union:

    Bonet, reached on Tuesday night, told the Times Union he had no comment on the insurrection, in which five people, including a Capitol Police officer, lost their lives.

    end quotes

    Uh, since there was no insurrection, Bob, then how could he possibly have any kind of comment on it?

    And five people did not lose their lives in an insurrection.

    Three people died of natural causes while these two morons were smoking pot in the Capitol, a woman was shot and killed by capitol police, and a capitol police office died later after being assaulted by what seemed to be ANTI-FA, the Democrat party paramilitaries who are very experienced at attacking police and assaulting and destroying government property, and who so far remain at large, after being allowed to make their escape, so that is more than a little hyperbolic, but to give credit where credit is due, Bob is writing for Hearst and they specialize in Yellow Journalism, so Bob, to keep his job, has to practice journalism that is based upon sensationalism and crude exaggeration as in “equating in surrection with smoking pot is the worst yellow journalism,” or the best, from the perspective of the editors at the Times Union, which takes us back to the article for more, as follows:

    The indictment charged Fellows with obstruction of an official proceeding, a felony; entering and remaining in a restricted building or grounds when the vice president and vice president-elect were temporarily visiting; disorderly and destructive conduct in a restricted building or grounds when the vice president and vice president-elect were temporarily visiting; entering and remaining in certain rooms in the Capitol building; and disorderly conduct in a Capitol building.

    Bonet is now charged with violent entry and disorderly conduct in a Capitol building; entering and remaining in a restricted building without authority; disorderly and disruptive conduct in a restricted building; and parading, demonstrating, or picketing in a Capitol building.

    end quotes

    So, WHERE’S THE BEEF, Bob?

    Where are the insurrectionists?

    The candid world would really like to know!

    Reply

55. Paul Plante says

    March 3, 2021 at 8:04 pm

    Yes, people, Yellow Journalism, a Hearst Publications specialty, although not exclusively, remains very much alive and well here in the United States of America, with FACEBOOK’s propaganda organ, National Propaganda Radio (NPR), going on once again this morning, 3 March 2021, about the “DEADLY INSURRECTION” at the Capitol on 6 January 2020, even though to date, no grand jury has returned an indictment for insurrection, which of course does not bother NPR in any way as they just pull this BULL**** they peddle as the propaganda organ of FACEBOOK out of their ***** by the yard, not being required to be either truthful or factual, which takes us the the United States Senate website for some necessary background as to who is responsible for capitol security, before we go into the testimony of FBI director Christopher Wray on what he thought happened on 6 January 2021 as he defended his intelligence sharing, or lack thereof, to wit:

    Office of the Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper

    The Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper, elected by the members, serves as the protocol and chief law enforcement officer and is the principal administrative manager for most support services in the United States Senate.

    end quotes

    Now, as we, the American people, focus in on these so-called security failures, focus on those very words that:

    1) The Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper is elected by the members of the Senate, which would include Democratic Socialist “running dog” Charley “Chuck” Schumer who took control of the Senate on 3 January 2021, three days before the 6 January 2021 COUP;

    2) The Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper who is elected by the members of the Senate serves as the protocol and chief law enforcement officer; and

    3) The Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper who is elected by the members of the Senate is the principal administrative manager for most support services in the United States Senate.

    end quotes

    So there, it appears that we have identified a responsible party here, even if NPR and the main-stream media have been unable or unwilling to do as they pursue their own political agenda with their contrived narrative about a “DEADLY INSURRECTION” at the Capitol on 6 January 2021, but let’s not be hasty, so back we go for more:

    When the first Congress convened in 1789, the Office of Doorkeeper was established to address the single-most-pressing problem confronting the Senate at its birth — its inability to keep a majority of members in the Capitol long enough to organize and begin the business of government.

    A doorkeeper was also necessary to control access to the Senate sessions, which were private for the first six years.

    Later, when the sessions were open to the public, the doorkeeper was responsible for maintaining order on the floor of the Senate and in the galleries.

    The title of Sergeant at Arms was added in 1798 to reflect the expanded administrative duties of the position.

    The protocol responsibilities include escorting the president and other heads of state or official guests of the Senate who are attending official functions in the Capitol; making arrangements for funerals of senators who die in office; assisting in plans for the inauguration of the president and organizing the swearing-in and orientation programs for newly elected senators.

    The Sergeant at Arms leads the senators from the Senate to the House Chamber for joint sessions of Congress, to the presidential inaugural platform, or wherever the Senate may go as a body.

    As executive officer, the Sergeant at Arms has custody of the Senate gavel.

    end quotes

    That is background, which brings us to the “beef,” as follows:

    As chief law enforcement officer of the Senate, the Sergeant at Arms is charged with maintaining security in the Capitol and all Senate buildings, as well as protection of the members themselves.

    end quotes

    And there we have it, people, that is if we want to put any faith at all into what is printed and published by the U.S. Senate., which does not have a reputation for integrity or veracity or honesty or fidelity to RULE OF LAW – as chief law enforcement officer of the Senate, the Sergeant at Arms is charged with maintaining security in the Capitol and all Senate buildings, as well as protection of the members themselves.

    So it is that person who was responsible for Capitol security on 6 January 2021, which takes us to an article in The Hill entitled “Five big takeaways on the Capitol security hearings” by Scott Wong and Mike Lillis on February 23, 2021, where we had as follows:

    Former Capitol security officials clashed publicly on Tuesday over the events surrounding last month’s deadly assault on the Capitol complex, casting blame at the intelligence community and the Pentagon while delivering conflicting accounts of how the tragedy unfolded.

    Congress will need to probe contradictions

    There were major discrepancies between former Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund and former House Sergeant-at-Arms Paul Irving as they recounted their actions before and during the Jan. 6 attack.

    The two officials couldn’t even agree whether a phone call had taken place between them as rioters were breaking into the building.

    Sund testified that two days before the attack, he approached both Irving and then-Senate Sergeant-at-Arms Michael Stenger to request aid from the National Guard.

    Irving said he was concerned about the “optics” of a military presence at the Capitol and didn’t feel the intelligence supported it, according to Sund.

    Irving rejected Sund’s account, testifying that Sund’s impression was “categorically false” and that it was the “collective judgment” of the three men that the intelligence did not warrant calling in the Guard.

    With the attack underway on Jan. 6, Sund testified that he had called Irving at 1:09 p.m. to seek approval from the House and Senate sergeants-at-arms to request help from the National Guard.

    Sund said other officials in his department personally witnessed him make the call.

    But Irving said he was on the House floor at that time and doesn’t remember getting a call from Sund at 1:09.

    He also testified that his phone records do not show him receiving a call or text from Sund around that time.

    The first time he spoke to Sund that hour was at 1:28 p.m., said Irving.

    Irving then alerted Stenger and top aides to Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) about the need to call in the Guard.

    Irving said Sund did not make a formal request until after 2 p.m.

    The alleged 1:09 phone call is of importance because some officials and lawmakers believe an earlier request could have prevented injuries or deaths.

    Other House and Senate committees probing the attack could request or subpoena phone records that could clear up the discrepancy, shedding more light on the credibility of the two officials.

    end quotes

    And there, I will take a pause to let that all be digested, but notice once again that there is no mention whatsoever of an insurrection at the Capitol on 6 January 2021, because there wasn’t one.

    Reply

56. Paul Plante says

    March 4, 2021 at 12:03 pm

    And OMG, STOP THE PRESSES!

    HUGE BREAKING NEWS JUST OUT!

    According to the website Newser article “House Cancels Thursday Session Over Attack Fears – The Senate has not followed suit” by Luke Roney, Newser Staff, posted on Mar 3, 2021, we have to wit:

    (Newser) – The House of Representatives has canceled its Thursday session over reports of a possible plot by an “identified militia group” to attempt a repeat of the Jan. 6 attack on the US Capitol.

    end quotes

    And here we go with an even bigger blizzard of BULL**** flying in our faces from these DICTATORAL DEMOCRATS in the House of Representatives.

    Look at this HORSE**** they are feeding us here as they try to provoke fear in this country:

    * Reports of a “possible” plot; and

    * An “identified militia group.”

    Which is all more DEMOCRAT fear-mongering.

    Getting back to that dose of breaking news from Nancy Pelosi, we have:

    One Democratic lawmaker tells the Hill that there is “growing concern about threats to the Capitol and Democratic lawmakers in particular tomorrow.”

    end quotes

    Now, consider how ******* stupid that sounds in the light of the fact that right now, Washington, D.C. is the most militarized capital of any third-world ****hole on the face of the planet, guarded by a massive military security presence, with modern weaponry to include helicopter gunships and Bradley fighting vehicles with their automatic weaponry, and the capitol itself, now a symbol of TYRANNY and OPPRESSION and DESPOTISM, is ringed with razor wire, and yet we are to believe that some type of “militia” group, maybe those lard asses we see toting huge weapons in the pictures of WHITE SUPREMACIST/WHITE NATIONALIST threats the main-stream media are always posting to make us feel the need to be scared and afraid.

    And right on schedule, here comes National Propaganda Radio to push that story, which is so totally ridiculous it is not funny.

    Welcome to the THIRD WORLD, people – America is no more!

    Reply

57. Paul Plante says

    March 4, 2021 at 8:06 pm

    Yes, people, following the tried-and-true model of Joseph Goebbels, the Nazi Propaganda Minister who never shied away from copying the most effective Socialist and Communist strategies, and who asked in June of 1935 the rhetorical question “(I)s propaganda, as we understand it, not also a form of art,” which it very much is, especially here in the United States today now that the Democrats have seized control of our national government and are now cementing their hold on the legislative and executive branches of our government, tightening their iron grip by blasting us with a steady stream of propaganda from National Propaganda Radio (the Volksempfänger,’ or radio receiver, was Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels’ preferred method of mass communication) about insurrections and militias over-running Washington, D.C. in order to keep us scared and confused, which is to say, easy to manipulate, and fearful, which is to say, mind dead, unable to think, so that the floodgates are now full open 24/7 so that we are now being inundated under a deluge of BULL**** and HOG**** and HORSE**** from the Democrats about IMMINENT ATTACKS ON WASHINGTON, D.C., BY THE GREAT HEATHEN ARMY OF IVAR THE BONELESS AND HALFDAN RAGNARSON, AN IDENTIFIED MILITIA IF THERE EVER WAS ONE (we’re talking real bad-ass dudes here, people, like that wild bunch on motorcycles who took over that town in California back when) WHICH JUST LANDED IN CAPE CHARLES, VIRGINIA AND IS MAKING ITS WAY TO WASHINGTON AS WE SPEAK!

    And the military forces arrayed around Washington are now so weakened because Joe Biden ordered them purged of everybody he deemed a threat to his autocracy, that they cannot hold out against this militia threat caused by the Great Heathen Army of Ivar the Boneless and Haldan Ragnarson as we see in a REUTERS article entitled “Pentagon, stumped by extremism in ranks, orders stand-down in next 60 days” by Phil Stewart and Idrees Ali on February 3, 2021, where we learned about the state of our United States military, as follows:

    WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The U.S. military on Wednesday acknowledged it was unsure about how to address white nationalism and other extremism in its ranks, and announced plans for military-wide stand-downs pausing regular activity at some point in the next 60 days to tackle the issue.

    end quotes

    And now look what is happening – these militias that almost very nearly assassinated AOC, because people, it is really about her, on 6 January 2021 are exploiting that stand-down to make yet another assault on the Capitol, as we see by returning to the Newser article, to wit:

    The Capitol Police said in a Wednesday statement: “We have obtained intelligence that shows a possible plot to breach the Capitol by an identified militia group on Thursday, March 4.”

    “Our Department is working with our local, state, and federal partners to stop any threats to the Capitol.”

    “We are taking the intelligence seriously.”

    end quotes

    Now, there we go, people – these are professionals speaking here, so when they say this Great Heathen Army of Ivar the Boneless and Halfdan Ragnarson is going to breach the Capitol like it wasn’t defended at all by the biggest military force in the capital city of any despotism on the face of the earth, they know just what it is they are talking about, which takes us back to REUTERS for the reason why, to wit:

    The decision to a hold a stand-down was made by Lloyd Austin, who made history by becoming the military’s first Black defense secretary after a long career rising in the ranks of the Army.

    In his confirmation hearing, Austin underscored the need to rid the military of “racists and extremists”.

    end quotes

    Yes, people, it’s past time we got rid of white people in the U.S. military because everybody knows that if they have white skin, they have implicit bias which makes them into WHITE NATIONALISTS and WHITE SUPREMACISTS, so there in no room for them at all in Joe Biden’s army, which takes us back to Reuters, for more, as follows:

    Pentagon spokesman John Kirby said Austin ordered the stand-down after a meeting with the U.S. military branch leaders, who are under pressure to show progress in combating extremism after current and former military servicemembers were found to have participated in the siege of the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6.

    The Pentagon has yet to define how it will deal with extremism or offer data estimating how many service members hold white nationalist ideology.

    It has also not disclosed how many troops have been disciplined for extremism.

    “We don’t know how we’re going to be able to get after this in a meaningful, productive, tangible way and that is why he had this meeting today and that is why he certainly ordered this stand-down,” Kirby told reporters.

    It was unclear whether the announcement was meant to foreshadow any near-term concrete actions by President Joe Biden’s Pentagon or whether the stand-down was more of a symbolic move, meant to demonstrate Austin’s acknowledgement of the problem and continued resolve.

    The Pentagon did not define whether stand-downs pausing regular activity across the U.S. military might last minutes or hours, or what commanders would do during that time to express opposition to extremism.

    end quotes

    And there we have the latest, people, as the AUTOCRAT Joe Biden re-makes America in his image as a part of his MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN agenda.

    Reply

58. Paul Plante says

    March 5, 2021 at 9:57 pm

    And while we are on the subject of what is known today in government propaganda circles as the “Goebbels’ Model,” so successfully employed by the main-stream media in this country today along with National Propaganda Radio (NPR) on behalf of the Democrats,, with respect to what that model is based on, a time-tested truism, Paul Joseph Goebbels (29 October 1897 – 1 May 1945), a German Nazi politician and Reich Minister of Propaganda of Nazi Germany from 1933 to 1945 who was one of Adolf Hitler’s closest and most devoted associates, known for his skills in public speaking and who obtained a Doctor of Philology degree from the University of Heidelberg in 1921, joining the Nazi Party in 1924, where he began to take an interest in the use of propaganda to promote the party and its programme, and after the Nazis’ seizure of power in 1933, and whose Propaganda Ministry quickly gained and exerted control over the news media, arts, and information in Germany, and who was particularly adept at using the relatively new media of radio and film for propaganda purposes, described it thusly, to wit:

    “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.”

    “The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie.”

    “It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”

    end quotes

    And that thought about the Democrat propaganda floodgates based on the successful “Goebbels’ Model” of “(I)f you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it,” which is so true in America today, where people no longer have the ability to think, now being full open 24/7 so that we are being literally inundated under a tsunami of BULL**** and HOG**** and HORSE**** from the Democrats through National Propaganda Radio (NPR) and the main-stream media takes us back in time a bit to a Brookings op ed article “What the Capitol insurgency reveals about white supremacy and law enforcement” by as dude named Rashawn Ray on January 12, 2021 where the HORSE**** flows freely in a torrent, we have a masterpiece in the art of “THE BIG LIE, ” to wit:

    Make no mistake, the Capitol insurgency was about making America great for white people.

    end quotes

    That’s BULL****, Rashawn, dude!

    First of all, there was no Capitol insurgency, which is “THE BIG LIE” being repeated over and over by the Democrats and their media lackeys in an effort to make the lie into the “truth,” because no grand jury has determined there was an insurgency, nor could they, since the elements of the CRIME of insurgency do not exist, period, or Donald Trump would have been indicted for insurgency, a serious federal crime, by now, despite being acquitted by the Senate, because acquittal by the Senate is not a bar to a criminal indictment once a president leaves office.

    So, since there was no insurgency, it follows that the statement by this Rashawn dude that “the Capitol insurgency was about making America great for white people” is just ignorant horse****, but let’s go back and see what more Rashawn of Brookings, a nonprofit public policy organization based in Washington, DC. whose mission is to conduct in-depth research that leads to new ideas for solving problems facing society at the local, national and global level, has to say, which is at foll9ows, to wit:

    In erecting a hangman’s noose, waving the Confederate flag, and wearing white nationalist paraphernalia, including an Auschwitz Concentration Camp shirt, the domestic terrorists showed America they fundamentally believe in maintaining and enacting white supremacy.

    end quotes

    The domestic terrorists showed America they fundamentally believe in maintaining and enacting white supremacy?

    My goodness, do tell, Rashawn, but what John Sullivan?

    What about him?

    According to the BBC, we have as follows concerning that individual, to wit:

    A left-wing activist was also arrested after tweeting video of himself inside the US Capitol as protesters breached security.

    John Sullivan, 26, was charged with entering a restricted building and violent entry or disorderly conduct.

    He claimed in media interviews that he was just “documenting” the rampage, though the affidavit notes he has no press credentials.

    The court document says Mr Sullivan can be heard saying in a video he filmed of the Capitol riot: “Let’s burn this shit down.”

    He has identified himself in media interviews as a Black Lives Matter supporter, but rejects any association with antifa, a loosely affiliated group of far-left protesters.

    Following the death of George Floyd last year, Mr Sullivan founded an activist group called Insurgence USA that advocates for racial justice.

    He was charged in July 2020 with felony riot and criminal mischief over civil unrest in Provo, Utah.

    end quotes

    What about him, Rashawn?

    There is a DOMESTIC TERRORIST who is a BLACK LIVES MATTER supporter!

    Where does he fit into your narrative of what you are trying to tell us happened in Washington, D.C. on 6 January 2021, where you were quoted in your article thusly:

    Donald Trump, and Trumpism as an ideology, has opened a Pandora’s box of hate into the American mainstream, giving the permission some racists needed to reveal themselves proudly and wreak havoc on symbols of American democracy that have withstood wars and attacks for centuries.

    end quotes

    What absolute horse**** that is.

    First of all, in the United States of America today, there is no ideology, defined as a system of ideas and ideals, especially one which forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy, known as “Trumpism,” which is an invention of this Rashawn Ray dude, something that doesn’t really exist, but following the tenets of Joseph Goebbels to keep repeating the lies over and over until they become the only “truth” people know, Rashawn will keep repeating the mantra of “Trumpism, Trumpism, Trumpism,” until people actually begin to believe such a thing actually has a concrete existence outside of the mind of Rashawn Ray as an ideology.

    And how about this burst of genuine horsecrap, to wit:

    Trumpism has opened a Pandora’s box of hate into the American mainstream, giving the permission some racists needed to reveal themselves proudly and wreak havoc on symbols of American democracy that have withstood wars and attacks for centuries.

    end quotes

    Rashawn, dude, I have no clue as to what somebody has to do to become a an expert for Brookings, but from what you are putting forth here, it appears you can be pretty ignorant and still be considered an expert by them.

    As to wreaking havoc on symbols of American democracy that have withstood wars and attacks for centuries, 207 years ago. or slightly more than two centuries ago, on August 24, 1814, as the War of 1812 raged on, invading British troops marched into Washington and set fire to the U.S. Capitol and destroyed it.

    And “symbols” of American “democracy?”

    What a crock that is, unless of course one wants to be very realistic and say that all of the many, many scandals associated with the House of Representatives and the Senate are the real symbols of American democracy, which is so similar to organized crime that I am not at all sure how on can tell the difference.

    We have, for example, Democrat John B. Clark kicked out of the “People’s House” on July 13, 1861 for Disloyalty to the Union; fighting for the Confederacy.

    That was back during the Democrat insurrection against the United States of America in which they were defeated by LOYAL AMERICANS.

    And how about Democrat John W. Reed whom was booted from the House of Representatives on December 2, 1861 for Disloyalty to the Union; fighting for the Confederacy.

    Or Democrat Henry C. Burnett given the boot on December 2, 1861 for Disloyalty to the Union; fighting for the Confederacy.

    Or Democrat Michael J. Myers, convicted of bribery, booted from the House on October 2, 1980.

    Or Democrat James A. Traficant, convicted of conspiracy to commit bribery, defraud U.S., receipt of illegal gratuities, obstruction of justice, filing false tax returns, and racketeering, booted from the House on July 24, 2002.

    Those are the real symbols of the “democracy” of the Democrats here in the United States of America.

    And with regard to a real ideology here in the United States of America that in real life, as opposed to the vivid imagination of Rashawn Ray of Brooking, a propaganda organ that rivals NPR, that opened a Pandora’s box of hate into the American mainstream, giving the permission some racists needed to reveal themselves proudly, we are talking the history of the Democrat party since the 1800s, with their violent, racist terror gangs such as the Red Shirts, and White League.

    And when it comes to Democrat party political violence, who can possibly forget the famous “Dead Rabbits,” an Irish American criminal street gang active in Lower Manhattan in the 1830s to 1850s.

    Besides street-fighting, the Dead Rabbits supported politicians such as Democrat Fernando Wood and the Democrat Tammany Hall machine, and under the leadership of Isaiah Rynders the gang acted as enforcers to violently persuade voters during elections to vote for their candidates.

    God bless Democrat party “democracy,” isn’t it, people?

    No finer “democracy” in all the land than the “democracy” of the Democrats is what they all say, and who can argue with them, especially if it will get your head bashed in for you by a Democrat thug!

    Reply

59. Paul Plante says

    March 8, 2021 at 11:47 am

    And here we have to stop for a moment, because as AOC, the DEMOCRAT DRAMA QUEEN who this is really all about, says, not only do words have a lot of letters in them, but they also have meaning, which takes us back to that Brookings op ed article titled “What the Capitol insurgency reveals about white supremacy and law enforcement” by a dude named Rashawn Ray on January 12, 2021 where we had as follows, to wit:

    Make no mistake, the Capitol insurgency was about making America great for white people.

    end quotes

    And the word we have there with a lot of letters in it is a new word in this on-going drama about what actually did take place in Washington, D.C. on 6 January 2021, that word being “INSURGENCY,” as opposed to “INSURRECTION,” which is what Nancy Pelosi impeached Trump for – inciting an insurrection, not an insurgency.

    So why is Dr. Rashawn Ray, a very highly educated man with a BA from University of Memphis in 2003, an MA from Indiana University in 2005, and a PhD from Indiana University in 2010 using the term “insurgency,” while National Propaganda Radio (NPR) and the media and the Democrats are using the word “insurrection” for the same set of events on 6 January 2021?

    Is it a Freudian slip on his part where a Freudian slip is an unintentional error regarded as revealing subconscious feelings?

    What does Dr. Rashawn Ray know that we don’t know?

    As to an “INSURGENCY” not being an “INSURRECTION,” let us go to an article on the Foundation for Defense of Democracy website entitled “America in 2020: ‘Insurrection’ or ‘Incipient Insurgency’?” by David Kilcullen on June 23, 2020, where we have as follows

    In the two weeks of disorder that followed the death of George Floyd, 200 cities imposed curfews; 31 states and the District of Columbia called out the National Guard; active-duty U.S. troops deployed in the capital; helicopters buzzed protesters; and police armored vehicles appeared on the streets, while Predator drones and other aircraft flew surveillance racetracks over Minneapolis and 14 other cities.

    Amid the tear gas and brick-throwing, more than 11,000 people were arrested; hundreds were hurt, and at least 20 were killed.

    Extremists on both the left and right exploited the chaos.

    Millions heard the words “Antifa” and “Boogaloo” for the first time and instantly decided, on purely partisan grounds, that they knew precisely what the problem was and that – oddly enough – the same political opponents they already hated were to blame.

    But the truth is more complex, and a term used by both sides offers some clarity here: “insurrection.”

    end quotes

    And here, people, we are finally getting some much-needed clarity here that we will not get from National Propaganda Radio (NPR), which keeps bleating about an “insurrection” day after day after day, as if the “BIG LIE” will finally become the truth if repeated often enough, and the media and the Democrats.

    Getting back to that analysis, we have:

    In an interview on June 3, California Democratic Congresswoman Maxine Waters rejected the term “rioting,” which she considers racist, to describe the unrest.

    Instead, she said, “I choose to call it an insurrection.”

    end quotes

    Words in the mouth of a Democrat politician are very squishy, indeed, because Democrats are driven by pure emotion, so they use words for their shock value, like “insurrection,”or they don’t use words because they are “racist,” like “rioting,” which is all just a bunch of pure horse****, which again takes us back for more as follows:

    The following day, Republican Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas wrote that under today’s circumstances, “the Insurrection Act authorizes the president to employ the military ‘or any other means’ in ‘cases of insurrection, or obstruction to the laws.’”

    The controversy around Cotton’s piece – which prompted the purging of New York Times opinion editor James Bennet – obscured the fact that Cotton and Waters share a similar assessment, while differing on the response.

    But is that assessment accurate?

    “Insurrection” has a specific meaning under U.S. law.

    It means “a violent uprising by a group or movement acting for the specific purpose of overthrowing the constituted government and seizing its powers.”

    end quotes

    So is that what we saw on 6 January 2021 – a violent uprising by a group of WHITE NATIONALIST/WHITE SUPREMACISTS spurred on by inflammatory rhetoric from Donald Trump acting for the specific purpose of overthrowing the constituted government of Donald Trump as president and seizing its powers?

    Sounds kind of stupid, doesn’t it?

    Going back to that article for more clarification, we have:

    Insurrection is not mere rioting, looting, or mob violence, even if politically motivated.

    Nor is it simply the exclusion of government from a no-go area such as Seattle’s Capitol Hill.

    It is an organized, armed uprising with the intent of overthrowing and replacing governing authority.

    end quotes

    So if an insurrection is an organized, armed uprising with the intent of overthrowing and replacing governing authority, who were these insurrectionists intent on overthrowing Donald Trump as president and replacing governing authority in somebody else going to place it in?

    Joe Biden?

    Because that is exactly what did happen on 6 January 2021, which again takes us back for more clarification, to wit:

    Insurrection, then, is narrower than insurgency, which the military defines as “organized use of subversion and violence to seize, nullify, or challenge political control of a region.”

    This has implications for how U.S. law enforcement and intelligence agencies approach the problem.

    A decade ago, when I began studying the organization and tactics of groups that are openly arming and training for conflict inside the United States (roughly 380 right-leaning militias and 50 left-wing armed groups), I approached an FBI friend with a simple question: “How is this legal?”

    He responded with a question of his own: “Are they advocating the armed overthrow of the state?”

    “If they’re not, and they’re not violating other laws such as firearms statutes, what they’re doing is perfectly legal.”

    For the most part, in fact, U.S. armed groups do not advocate armed overthrow of the state.

    Left-wing militias describe themselves as community self-defense organizations or above-ground militant formations engaged in “active resistance” – resisting, rather than overthrowing the state.

    On the right, militias call themselves “constitutionalists” and “patriots” who, far from advocating the overthrow of the government, pledge to “uphold the law and the Constitution.”

    A few groups, such as the white-separatist Northwest Front, seek “an independent and sovereign White nation in the Pacific Northwest” but aim to achieve it through internal migration and demographic change, not violent insurrection.

    Likewise, “accelerationists” on the Marxist or environmentalist left and the neo-Nazi right promote violence to trigger class war, save the planet by culling the human plague, or provoke “racial holy war.”

    Some fit the definition of terrorist groups, but it would be a stretch to call them insurrectionists.

    end quotes

    Not if you are Nancy Pelosi, however, or the media or National Propaganda Radio (NPR), all of whom are peddling HYPE and HYSTERIA, which again takes us back for more, to wit:

    So, some do not meet the definition of insurrection, since they are not pursuing the “specific purpose of overthrowing the constituted government and seizing its powers,” or because they are not engaged in an armed uprising.

    Many also fail to meet the organizational threshold of being a “group or movement” – in some cases, by design.

    Consider Antifa.

    Individuals and local chapters self-identify as members, are recognized as such by others, and conduct pre-planned “direct action,” which in the Antifa lexicon means confrontational violence to disrupt opponents.

    Direct action forms part of a mix of methods known as “diversity of tactics.”

    Antifa groups have websites, Facebook pages, and social media tools; study the tactics of other groups; host training events; and have thought-leaders, such as Mark Bray and Matthew N. Lyons.

    Antifa action is carried out by self-recruited, self-synchronized cells known as “affinity groups,” which collaborate loosely in clusters and apply something akin to swarming “netwar” tactics both in real life and online.

    Antifa, in this sense, operates like a militant mash-up between the hacker collective Anonymous and the Occupy movement, not as a formal organization with a central staff or membership list.

    Declaring Antifa a terrorist organization – as President Donald Trump has threatened to do – would thus be fraught with practical problems and civil rights concerns.

    There is cross-pollination here.

    Just as right-wing groups borrowed accelerationism from an earlier generation of Marxists, modern Antifa draw heavily on the organizing method of leaderless resistance, pioneered by white supremacist leader Louis Beam in the 1980s and picked up by jihadist groups as a way to operate under pervasive, but constitutionally constrained, law enforcement.

    Similarly, Antifa have co-evolved through repeated rounds of street combat with their arch-enemies Patriot Prayer, the Proud Boys, and Identity Evropa, until these groups now resemble each other and fill similar niches of the left and right within an overall conflict ecosystem.

    None of these groups could be considered insurrectionists in the formal, U.S. legal sense.

    Still less could this term be applied to the unorganized looters who pillaged property or to the mobs that attacked police precincts over the past several weeks.

    These people, however violent, were committing acts of civil disturbance, property destruction, and assault that are well-addressed by ordinary civil and criminal law.

    And of course, protesters legitimately exercising the First Amendment “right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances” are committing no crime whatsoever and should be protected, supported, and – most importantly – heard.

    In this respect the argument that the protests have been “largely peaceful” may be true, but it is also irrelevant.

    Only a tiny minority – 2 to 5 percent – of individuals in insurgencies, civil wars, or criminal gangs actually commit violence.

    In Iraq during the “Surge,” my team started from the assumption that 20 percent of insurgents would prove so irreconcilably violent that they would never negotiate and must therefore be killed or captured.

    We were off by an order of magnitude –the true number was not 20, but 2 percent.

    Likewise, the nonprofit Cure Violence has found that only 2 to 3 percent of gang members engaged in violence, while an alternative name for the militia – Three Percenters – rests on the assertion that only 3 percent of American colonists took up arms against the British during the Revolutionary War.

    Any guerrilla leader knows that it takes only a tiny violent cadre to turn civil unrest, street disorder, and social discontent into armed insurrection, given appropriate conditions.

    Che Guevara’s “focoism” theory – despite many failures in practice – is founded on his real-world observation that a small armed element of a few hundred guerrillas at most, operating in the mountains and along the urban fringe, could create revolutionary change when combined with mass urban unrest, strike action, legal political organization, and underground resistance in the cities and plains of Cuba.

    Sendero Luminoso in Peru, Nepal’s Maoist guerrillas, and the Continental Bolivarian Movement in Latin America specialize in this technique.

    Several successful “color revolutions” have used some variant of it, and American groups – from far-left Antifa to right-wing accelerationists – are fully aware of the approach.

    Thus, as this month’s disorder fades, the main long-term impact may be its radicalizing effect on a tiny minority of participants who join more violent groups as a result.

    It is commonplace in insurgencies for guerrilla talent spotters to identify recruits through street violence, inducting them into armed, organized groups over time.

    More broadly, the military concept of insurgency – subversion plus violence, intended to seize, nullify, or challenge political control – may be more applicable here than insurrection.

    One possible interpretation is that America may be in what the CIA Guide to the Analysis of Insurgency calls “incipient insurgency.”

    This encompasses pre-insurgency and organizational stages; it may involve inchoate action by a range of groups, followed by organization, training, acquisition of resources, and building external and public support, then increasingly frequent antigovernment incidents displaying improved organization and forethought.

    Many simultaneous proto-insurgencies can coexist, and it may be impossible to determine which (if any) of them will progress to a more serious stage.

    Clearly, current conditions in the United States match some – though not all – of these criteria.

    There is no reason why, even with today’s toxic political polarization, we must inevitably slip further toward conflict.

    But if we want to avoid that risk, it is essential to recognize that it does exist and that, “insurrection” or not, the best thing to do is to treat the current unrest as a wake-up call and act urgently to address it.

    David Kilcullen serves on the Board of Advisors for the Center on Military and Political Power (CMPP) at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD).

    FDD is a Washington, DC-based, nonpartisan research institute focusing on national security and foreign policy.

    Foundation for Defense of Democracies

    P.O. Box 33249, Washington D.C. 20033
    202-207-0190
    info@fdd.org

    end quotes

    And once again, we LOYAL AMERICANS who are not Pelosi KOOL-AID drinkers, or Democrats owe the Cape Charles Mirror a debt of gratitude for making space in here for discussion of these important issues that you will not find on FACEBOOK or in the main-stream media.

    Reply