Special Opinion by Paul Plante
And yes, indeed, people, we now have a constitutional crisis in this land of ours that is unprecedented in my lifetime, and that constitutional crisis is two-fold, to wit:
a) The wits of the person who at present holds the office of Speaker of the United States House of Representatives have become addled to the point of where the present incumbent is a clear and present danger to the nation, and for the good of the nation must be removed from her position before she can do our nation any further harm; and
b) The Democrat party is using our United States House of Representatives for partisan political reasons as a cudgel to bludgeon the office of the executive into submitting to the Democrat party as a “co-equal partner” when it comes to operations of the executive branch, as if the Democrat party were co-consul with Trump in the style of the Roman Republic and therefore had a right to render nugatory any of Trump’s decisions – in other words, bring Trump to heel.
As to why we all should be greatly concerned about the addled wits of the person presently in the office of Speaker of the House of Representatives, the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, commonly referred to as the Speaker of the House (or simply, House Speaker or the Speaker), serves as the presiding officer of the U.S. House of Representatives.
end quotes
Think about it, people, can we as a nation afford to have someone of uncertain mental stability due to addled wits serving as the presiding officer of the U.S. House of Representatives?
And my goodness, why on earth would we want to have such a person serving as the presiding officer of the U.S. House of Representatives?
Wouldn’t that make us of questionable mental competence, as well?
Getting back to the duties of House Speaker:
The Speaker fulfills several roles, including representing constituents as a Member of Congress, acting as administrative head of the House, and serving as leader of the majority political party in the House.
The House Speaker is second in the U.S. presidential line of succession after the vice president.
end quotes
And right there is the main reason we should be so concerned about this sad situation – the fact that this addle-pated person in the office of House Speaker is second in the presidential line of succession.
The Speaker of the House also exercises duties as a Member of Congress, as presiding officer of the House of Representatives, and as leader of the majority political party in the House.
These responsibilities include voting on legislation, administrative duties such as maintaining order within the House chamber, and other tasks such as appointing special committees.
end quotes
And there is where this addle-pated person presently serving as House Speaker has become her most dangerous: she is not maintaining order within the House chamber, nor does she intend to do so, based on her own rhetoric on the Jimmy Kimmel Show as was reported in the RealClearPolitics article “Nancy Pelosi: House Democrats Are On The ‘Path’ To Impeachment And When We Get There We’ll Be ‘Ready'” posted By Tim Hains on May 31, 2019, as follows:
Speaker Pelosi joined Jimmy Kimmel Thursday night to discuss the “path” to impeaching Donald Trump.
While she avoided using the “i-word” itself, she said that the president is in “defiance” of the Constitution and his oath of office and that she will eventually have to convince Republicans in the Senate of his guilt.
end quotes
In “defiance” of the constitution, Nancy?
Really!
Do tell!
Sounds serious, so tell us, Nancy, when and how did this “defiance” of the Constitution manifest itself, se we the people can be in on the secret?
But you can’t, can you, Nancy, because that is bull****.
There is no such thing, outside of your deluded imagination, as a United States president being in “defiance” of the Constitution, so quit lying to us – it is tedious.
And in the face of that spew of lunatic drivel from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi intended to sow distrust in the executive branch of our federal government and to further divide us as a people, consider that the Speaker of the House’s duties as presiding officer of the House, include administering the oath of office to Members, calling the House to order, preserving order and decorum within the House chamber and galleries, recognizing members to speak on the House floor, and making rulings about House procedures.
And clearly, with such false inflammatory rhetoric, crazy talk, actually, Nancy Pelosi has just proven to the people of America that she is totally incapable now of preserving order and decorum within the House chamber and galleries, because she is the disruptor of that order and decorum, as we see by going back to the transcript of the Jimmy Kimmel Show where we have as follows, to wit:
JIMMY KIMMEL: Yesterday, Robert Mueller finally spoke and he said, “if we had confidence that the President clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said that.”
So he didn’t say so, and he indicated that now it is Congress’s job to take it from here.
Are you taking it from there?
HOUSE SPEAKER NANCY PELOSI: Well we’ve been on that path for a while, and when we do get to where we’re going, we’re going to be ready.
We have to be ready.
Our founders, I like to say this, in the darkest days of the revolution, they said ‘the times have found us.’
I think right now, the times have found us.
We have a defiance of the Constitution of the United States and so when we go down this path, we have to be ready, and it has to be clear to the American people and we have to hope it will be clear to Republicans in the United States Senate.
end quotes
It has to be clear to the American people?
The only thing that is clear to the American people here, Nancy, is that you Democrats are either crazy or insane if you think after all the crap that has been in the newspapers since 2016 that we are unclear about what is going on here – a political witch hunt, and we are now quite sick and tired of hearing about it, since there is nothing to hear about – no collusion, no obstruction of justice, the court of public opinion just doesn’t buy it, case is closed, so move on, which takes us back to Jimmy Kimmel, as follows:
JIMMY KIMMEL: So are you saying you want to make sure everybody is on board before you get into something like impeachment?
PELOSI: No, no, I’m not saying — well.
We’re on a path to gain information.
The public deserves to know the truth, the facts.
When you go down a path like an impeachment, which is very divisive, it could divide the country.
Let’s just put it this way, we understand our oaths of office to support and defend the Constitution of the United States.
Apparently, he doesn’t understand the oath of office.
He doesn’t honor the oath to “protect and defend.”
So we know our responsibility, but again, because it is divisive, we have to try to bring people together…
E Pluribus Unum…
So let me just say this, immodestly.
I probably have a better idea as to what the president has to be held accountable for than anyone.
end quotes
Now, seriously, people, does that sound like someone in complete possession of their wits talking there, especially that bizarre statement by Nancy that “I probably have a better idea as to what the president has to be held accountable for than anyone.”
HUH?
Did the Speaker of the House of the United States of America just say that?
Nancy Pelosi is the only person in America who has an idea as to what the president has to be held accountable for?
That’s laughable!
Okay, Nancy, seriously, it’s all right, we believe you when you say you probably have a better idea as to what the president has to be held accountable for than anyone, because it is a paranoid delusion that you alone are having, possibly as a result of dementia, which again takes us back to Jimmy Kimmel, as follows:
JIMMY KIMMEL: Have you read the Mueller report?
NANCY PELOSI: Yes I have.
JIMMY KIMMEL: Even the blacked out parts?
NANCY PELOSI: No
JIMMY KIMMEL: Yeah, yeah right.
NANCY PELOSI: We’re not allowed, we’re calling for that.
They would show it to me, but I said I’m not going to let you show it to me unless you show it to the whole country…
The only person who knows better than I why this president is not above the law and must be held accountable is the president of the United States.
He knows what his violations have been.
end quotes
The poor woman.
The poor, poor woman.
She is raving there with that statement that “the only person who knows better than I why this president is not above the law and must be held accountable is the president of the United States.”
What a pathetic, sick drama this has become, as we see by returning to the Jimmy Kimmel Show as follows for more Nancy Pelosi, to wit:
NANCY PELOSI: You know what really bugs me about that?
When you see what they said, “Oh I didn’t know,” “I didn’t know it was wrong to talk to Russians.”
How do you explain that to kids in the hood?
When they’re approached by law enforcement and say, “I didn’t realize I was supposed to do this or that.”
They’re supposed to know, but these very wealthy people with high priced lawyers can get away with saying I didn’t know it was wrong.
end quotes
And what a weird rant that was, especially as there was absolutely nothing wrong with Bill and Hillary Clinton not only talking to the Russians, but taking millions in pay-offs from them for favors rendered by Hillary Clinton’s department of state.
And I can just see Nancy Pelosi trying to explain anything to the kids in the hood, as if they are going to take any advice from someone like her who talks through the top of their head, which again takes us back to Jimmy Kimmel, to wit:
NANCY PELOSI: Why I think the president wants us to impeach him.
He knows it’s not a good idea to be impeached, but the silver lining for him is then, he believes, that he would be exonerated by the United States Senate.
And there is a school of thought that says, ‘If the Senate acquits you, why bring charges against him in the private sector when he’s no longer president?'”
So when we go through with our case, it’s got to be ironclad.
Ironclad.
JIMMY KIMMEL: So because the Senate leans Republican–
NANCY PELOSI: No, not leans.
Completely in the pocket of Donald Trump Republican.
JIMMY KIMMEL: And you think those Republican senators, even if they know he committed a crime, will side with Donald Trump?
NANCY PELOSI: They have been every day.
Not one of them has spoken up.
end quotes
As I say, a very dangerous woman, trying to divide America and its people, based on paranoid delusions, and sadly it doesn’t end there, as we can see from an article in THE HILL entitled “Pelosi promises ‘ironclad case’ against Trump” by Reid Wilson on 1 June 2019, to wit:
SAN FRANCISCO – House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told California Democrats that Congress would continue aggressive investigations into President Trump and the Trump administration, stopping short of calling for the beginning of an impeachment inquiry.
Addressing the California Democratic Party’s annual convention in her home district, Pelosi cited former special counsel Robert Mueller’s report into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.
“In his report, special counsel Mueller warned us in the starkest terms that there was an attack on our election and an attack on our democracy,” Pelosi said.
“Why won’t the president defend us from this attack?”
“What is the president covering up?” she asked.
“We must investigate the president’s welcoming of the assault on our democracy.”
“This isn’t about politics, it isn’t about partisanship, Democrats versus Republicans, no.”
“It’s about patriotism, it’s about the sanctity of the constitution and it’s about the future of our nation.”
“We will go where the facts lead us.”
“We will insist on the truth.”
“We will build an ironclad case to act,” Pelosi said.
“President Trump will be held accountable for his actions. In the Congress, in the courts, and in the court of public opinion, we will defend our democracy,” she added.
end quotes
Wow, people, frankly, I am embarrassed for the poor deluded woman.
So this is a good time to pause for station identification and a word from our sponsors, but don’t go away, because we’ll be right back with more on this bizarre story of government in Washington, D.C. gone seriously wrong to our detriment as a people and as a nation.
“I don’t want to see him impeached, I want to see him in prison!”
That, people, is none other than Nancy Pelosi of the questionable sanity shrieking there, the very same San Francisco Democrat Nancy Pelosi who we are presently saddled with as Speaker of the House of Representatives, and God help the nation for that.
Now, think about those words, people, and what kind of hate-filled mind it takes to utter those words.
Fact of the matter is that Nancy Pelosi is so obsessed and consumed with hate for Trump that it has warped and twisted her mind all out of shape, while leaving little more than a pool of toxic sludge inside her brainpan, and this is the person who is only two heartbeats away from the oval office, and what a chilling thought that is – the idea that such a hate-filled person and apparently mentally deranged person can actually be in the line of succession to the highest office in this land.
That thought should have all the founders of this nation who promised us otherwise back in the beginning spinning in their graves, alright.
And there I was quoting from POLITICO article entitled “Pelosi tells Dems she wants to see Trump ‘in prison’” by Heather Caygle on 6 June 2019, where we all were informed as follows concerning the highly-questionable state of Nancy Pelosi’s wits, as follows:
Speaker Nancy Pelosi told senior Democrats that she’d like to see President Donald Trump “in prison” as she clashed with House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler in a meeting on Tuesday night over whether to launch impeachment proceedings.
end quotes
And how Nancy Pelosi salivates to have such power over us here in America, where she could imprison any of us on any whim of hers, no matter how insane the whim was.
Talk about an incipient tyrant, people, there she is for mall the world to see in the person of Democrat Nancy Pelosi of the highly questionable mental stability, which takes us back to the Politico article for more as follows:
Pelosi met with Nadler (D-N.Y.) and several other top Democrats who are aggressively pursuing investigations against the president, according to multiple sources.
Nadler and other committee leaders have been embroiled in a behind-the-scenes turf battle for weeks over ownership of the Democrats’ sprawling investigation into Trump.
Nadler pressed Pelosi to allow his committee to launch an impeachment inquiry against Trump — the second such request he’s made in recent weeks only to be rebuffed by the California Democrat and other senior leaders.
Pelosi stood firm, reiterating that she wasn’t open to the idea of impeaching Trump at this time.
“I don’t want to see him impeached, I want to see him in prison,” Pelosi said, according to multiple Democratic sources familiar with the meeting.
end quotes
That’s it, Nancy, skip all the formal procedures put in place by the Constitution, little things, like due, process of law, which is an encumbrance on your plans, and just stick the son of a ****, or mother ******, as the ignorant, foul-mouthed Democrat Rashida Tlaib calls him, and just stick him in the house jail on a charge of inherent contempt, and leave him to rot in there.
Getting back to Politico:
They said she was expressing solidarity with pro-impeachment Democrats who want to hold the president accountable while disputing the idea that it was time to take that step right now.
Pelosi has long argued that certain conditions must be met before Democrats begin impeachment — public support and strong bipartisan backing, neither of which have so far materialized.
end quotes
And that statement about “public support” in turn takes us to a SLATE article entitled “Support for Impeachment Surges Among Democrats but Majority of Americans Still Oppose It” by Daniel Politi on June 02, 2019, where we had as follows:
Democrats are increasingly in favor of impeaching President Donald Trump, with 76 percent saying they support the move to oust the president from office, according to a new CNN poll.
That marks a seven-percentage-point increase from April when support for impeachment stood at 69 percent among Democrats, according to the poll conducted by SSRS.
end quotes
Now, as you consider those numbers, keep in mind that as of October 2017, Gallup polling found that 31% of Americans identified as Democrat, while an Axios poll found 40% of all voters in party registration states are Democrats, and that as of July 10, 2018, while the Census Bureau estimated that there were 245.5 million Americans ages 18 and older in November 2016, about 157.6 million of whom reported being registered to vote, so we are looking at 63,040,000 souls there who want Trump impeached, even though, as we shall see, they really don’t have a clue as to what impeachment really means.
Getting back to Slate:
Among Americans as a whole, support for impeachment increased only slightly to 41 percent, up from 37 percent last month.
On the opposite end, 54 percent are opposed to impeachment.
And despite the slight uptick, it is hardly the highest it has ever been compared to the 47 percent who supported impeachment in September 2018.
end quotes
So as the days go by, the percentage of Americans who are not Democrats who are for impeachment is going down, not up, despite the efforts of the Democrats to whip their howling, screeching, yowling mobs into a foam-at-the-mouth frenzy, which takes us back to Politico, to wit:
Other Democrats said Pelosi’s comment wasn’t that surprising given her previous criticisms of the president, including saying Trump “is engaged in a cover-up,” that his staff and family should stage an intervention and that the president’s actions are “are villainous to the Constitution of the United States.”
end quotes
Now, talk about crazy talk, people, there we have a solid dose of it right there with that crap about Trump being involved in some type of “cover-up,” which takes us to an editorial in the National Review entitled “The Worst Cover-Up of All Time” by Rich Lowry, editor of National Review, on May 24, 2019, as follows:
President Donald Trump may be guilty of many things, but a cover-up in the Mueller probe isn’t one of them.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, attempting to appease forces in the Democratic party eager for impeachment, is accusing him of one, with all the familiar Watergate connotations.
The charge is strange, not to say incomprehensible, in light of the fact that Congress is in possession of a 448-page report produced by the Trump Department of Justice cataloguing the alleged obstruction that Congress now wants to investigate.
end quotes
Now, there is some sense being spoken in response to the mtorrent of sheer nonsense spewing forth from the apparently mentally deranged Nancy Pelosi and her snarling pack of rabid Democrats, although I doubt any of them has the sense to hear it or comprehend it, so blinded are they by their hate for Trump.
Getting back to the National Review editorial:
The report is so exhaustive that many members of Congress haven’t had the time to read it.
If this is a White House cover-up, it’s too late.
It’s a cover-up of an alleged crime that has already been extensively exposed, not by whistleblowers, not by Jerry Nadler, not by hostile journalists, but by a DOJ prosecutor who worked under the supervision of Trump’s handpicked deputy attorney general.
Pelosi has rehearsed the cliche, “As they say, the cover-up is frequently worse than the crime.”
Or in this case, a substitute for the crime.
Mueller found no Russia collusion or coordination and didn’t even accuse the president of obstruction, instead bizarrely pronouncing him “not exonerated.”
Pelosi hasn’t deemed the alleged obstruction detailed in the Mueller report worthy of impeachment but now insists that Trump’s resistance to congressional probes is itself obstruction and “could be impeachable.”
This is an alleged process crime on top of an alleged process crime, all stemming from an investigation that Trump had the power to stop but never did (even as he openly hated it and came up with various schemes, never effected, to crimp it).
The Mueller report is chock-full of direct accounts of private conversations with the president, which would ordinarily be considered the most sensitive White House communications most likely to trigger a claim of executive privilege.
The White House never tried to block any of the testimony.
Mueller often writes in such compelling novelistic detail exactly because everyone talked.
The only exception was the president himself, who only took written questions about the Russian portion of the probe (remember that?).
But Mueller stipulates in the report that he didn’t try to subpoena the president, in part because he had gotten the relevant information from everyone else.
After going through this investigation for two years, run by a prosecutor with considerable resources and powers, and a well-demonstrated willingness to nail anyone not telling the truth, the White House is balking at repeating the experience with Congress.
It has zero political interest in abetting high-profile hearings with former White House officials such as Don McGahn, and legitimate privilege claims to make over the president’s communications with his advisers and over the vast amount of unreviewed underlying material of the Mueller report.
This is what makes the current situation so crazy.
Trump, let alone Attorney General William Barr or McGahn, isn’t the one stopping Congress from pursuing impeachment.
They have no control over it whatsoever.
Impeachment is entirely a matter for the House, which is entirely under the control of Pelosi.
She, not the president, is “obstructing” an impeachment inquiry in the literal sense of not letting one go forward, despite many of her members wanting one and despite the Trump DOJ handing her a potential road map in the form of the 448-page report.
If this is a cover-up, it is the worst executed cover-up of all time.
end quotes
And while we all take a moment to meditate on all of that, here we will pause for a station break, but don’t go away, because this Nancy Pelosi Show in technicolor and full-surround sound is far from over and we will be right back after a word from our sponsors.
Well, I just don’t think that throwing adjectives at our “leaders” accomplishes anything. I believe that simply stirs up more of a fuss that further muddies the water, gets things even more mixed up, and removes us from the true task at hand. Which is make the country better. Notice my reference to muddy water. It’s a swamp. Ms. Pelosi is a big part of The Swamp. She further proves Trump’s of it’s need to be drained all too often. The Swamp is in the way and keeping us from the project to MAGA. Pelosi is a sad part of the problem, but she is only the craftiest alligator that has risen to the top. The partisan politics is the real swamp, and all of the payoffs and dirty deals behind the scenes. The lying press that tries to say they are non partisan that pushes the agenda of the swamp. It’s why they all hate Trump. He wouldn’t let any of them buy him. He really is out to bypass and undermine the status quo, to expose the underbelly of the political world, and trying to find some real solutions for the real problems we have. In my opinion that is. I believe we can better support and back him with plain speak rather than name calling. It opens minds rather than closes ears.
“Throwing adjectives at our ‘leaders,’” Jack?
If you think that, you have obviously missed the message here, so let’s go back to the opening lines of the original post, where we have as follows:
And yes, indeed, people, we now have a constitutional crisis in this land of ours that is unprecedented in my lifetime, and that constitutional crisis is two-fold, to wit:
a) The wits of the person who at present holds the office of Speaker of the United States House of Representatives have become addled to the point of where the present incumbent is a clear and present danger to the nation, and for the good of the nation must be removed from her position before she can do our nation any further harm; and
b) The Democrat party is using our United States House of Representatives for partisan political reasons as a cudgel to bludgeon the office of the executive into submitting to the Democrat party as a “co-equal partner” when it comes to operations of the executive branch, as if the Democrat party were co-consul with Trump in the style of the Roman Republic and therefore had a right to render nugatory any of Trump’s decisions – in other words, bring Trump to heel.
end quotes
That isn’t addressed to any “leaders,” Jack, it is addressed instead to the American people, and saying we have a constitutional crisis in this country is hardly name-calling, unless you want to say that calling something by its correct name, like “constitutional crisis,” is a form of name-calling.
As to “making the country better,” let me take you back in time, Jack, to our beginnings as a nation, by referring you to this excerpt from “A Citizen of America: An Examination Into the Leading Principles of America” by Noah Webster on October 17, 1787, to wit:
The powers vested in Congress are little more than nominal; nay real power cannot be vested in them nor in any body, but in the people.
The source of power is in the people of this country, and cannot for ages, and probably never will, be removed.
In no country, is education so general — in no country, have the body of the people such a knowledge of the rights of men and the principles of government.
This knowledge, joined with a keen sense of liberty and a watchful jealousy, will guard our constitutions, and awaken the people to an instantaneous resistance of encroachments.
end quotes
That is what I was taught about the duties of an American CITIZEN when but a child, Jack, and that is what I am about in here – attempting to awaken my fellow Americans to a resistance to the encroachments the Democrats in the House of Representatives are making on the office of the executive with this crazy talk of theirs that they, the Democrats, basically share power with Trump, calling themselves a “co-equal” branch of government, when the reality is that they are a separate branch of government that is now controlled by a rabid faction who are definitely “muddying the water” on a daily basis now, in their hatred of Trump and in their quest to remove him from office and put him in prison for what they are now saying are crimes that were brought forth in the now-famous Mullet Report.
And I am not a Trump supporter in here, Jack, I am defending the Constitution, not the man in the White House, nor am I promoting his MAGA plan, since both I and he really don’t know what it is, outside of a soundbite.
As to Nancy Pelosi, how she holds power in OUR government is well laid out for all to see in 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.
end quotes
You talk about the “swamp,” Jack, well, there it is, right before our eyes, but let’s go back to that article and delve a bit deeper into that swamp to see what, kinds of swamp creatures we can dredge up therefrom:
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.
end quotes
HO HUM, ain’t it, Jack?
At least to the majority of American people who don’t mind their country being sold out to the highest bidders, along with the complacent media which sees nothing at all wrong with the practice, which again takes us back to the article as follows:
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
“Special access,” Jack – if you got the real big bucks, you can own a piece of Nancy Pelosi, by the minute, by the hour, by the day or even maybe by the week, so long as you got the big bucks to pay the freight, and again, the complacent media and the American people simply go BIG YAWN, that’s what they all do, and that is the end of the matter.
So who is failing in their duties here, Jack?
The American people, isn’t it, who have become “consumers” instead of citizens?
And let’s flesh that out a bit further here, as follows:
But it’s her (Pelosi) fundraising skills that are regarded as a key political asset.
She retains a devoted core of fiercely loyal supporters.
“I think that she’s a tremendous leader of our caucus, with the kind of strategic talent and experience that we really need to succeed in the minority and particularly when we don’t control the House or Senate,” said Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif.
“I think she’s the most capable leader that we have and I can’t imagine anyone else who could do such an important job and do it so well.”
end quotes
And there, Jack, is a capsule summary, for you.
There is what we, the American people are now up against, or more properly stated, there is what we have stacked up against us, and our liberties as a free people.
And thanks for commenting, Jack, and being concerned.
I didn’t need a history lesson, and I didn’t need a capsule of what the entire situation is. I believe I have an understanding of what we are looking at. My comment was made because the writer’s original comments threw a lot of adjectives at the problem, and the people in the center of it, and I believe those negative adjectives accomplish nothing. I’m not here to fight, argue or call anyone names. I’ve never seen that sort of “debate” accomplish a thing. My attitude and comments are consistent, and will remain that way. Baiting people in conversation, and using adjectives to attack people, in my opinion, will always be a waste of time, only create an argument, and those parties will not listen to each other. Gee, ain’t that swell……I believe that is exactly what N. Pelosi and many democrats are doing. Everyone can support whoever they want. We all live with the results of that. I am a supporter of the individual who has the positive input as a leader who solves problems and MAGA. If that’s Trump, well let him go. If that’s Oprah Winfrey, I’ll jump on her bandwagon. I’m happy if it’s Bozo The Clown. I repeat that I am a socially responsible independent republicrat I just want positive input, positive leadership, and positive results, and I can’t for the life of me understand why anyone would ever think negativity and insults are gonna fix a thing. For now, I see Mr. Trump with quite a few positive responses to problems trying to see if he can find a fix. I see a press lying to us, and twisting info to create different realities. Negative words, attitudes and flat out misrepresentations end up hurting this country, and I am sick of it. I see the boondoggle that is the swamp keeping us from helping ourselves. It is created in sarcasm and negativity and it’s an insult to us all.
And once again, Jack, thanks for commenting and raising some very important points that I would like to take a moment to address, starting with the fact, Jack, that giving you any kind of history lesson at all was the farthest thing from my mind when I said above as follows:
As to “making the country better,” let me take you back in time, Jack, to our beginnings as a nation, by referring you to this excerpt from “A Citizen of America: An Examination Into the Leading Principles of America” by Noah Webster on October 17, 1787, to wit:
The powers vested in Congress are little more than nominal; nay real power cannot be vested in them nor in any body, but in the people.
The source of power is in the people of this country, and cannot for ages, and probably never will, be removed.
In no country, is education so general — in no country, have the body of the people such a knowledge of the rights of men and the principles of government.
This knowledge, joined with a keen sense of liberty and a watchful jealousy, will guard our constitutions, and awaken the people to an instantaneous resistance of encroachments.
end quotes
That is what I was taught about the duties of an American CITIZEN when but a child, Jack, and that is what I am about in here – attempting to awaken my fellow Americans to a resistance to the encroachments the Democrats in the House of Representatives are making on the office of the executive with this crazy talk of theirs that they, the Democrats, basically share power with Trump, calling themselves a “co-equal” branch of government, when the reality is that they are a separate branch of government that is now controlled by a rabid faction who are definitely “muddying the water” on a daily basis now, in their hatred of Trump and in their quest to remove him from office and put him in prison for what they are now saying are crimes that were brought forth in the now-famous Mullet Report.
end quotes
What I was doing, Jack, was stating the basis for my political philosophy and my historical tradition as an American citizen, putting it out on the table so to speak, because if I haven’t learned anything else in life, the one true thing I have learned is that we do not all share a common political tradition, nor do we all share a common political philosophy, and some have no tradition or philosophy, at all, they just wing it from moment to moment, and it is clear to me from your reply that when it comes to political traditions and political philosophies, you and I are not on the same page at all, and far from it.
Such it is, Jack, I can deal with it – I do not need a bunch of people parroting things back at me that I said to make me feel good about myself.
And once again, this is what I am actually about in here, to wit: That is what I was taught about the duties of an American CITIZEN when but a child, Jack, and that is what I am about in here – attempting to awaken my fellow Americans to a resistance to the encroachments the Democrats in the House of Representatives are making on the office of the executive with this crazy talk of theirs that they, the Democrats, basically share power with Trump, calling themselves a “co-equal” branch of government, when the reality is that they are a separate branch of government that is now controlled by a rabid faction who are definitely “muddying the water” on a daily basis now, in their hatred of Trump and in their quest to remove him from office and put him in prison for what they are now saying are crimes that were brought forth in the now-famous Mullet Report.
Your comment was made because in your opinion, and you are certainly welcome to your opinion in here, anyway, this not being the New York Times, you thought my original comments threw a lot of adjectives at the problem, and the people in the center of it, and you believe those negative adjectives accomplish nothing.
I can appreciate that point of view, Jack, but in truth, I do not share it, which takes us back to political traditions and political philosophies, and let me take a moment here, Jack, to assure you that I am very parsimonious with my adjectives.
I do not use adjectives where I feel they have not been honestly earned!
And I must agree with you, Jack, that fighting, arguing and calling each other names really accomplishes nothing, but fighting, arguing and name-calling are not debate.
And Jack, seriously, dude, do you expect any politician from Nancy Pelosi right on down the line to actually engage with the common citizenry?
I don’t, so I am talking at them, not to them, and what I am doing is called heaping opprobrium (public disgrace or ill fame that follows from conduct considered grossly wrong or vicious) on them, and that is an American tradition that goes right back to that very American document that heaped opprobrium on George III and used a lot of adjectives to call him names, like TYRANT, that was called the Declaration of Independence.
And as to this MAGA, Jack, again, seriously, it is nothing more than a stupid sound bite and it means nothing, because it is reactionary – backwards looking.
According to Wikipedia, in political science, a reactionary is a person or entity holding political views that favour a return to the status quo ante, the previous political state of society, which they believe possessed characteristics that are negatively absent from the contemporary status quo of a society.
So when was America great before, Jack?
We people who share the planet with you would like to know what century you intend to take us back to with this MAGA.
The 1920s?
The 1850s?
Perhaps if we knew where we were being taken back to, Jack, maybe more people would want to get on board.
Something to think about, anyway.
And again, thanks for bringing up these important points in here for discussion.
And aren’t you concerned, Jack, that Nancy Pelosi has lost her grip on her sanity?
Should we as a nation and as a people have to be saddled with a speaker of the house who is not rational just because the less than third of the population who are Democrats want it to be that way?
All Democrats do is use adjectives when they talk. Trump is “insert adjective” and that’s it. They never say anything to support it. They never explain why Trump is this and that. It’s just fear-mongering. Where as Conservatives use nouns and verbs. They give substance as to why they support a certain position. They don’t just make claims. They try to engage in a respectable debate.
Democrats use adjectives when they talk and they never say anything to support it, nor do they ever explain why Trump is this and that, because it is just fear-mongering, and fear-mongering is all they have to offer the American people.
The Democrats are those people in America who are ruled by their passions and emotions and feelings, not facts.
To a Democrat, his or her most trusted advisor is their gut – “I have a gut, and my gut tells me more sometimes than anybody else’s brain can ever tell me.”
For a Democrat, going straight from the gut is about actively dismissing knowledge, rejecting as they do the very idea that anyone, can build a better understanding of the world through a slow, steady, and sometimes boring accumulation of facts, as opposed to how they “feel” about something, which brings us to a Washington Post article entitled “Tensions flare over Pelosi’s comments about four House Democratic women and border bill” by Robert Costa on 8 July 2019, as follows:
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) faced sharp criticism Sunday from some liberal lawmakers and activists over her latest comments about a group of Democratic women who opposed last month’s House emergency border aid bill that was supported by the leadership and most Democrats.
Although Pelosi maintains that she is aggressively confronting Trump on immigration and other fronts, there is widespread anger among liberals about the president and growing calls for Pelosi to resist working with the administration and begin impeachment proceedings.
“It is very disappointing that the speaker would ever try to diminish our voices in so many ways,” Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), who voted against the border bill, said on ABC’s “This Week.”
Tlaib’s remarks came hours after Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) voiced her frustration with House Democratic leaders on Saturday night in tweets.
Ocasio-Cortez was responding to Pelosi’s comment in a New York Times interview that the opposition to last month’s border bill was misguided and scant, with just four Democrats opposing the House version of the border bill.
“I don’t believe it was a good idea for Dems to blindly trust the Trump admin when so many kids have died in their custody,” Ocasio-Cortez tweeted.
“It’s a huge mistake.”
Omar said at the time that the bill was only “throwing more money” at the Trump administration, which she accused of committing “human rights abuses.”
Tlaib argued Sunday that the opposition of the four first-term women is significant because of their backgrounds and life experiences, regardless of whether it caused consternation for House Democratic leaders.
“You know, people like us, people like me and Ayanna, Ilhan and Alexandria, we’re reflective of our nation in many ways,” Tlaib told ABC News.
“Guess what?”
“We know what it feels like to be dehumanized.”
“We know what it feels like to be brown and black in this country.”
“And I’ll tell you right now, we’re not going to stand by and sit idly by and allow brown and dark-skinned children to be ripped away from their parents to be dehumanized.”
end quotes
The one speaking about being “dehumanized” there is the foul-mouthed Democrat Rashida Harbi Tlaib, born July 24, 1976, an American politician and lawyer serving as the U.S. Representative for Michigan’s 13th congressional district since 2019 whose “dehumanization” here in Whitey’s America included her completing a Bachelor of Arts in political science in 1998 from Wayne State University and earning a Juris Doctor from Western Michigan University Cooley Law School in 2004.
Another of that group who have been “dehumanized” here in America is Ayanna Soyini Pressley, born February 3, 1974, an American politician serving as the Democrat U.S. Representative for Massachusetts’s 7th congressional district since 2019, and in the course mof her being “dehumanized,” she attended the College of General Studies at Boston University, and took further courses at Boston University Metropolitan College, also known as MET.
The third member of that “dehumanized” group, of course, is AOC, who graduated cum laude from Boston University’s College of Arts and Sciences in 2011, majoring in international relations and economics.
And the last member of that “dehumanized” group is Democrat Ilhan Abdullahi Omar, born October 4, 1982, a Somali-American politician serving as the U.S. Representative for Minnesota’s 5th congressional district since 2019 who graduated from North Dakota State University with a bachelor’s degrees in political science and international studies in 2011, and was was a Policy Fellow at the University of Minnesota’s Humphrey School of Public Affairs.
end quotes
Now, if you were to ask any of the four about how it was they were “dehumanized,” given their education and where they are now, none of the four could give you a rational explanation, because there is no basis for the claim that they have been “dehumanized” other than their “feelings,” despite the fact they have a better education than a lot of “white” people, and Tlaib would probably start shouting obscenities at you, if she did not get outright violent, and go for your eyes with her claws, while her “tribe” of fellow “dehumanized” persons cheered her on, and maybe got in a few low blows of their own.
So much for the Democrats!
Please don’t feed the Plante.
Got a problem? He is a Vet and you will respect that.
Freedom is not Free.
One must assume or presume, David, that you are talking about the Democrats there, since without the anti-American unconstitutional bull**** the Democrats keep spewing as they try to snow us all under a mountain of horse**** so deep we would never see daylight again if they succeed, there really would not be much, of anything for me to say!
Hopefully, they will hear you and heed your words!
But that would presume they had a lick of sense, would it not?
And they don’t.
on the 28th of June you wrote…..
‘I just want to drop in here and say Thank You to everyone for listening to my opinion and participating in topics, both local and national. This is my last submission’
Please follow your own intentions and stop.
Yes, people, “crazy talk” from the congressional Democrats, and so much of it that it would take an army of scribes to keep up with all of it, which of course, is the intent of the Democrats, to snow us under such an avalanche of pure bull**** that we will no longer know which way is up, which takes us to an article in the New York Times, which always tells the truth and would never even consider lying to us, let alone actually do so, entitled “Democrats Are Determined to Spotlight Trump’s Misdeeds, but Remain Divided on How” by Sheryl Gay Stolberg and Nicholas Fandos on 2 June 2019 for some essential background to this on-going surreal farce the Democrats in the House of Representatives are staging for our amusement, as follows:
WASHINGTON — Congress returns on Monday from a weeklong recess with Democrats in broad agreement that they must do a better job of presenting to the public the details of Robert S. Mueller III’s findings but starkly at odds over how to do that.
end quotes
Ah, yes, the Mullet Report!
The Democrats are going to keep whipping us and clubbing us and bludgeoning us with the Mullet Report until we all cry uncle and submit to their hate-filled desire to see Trump in prison.
Getting back to the NYT:
House Democratic leaders continue to focus on securing Mr. Mueller’s public testimony, convinced that even a straight recitation of his findings before television cameras could have a significant effect on public opinion.
end quotes
Ah, yes, there is what will tip the balance alright – being forced to have to listen to the Mullet drone on and on and on and on and on and on and on about how the Russians cheated poor pathological liar and twice-failed Democrat presidential contender out of her rightful place as Hussein Obama’s successor in the white house to carry on his legacy and GREAT BIG YAWN!
So much for that idea having any effect at all on public opinion.
Getting back to the NYT:
But a growing number of Democrats are clamoring for a more drastic step: instigating a formal impeachment inquiry.
“Process and the legal issues associated with the report — you hear a lot of that from us,” said Representative Raúl M. Grijalva of Arizona, the chairman of the House Committee on Natural Resources, who favors impeachment.
“I think it’s incumbent on some of us nonlawyers like myself to take hold of the message as well.”
“The American people don’t want an academic exercise,” Mr. Grijalva added.
“I think they want to see movement.”
end quotes
Yes,
THE NEW YORK TIMES
“Democrats Are Determined to Spotlight Trump’s Misdeeds, but Remain Divided on How”
Sheryl Gay Stolberg and Nicholas Fandos
2 JUNE 2019
WASHINGTON — Congress returns on Monday from a weeklong recess with Democrats in broad agreement that they must do a better job of presenting to the public the details of Robert S. Mueller III’s findings but starkly at odds over how to do that.
House Democratic leaders continue to focus on securing Mr. Mueller’s public testimony, convinced that even a straight recitation of his findings before television cameras could have a significant effect on public opinion.
But a growing number of Democrats are clamoring for a more drastic step: instigating a formal impeachment inquiry.
“Process and the legal issues associated with the report — you hear a lot of that from us,” said Representative Raúl M. Grijalva of Arizona, the chairman of the House Committee on Natural Resources, who favors impeachment.
“I think it’s incumbent on some of us nonlawyers like myself to take hold of the message as well.”
“The American people don’t want an academic exercise,” Mr. Grijalva added.
“I think they want to see movement.”
end quotes
And yes, Raul, we do want to see movement – movement AWAY from these endless witch hunts, which takes us to an article in the Boston Globe entitled “Most Mass. voters don’t like Trump. But nearly half don’t support impeachment, poll finds” by Christina Prignano, Globe staff, updated June 11, 2019, as follows:
Massachusetts voters really don’t like President Trump, but that doesn’t mean they want Democrats on Capitol Hill to try to impeach him.
Sixty-one perecent of those surveyed in a Suffolk University/Boston Globe poll viewed Trump unfavorably — far more than any of the other politicians included in the question.
Just 30 percent held a favorable view of Trump.
However, 49 percent of Mass. voters said the House of Representatives should not seriously consider impeaching Trump, according to the survey released Tuesday.
Forty-two percent said they were in favor, and 9 percent were undecided.
The number of those in favor of impeachment jumped among Democrats: 63 percent said the House should consider impeachment, while 25 percent said it should not.
“The impeachment number tells us that people want Congress to focus more on the issues,” said Suffolk’s David Paleologos, who oversaw the poll.
That sentiment was echoed by Kurt Bolgen, 34, who participated in the Suffolk poll.
“I think that impeachment in general is bad for the country.”
“I have no use for the man who is in that office personally,” the Melrose resident said.
“The issue that a president can’t be indicted was designed for a specific reason.”
“And I just think that progressives and Democrats need to focus on governing and presenting platform options at this point.”
Massachusetts is still more heavily in favor of impeachment than voters nationally.
An NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll found this month that just 22 percent of voters favored a start to impeachment proceedings.
end quotes
WAKE UP, DEMOCRATS AND STOP BEING STUPID!
We, the American people are sick and tired of it!
Instead of continually trying to cause problems, which is all the worthless Democrats are good for, start solving some!
And since Jack has focused our attention in here on “name-calling, like calling the sitting president of the United States a “criminal,” as the Democrats are doing, pretty much on a daily basis now, let us first refresh our memories as to what SLANDER is, which is defined as “a false statement, usually made orally, which defames another person,” such as “Trump is a criminal,” and LIBEL, which is defined as “a method of defamation expressed by print, writing, pictures, signs, effigies, or any communication embodied in physical form that is injurious to a person’s reputation, exposes a person to public hatred, contempt or ridicule, or injures a person in his/her business or profession,” and then let us go to a perfect example of a newspaper intentionally and with obvious malice libeling the president of the United States of America in the New York Times op-ed entitled “Opinion|Democratic Voters Want Impeachment. The House Dawdles.” by Michelle Goldberg, Opinion Columnist on June 3, 2019, where we are treated to the following expression of contempt for the president of the United States of America, as follows:
Across the country, Democratic voters have begun demanding that their representatives take a position on impeachment.
“At virtually every town hall, round table, or even, today, a kaffeeklatsch at a senior center, people want to know what we are going to do about this guy,” Mary Gay Scanlon, Democrat of Pennsylvania, told me.
Scanlon is vice chairwoman of the Judiciary Committee, which would oversee an impeachment inquiry, and two weeks ago she came out in favor of starting the process.
“There’s been a shift,” said Madeleine Dean, a freshman Democrat from Pennsylvania who also sits on the Judiciary Committee, and also wants to begin an impeachment inquiry.
At a town hall last week, one of the first questions she was asked was about impeachment.
When she visited local stores and barbershops, she told me, constituents approached her and said, of Trump, “You cannot let the behavior stand.”
end quotes
Now, let me say that I am not a Trump supporter, and cannot abide the dude’s personality, and not withstanding, I find that to be irresponsible reporting on the part of the New York Times, talking about “that behavior,” when we, the readers are clueless as to what “behavior” is being talked about, but then, we are talking about both Democrats and the New York Times here, so neither needs to know what they are talking about, at all, and the ebullitions (sudden outbursts of emotion or violence) of the Democrats will still get printed, which takes us back to that rambling screed, as follows:
On Friday, Bennie Thompson, a Mississippi Democrat who is the chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, told MSNBC’s Chris Hayes that he’d come around to supporting an impeachment inquiry after speaking to people in his district: “To the person, everybody said, ‘What are you all going to do about President Trump?’”
Jamie Raskin, a Maryland Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, told me, “I had about a dozen events this weekend, and there was an overwhelming sense that we have been presented with abundant evidence of high crimes and misdemeanors and we need to launch an inquiry.”
end quotes
Oh, really, Jamie?
High crimes and misdemeanors, you say?
Wow, sounds, pretty serious, dude!
So, where is the evidence?
And more to the point, Jamie, since you say (Jamie taught constitutional law, you know, so he is pretty smart) you have abundant evidence of high crimes and misdemeanors, then why do you need to launch an inquiry?
That sounds stupid, Jamie.
If you actually have abundant evidence of high crimes and misdemeanors (which I think is bull**** coming from out of Jamie Raskin’s mouth), then you don’t need to launch yet another inquiry.
If you have that evidence, Jamie, then get with it and prepare the necessary charges and specifications and let us finally get this IMPEACHMENT SHOW on the road.
And let us take a moment to look at the basics that some hot-shot constitutional professor dude like Jamie Raskin should know cold.
First of all, a charge is the reason for the action or the offense giving rise to discipline or other action, such as the Democrats putting Trump in prison.
Each charge is composed of elements which are the unique components that must exist and can be proven to support the charge, and despite all their continual yowling and howling and moaning about Trump being a criminal, we have yet to be presented by the howling, yowling Democrats, who incidentally to get it out on the table, I have absolutely no respect for whatsoever, along with the New York Times, with charges against Trump composed of elements which are the unique components that must exist and can be proven to support the charge.
The Democrats have not presented us with charges for the simple reason that they have none!
Now according to PROSECUTION 101, and again, this is something a real hot-shot constitutional lawyer like Jamie Raskin, a real college professor, should know like the back of his hand, the first rule of prosecuting someone for something is:
Before you construct a charge, evaluate the evidence.
Ask yourself some questions, Jamie.
What kind of evidence do you have, Jamie?
What does the evidence prove?
And so far, that answer would have to be nothing at all, which takes us to the necessity to distinguish charges from specifications, which again is something the Democrats have not done, even though they talk about Trump’s “crimes” as if those alleged crimes were supported by evidence and had been proven in court.
A specification provides the facts that support the charge.
In this case, hot-shot Democrat lawyer Jamie Raskin is telling us that the Democrats already have abundant evidence of high crimes and misdemeanors, so it should be a piece of cake for them to write up the specifications to support bringing Trump up on those charges, and yet, to date, they have done nothing.
Why?
Let’s go back to the NYT article to see if we can find out any more about why the Democrats have done nothing to impeach Trump yet, despite being in possession of what they say is abundant evidence of high crimes and misdemeanors, to wit:
According to a CNN poll conducted last week, 76 percent of Democrats favor impeachment.
It’s no wonder so many Democrats want their representatives to take a more aggressive approach to the president.
It has now been five months since the party took control of the House of Representatives, a month and a half since the redacted report by the special counsel Robert Mueller was released, and almost a week since Mueller stood before the nation and all but asked Congress to hold a lawless president accountable.
Yet Democrats have largely failed to even begin presenting a cohesive case to the public about Trump’s corruption and criminality.
end quotes
And BINGO, people, there is the libel, right there before our eyes.
Trump’s corruption and criminality?
WHERE IS THE PROOF TO BACK THAT CHARGE UP?
Where have we, the American people been presented with facts showing Trump is corrupt?
What corruption is he being accused of?
Another Tea Pot Dome scandal, perhaps?
Or a Vicuna coat?
And what is this about criminality, as opposed to “alleged criminality?”
These are very serious charges the New York Times is bringing against a sitting American president, charging him with being a criminal, which without evidence to back it up is a libel with malicious intent.
Getting back to the NYT rant:
The actual contents of the Mueller report should have been devastating for Trump.
Instead, thanks to Bill Barr, an attorney general who acts more like a Fox News pundit, the administration has managed to obscure Mueller’s findings, and then go on the offense against the investigation itself.
end quotes
Now, besides being more than a bit catty, saying Barr acts more like a Fox News pundit than an attorney general, that is just plain juvenile stupidity on display there, because the New York Times is jealous of Fox being more successful a news organization than is the New York Times, which takes us back to the libelous screed as follows:
“The president’s wholesale defiance of Congress, and orders to not participate in our investigation, have created an untenable situation,” said Raskin.
“The members are just livid about this categorical defiance of congressional power.”
end quotes
OH BOO HOO HOO HOO HOO, Jamie – we feel so bad for you, except you are full of **** with your blather about the House of Representatives, the lower house of the legislative branch of our federal government, being “co-equal” with Trump in the operations of the executive branch, so Trump is right to defy your congressional overreach.
Getting back to the obviously biased New York Times screed:
Barr refused to show up for a hearing last month.
In April, the House subpoenaed the unredacted Mueller report and underlying evidence, demanding that it be turned over by May 1.
It has not been.
The former White House counsel Don McGahn, a major source in the Mueller report, refused to comply with a congressional subpoena, and the House has yet to move to hold him in contempt of Congress or to go to court to have its subpoena enforced.
Mueller himself has said he doesn’t want to testify, and the House is still deciding whether to compel him.
As this drags on, it will be ever more difficult for Democrats to corral public attention.
end quotes
Ah, yes, people, the Democrats need to “corral public attention” to keep this farcical drama going for partisan political reasons and the New York Times is their handmaiden, which takes us back to some more intentional libel by the New York Times, as follows:
Opening a formal impeachment inquiry would put the question of Trump’s lawbreaking at the center of national life, and could give the House an edge in court.
end quotes
Trump’s “lawbreaking?”
What “lawbreaking?”
What laws has Trump broken?
Does anyone have a clue?
Getting back to the NYT:
Pelosi is a formidable person and, as she herself once said, a master legislator, so it’s tempting to imagine that she has some sort of plan for curbing Trump’s abuses of power.
end quotes
And there we are with yet more libel by the New York Times, talking about Trump’s alleged “abuses of power,” when in fact, we have zero evidence that Trump has abused any of his power as the chief executive of this nation, so this is not “FAKE NEWS,” this is using the news media as a weapon to inflict blunt-force trauma, something the media is actually quite adept at, not being held to any kind of standards for truthfulness or integrity or honesty in their reporting as they are, which takes us back to the highly biased and partisan New York Times, as follows:
In Michael Wolff’s new book, “Siege: Trump Under Fire,” Steve Bannon, Trump’s former chief strategist, suggests that Pelosi has been waiting for the president to self-destruct ever since he was inaugurated.
“Pelosi, Bannon felt, saw the greater truth: The Trump administration would undo itself,” Wolff wrote.
Perhaps he will, but meanwhile, Trump is undoing American governance.
Greg Stanton, a Democrat from a swing district in Arizona, is a member of the Judiciary Committee, and might seem like the sort of freshman who needs to be protected from taking a tough vote on impeachment.
Last week, he came out for starting an inquiry.
“I think there’s been an over-analysis of the politics of it,” he told me.
“I think there should be more focus on simply asking everyone what you think the right thing to do is.”
The moment demands it, and so do the people who put Democrats in charge.
end quotes
Oh, really?
The moment demands it and so do the people who put the Democrats in charge?
Well, people, I guess that settles it – the vaunted New York Times has spoken and it is time to put Trump on trial!
So let’s get the show on the road, Democrats!
PUT UP OR SHUT THE **** UP, your choice!
And that leads us as American citizens to the important existential question of what makes the Democrats in Congress run scared and tremble like aspen leaves in a stiff breeze when they hear Donald Trump say that if he received information from a foreign government about someone running for president in this country that showed they were dirty, as was the case in 2016, when the Russian prosecutor tried to give Trump Jr. evidence of dirty dealings with the Russians on the part of America’s most purest and most holiest person, Hillary Rodham Clinton, when she was secretary of state and had Obama’s FBI and DOJ running cover for her, he would take that evidence, and WHY NOT?
Trump is as much an American citizen as any of us, especially when he was merely a candidate who no one thought had a chance of beating the unbeatable and unsinkable Hillary Clinton, so why would he want to hide evidence that Hillary was doing some dirty deals in Russia as was alleged by the Russian prosecutor?
And here I am making reference to a story in the Washington Post, which like the highly-biased New York Times never tells us lies and always tells us the truth entitled “Democrats rebuke Trump for saying he would consider taking foreign opposition research” by John Wagner and Seung Min Kim on 13 June 2019 where we had as follows:
Democratic congressional leaders on Thursday sharply rebuked President Trump for having said in a television interview that he would consider accepting foreign opposition research during his campaign, arguing that he was effectively inviting further interference in U.S. elections.
“The president gave us evidence once again he does not know right from wrong,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calf.) said at a news conference.
“It’s a very sad thing.”
end quotes
And please, everyone, cut Nancy some slack here, she is in her dotage and knows not what she says.
As someone who is every bit as AMERICAN as is Democrat San Francisco, California congresswoman Nancy Pelosi, I am saying that in my opinion, according to EVERYTHING I was taught about being an American citizen by the women who were my teachers right after WWII, Trump is the one who has the right of that argument, and it mis Nancy Pelosi who most definitely is on the wrong side of history there, because Nancy Pelosi, who makes money off of selling access to the highest bidders who clearly does not know the difference between right and wrong, and everybody in this country of ours should be totally appalled at her behavior which is so against any sense of decency, to the point of being disgraceful and shocking.
Op-Ed: Are Democrats Crazy, Or Just Insane?
They are more dangerous to our nation than any terrorist group on earth. I say ostracize and shun them every second of every day.
“There’s a constant often struggle, often times, with people who have power, about sharing that power.”
“We are not really in the business of asking for the share of that power.”
“We are in the business of trying to grab that power and return it to the people.”
end quotes
In what century and in what country or nation were those words above spoken, and by whom?
A) Was it Lenin or Trotsky, perhaps at the start of the Russian Revolution?
B) Or was it Fidel Castro or Che Gueverra at the start of the Cuban Revolution against Batista?
C) Or was it really just the other day, here in the United States of America that those words were spoken, and with some vehemence and heat?
And while it certainly could have been either A or B, the reality is that it was answer C, as we clearly see from an article in THE HILL entitled “Omar: ‘We never need to ask for permission or wait for an invitation to lead'” by Miranda Green on 14 JULY 2019, as follows:
Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) sought to energize progressive activists on Saturday, telling a crowd that lawmakers shouldn’t “ask for permission or wait for an invitation to lead.”
end quotes
For those who don’t know her, Ilhan Abdullahi Omar (born October 4, 1982) is an American politician serving as the U.S. Representative for Minnesota’s 5th congressional district since 2019, which district includes all of Minneapolis and some of its suburbs, and it is quite clear from her statement above that “lawmakers shouldn’t ask for permission or wait for an invitation to lead” that Ms. Omar is lost in space and knows absolutely nothing about our form of Republican government in this country, nor does she really care to, because Ms. Omar is not there to preserve our present frame of government; she is there to tear it down and replace it with something she is familiar with – which is the unstable tribal form of government in her home state of the war-torn ****hole of Somalia.
Ms. Omar, being ignorant of America, thinks that congresspeople in this country, who are known as representatives, since that is what they are supposed to be doing, representing the interests of their constituents in congress, are really a form of tribal leader, and those they lead have to follow them, which in un-American horse****.
According to her Wikipedia bio, Omar is a member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus and has advocated for a living wage, affordable housing and healthcare, student loan debt forgiveness, the protection of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, and abolishing U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
A frequent critic of Israel, Omar has denounced its settlement policy and military campaigns in the occupied Palestinian territories, and what she describes as the influence of pro-Israel lobbies such as the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).
In early 2019 Omar was criticized by a number of Democrats, Republicans and Jewish civil rights groups for comments about American support for Israel that they said drew on anti-Semitic tropes.
As to Omar’s cultural background, she was born in Mogadishu on October 4, 1982, and spent her early years in Baidoa, Somalia, where she learned the values that she has brought to OUR United States Congress today, where she is on a mission to steal the power away from the Americans in congress who know wield it, that being Democrat Nancy Pelosi, of all people, and to give it to her followers, instead, as if this were Somalia, where power is grabbed at the point of a bayonet, which is why the place is a corrupt, run-down, war-torn ****hole, instead of a functioning country.
Getting back to that article in The Hill, we have:
Omar, addressing the Netroot Nation conference, an annual meeting of progressive activists, appeared to take jabs at Democratic House leadership after a week of tensions between her fellow progressive colleague Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D) and Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.).
Omar made the comments on a panel alongside two of her fellow freshmen colleagues, Reps. Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.) and Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), who, along with Ocasio-Cortez, are known in Washington as the “squad.”
Omar appeared to double down on House progressives’ feud with their party’s leadership, suggesting that tensions within the party remain.
“There’s a constant often struggle, often times, with people who have power, about sharing that power,” Omar said during the “Making Herstory: The Women who are Shifting the Balance of Power in Washington,” keynote address.
“We are not really in the business of asking for the share of that power.”
“We are in the business of trying to grab that power and return it to the people.”
Omar’s remarks came days after the four freshmen congresswomen got into a heated public tangle with Pelosi, prompting the Speaker to admonish lawmakers during a closed-door caucus meeting this week.
Pelosi pressed Democrats to keep their disputes to themselves, later making it clear that a tweet, since deleted by Ocasio-Cortez’s chief of staff, had motivated her speech.
The tweet had ripped centrist Democrats, comparing them to segregationist Southern lawmakers.
The dustup escalated when Ocasio-Cortez later accused Pelosi of racial insensitivity in an interview with The Washington Post.
Ocasio-Cortez accused Pelosi of singling out women of color for criticism as divisions linger over the passage of a $4.6 billion border bill.
Ocasio-Cortez said she and fellow women of color have felt dismissed by Pelosi, who has thrown cold water on progressive issues like the Green New Deal climate plan.
At times, Pelosi made clear the freshmen do not speak for the full caucus.
By the end of the week Pelosi has signaled a desire to move on, saying she had nothing more to say on Thursday.
More still, a growing number of progressive House Democrats, frustrated with the public squabbling, have accused Ocasio-Cortez of crossing a line when she suggested that Pelosi was treating minority women unfairly.
end quotes
So, people, that degenerated mess is what passes for “governing” by the Democrats in congress down there in the pestilential, third-world ****hole of Washington, D.C., and it is hardly pretty.
So, are the Democrats really crazy?
Or are they just insane?
An existential question for our times if there ever was one.
Now, to myself as a “born-here,” non-hyphenated American citizen who is loyal to our Constitutional frame of government in this country, which is republican in character according to OUR Constitution, and who firmly believes that the preamble to OUR constitution is declaratory of the purposes of our union, and who further firmly believes as an American citizen brought up from birth to be an American, as opposed to a Somali, or Kenyan, that any assumption of any powers by OUR United States House of Representatives not necessary to establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, is unconstitutional, and endangers the existence of Congress, when I hear, as a military veteran who swore and oath to defend the Constitution, Ilhan Abdullahi Omar (born October 4, 1982), the alleged American politician serving as the U.S. Representative for Minnesota’s 5th congressional district since 2019, which district includes all of Minneapolis and some of its suburbs, babbling on to the Netroot Nation conference, an annual meeting of progressive activists, about “lawmakers shouldn’t ask for permission or wait for an invitation to lead” during the “Making Herstory: The Women who are Shifting the Balance of Power in Washington,” keynote address, and “We are not really in the business of asking for the share of that power, we are in the business of trying to grab that power and return it to the people,” my first thought is my goodness, how ignorant this woman from Somalia is about our form of government here in America, which then raises the question of how the hell did she get in here in the first place, and who signed her in, and how?
As to this Netroots Nation crowd, who apparently know as little about Constitutional government here in America as does Ilhan Omar, who really is here to overthrow our constitutional form of government to replace it with something entirely different and very foreign to an American citizen brought up with a love of equality and liberty, which are distinctly American qualities that are foreign to Omar’s home country of the third-world ****hole of Somalia, an ignorant, backwards nation mired sometime way in the past, according to their website, this is who they are, to wit:
For more than a decade, Netroots Nation has hosted the largest annual conference for progressives, drawing nearly 3,000 attendees from around the country and beyond.
Netroots Nation 2019 is set for July 11-13 in Philadelphia.
Our attendees are online organizers, grassroots activists and independent media makers.
Some are professionals who work at advocacy organizations, progressive companies or labor unions, while others do activism in their spare time.
Attendees can choose from 80+ panels, 60+ training sessions, inspiring keynotes, caucuses, film screenings and lots of networking and social events.
The Netroots Nation conference is a project of Netroots Nation and Netroots Foundation.
end quotes
According to Wikipedia, Netroots Nation is a political convention for American progressive political activists.
Today, of course, that word “progressive” now means radical socialist like America’s Jiang Qing, AOC, and the three members of her posse known variously as the “sob sister squad,” and the “Gang of Four,” which takes us back to Jiang Qing, also known as Madame Mao, who was a Chinese Communist Revolutionary, actress, and major political figure during the Cultural Revolution (1966–76).
Today, our American Madam Mao, AOC, is an advocate of Socialism of the 21st century (Spanish: socialismo del siglo XXI), which is an interpretation of socialist principles first advocated by German sociologist and political analyst Heinz Dieterich and then taken up by a number of Latin American leaders, including AOC today.
With respect to AOC’s brand of socialism which makes it somewhat distinct from that of Jiang Qing, and that due primarily to the passage of time, because the socialists are “scientific,” always having struggle sessions to purge out the weak and revisionists, which ultimately is what happened to the original Madame Mao, Dieterich argued in 1996 that both free-market industrial capitalism and 20th-century socialism have failed to solve urgent problems of humanity like poverty, hunger, exploitation, economic oppression, sexism, racism, the destruction of natural resources and the absence of a truly participative democracy, so that Socialism of the 21st century, which AOC and her posse which includes Ilhan Omar are going to impose on us, against our will if necessary, which is what Omar was clearing telling the participants at the Netroots Nation convention with her talk about “we are in the business of trying to grab that power and return it to the people,” has democratic socialist elements, but it primarily resembles Marxist revisionism.
As Wikipedia tells us, within the Marxist movement that AOC and her posse are a part of, the word revisionism is used to refer to various ideas, principles and theories that are based on a significant revision of fundamental Marxist premises.
Of direct relevance to this discussion, where Ilhan Omar is telling the “progressives,” or fellow travelers at the Netroot Nation convention that “We are not really in the business of asking for the share of that power, we are in the business of trying to grab that power and return it to the people,” that in a nation where it is already government of, by and for THE PEOPLE, of whom I am one, the term “revisionism” has been used in a number of contexts to refer to different revisions or claimed revisions of Marxist theory.
For example, those who opposed Karl Marx’ revolution through his lens of a violent uprising and sought out more peaceful, democratic means for a socialist revolution are known as revisionists.
In the late 19th century, revisionism was used to describe democratic socialist writers such as Eduard Bernstein, who sought to revise Karl Marx’s ideas about the transition to socialism and claimed that a revolution through force was not necessary to achieve a socialist society.
The views of Bernstein gave rise to reformist theory, which asserts that socialism can be achieved through gradual peaceful reforms from within a capitalist system.
end quotes
So when Ilhan Omar says that “We (herself, AOC, the ignorant, foul-mouthed Rashida Tliab and Ayanna Pressley) are not really in the business of asking for the share of that power, we are in the business of trying to grab that power and return it to the people,” she is making it clear to me, an American who has been studying Marxist thought and Communism now for over fifty years, well
before 1968, when my United States Army Soldier’s Handbook stated quite correctly that, “Today, communism is the major threat to our Nation,” she makes it incandescently clear to me that she and her “SISTERS OF THE SQUAD” are advocating for revolution not through peaceful means, but through the use of coercion and force, which puts me firmly in opposition to Ilhan Omar and her GANG OF REVOLUTIONARIES who want to overthrow OUR Constitutional form of government to replace it with a socialist model imported from South America, or Africa.
With respect to this war Omar and her “SISTERS OF THE SQUAD” are now waging against Nancy Pelosi and the moderate Democrats, in the 1920s and 1930s, the International Left Opposition led by Leon Trotsky, which had been expelled from the Communist International, accused the leadership of the Comintern and Soviet Union of revising the internationalist principles of Marxism and Leninism in favor of the aspirations of an elite bureaucratic caste which had come to power in the Soviet Union.
Today, in the view of the AOC posse, the elite bureaucratic caste in America is represented by Nancy Pelosi.
In the 1940s and 1950s within the international communist movement, which included the United States of America, revisionism was a term used by Marxist-Leninists to describe communists who focused on consumer goods production instead of heavy industry; accepted national differences instead of promoting proletarian internationalism; and encouraged liberal reforms instead of remaining faithful to established doctrine.
And here is where it all becomes the confusing mess that we are now seeing playing out in OUR own House of Representatives, where the AOC posse is calling out Nancy Pelosi as being a racist:
After the 1956 Secret Speech that denounced Stalin, many communist activists, astounded and disheartened by what they saw as the betrayal of Marxist–Leninist principles by the very people who had founded them, resigned from western communist parties in protest.
These quitters were sometimes accused of revisionism by those communists who remained in these parties, although some of these same loyalists also shortly thereafter split from the same communist parties in the 1960s to become the New Left, indicating that they too were disillusioned by the actions of the Soviet Union by that point in time.
Most of those who left in the 1960s started aligning themselves with Mao Zedong as opposed to the Soviet Union.
And then, some 30 years later, sociologist and political analyst Heinz Dieterich argued in 1996 that both free-market industrial capitalism and 20th-century socialism have failed to solve urgent problems of humanity like poverty, hunger, exploitation, economic oppression, sexism, racism, the destruction of natural resources and the absence of a truly participative democracy, which leads us directly to the Socialism of the 21st century that AOC and her posse, including the Somalian Ilhan Omar, are attempting to impose on us in America today, again st our wills, which count for nothing to a true Marxist – only the cause matters.
Is Ilhan Omar an enemy of America?
That is hard to say right now.
Is Ilhan Omar an enemy of our American frame of Republican government, which is an entirely different question?
Damn right, she is.
So how was it that she was let into this country as a citizen at the age of 17 in 2000, when to be naturalized, as Omar somehow was, the alien had to give proof that he or she has behaved as a person of good moral character good moral character, and is attached to the constitution of the United States, and is well disposed to the good order and happiness of the same, which Omar, by her own recent words about grabbing power, as if this were some third-world ***hole like Somalia, clearly is not?
And what on earth is she doing sitting in OUR House of Representatives where she is fomenting rebellion and revolution against OUR established order in this country?
Some existential questions for our time as we try to discern whether the Democrats are crazy, or just insane.
And here, I would like to make it very clear on the record that I am not a part of this “SEND HER BACK” movement which has recently sprung up with respcct to Ilhan Abdullahi Omar, born October 4, 1982, the Somali-American politician serving as the U.S. Representative for Minnesota’s 5th congressional district since 2019, which district includes all of Minneapolis and some of its suburbs, who was recently babbling on to the Netroot Nation conference, an annual meeting of progressive activists, about “lawmakers shouldn’t ask for permission or wait for an invitation to lead” during the “Making Herstory: The Women who are Shifting the Balance of Power in Washington,” keynote address, along with “We are not really in the business of asking for the share of that power, we are in the business of trying to grab that power and return it to the people,” nor do I condone threatening her in any way.
Quite to the contrary, though she would deny due process of law to those of us in America Congresswoman Omar intends to grab power from, as a disabled combat veteran who swore an oath to our Constitution, I am very much for DUE PROCESS of law for Ms. Omar, and that would start in proceedings in OUR House of Representatives that Omar and her SQUAD, and her TWITTER TWIBE (yes, you are reading that right, and it is something entirely new in American politics north of the Mexican border) are trying to take over, to remove Ms. Omar from OUR House of Representatives for UNFITNESS to serve.
And yes, while they cannot be impeached, members of congress such as Ms. Omar can most certainly be expelled from OUR House of Representatives, and that is something every single person who loves what makes America different from some third-world ****hole like Somalia should be demanding – not “SEND HER BACK,” but “GET HER THE HELL OUT OF CONGRESS,” which takes us to a scholarly essay on the subject of expulsion of people like Ilhan Omar entitled “Recall of Legislators and the Removal of Members of Congress from Office” dated January 5, 2012, which reads as follows, to wit:
Under the United States Constitution and congressional practice, Members of Congress may have their services ended prior to the normal expiration of their constitutionally established terms of office by their resignation or death, or by action of the house of Congress in which they are a Member by way of an “expulsion,” or by a finding that in accepting a subsequent “incompatible” public office, the Member would be deemed to have vacated his congressional seat.
Under Article I, Section 5, clause 2, of OUR United States Constitution, the one I fought to protect and defend, including against domestic enemies like Ilhan Omar, a Member of Congress may be removed from office before the normal expiration of his or her constitutional term by an “expulsion” from the Senate (if a Senator) or from the House of Representatives (if a Representative) upon a formal vote on a resolution agreed to by two-thirds of the Members of that body present and voting.
While there are no specific grounds for an expulsion expressed in the Constitution, expulsion actions in both the House and the Senate have generally concerned cases of perceived disloyalty to the United States, and by her statement to the Netroot Nation crowd that she is in there to “GRAB POWER” from WE, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE who now wield it, there definitely is the strong perception that Ilhan Omar is disloyal to the United States, and WE, the real People of the United States of America, which company Ilhan Omar is not fit to join, for which reason she should be promptly expelled from OUR House of Representatives so that that body can restore a bit of its credibility.
And again, Members of Congress such as Ilhan Omar may be involuntarily removed from office before the normal expiration of their constitutional terms by an “expulsion” from the House of Representatives upon a formal vote on a resolution agreed to by two-thirds of the membership of the respective body who are present and voting, and OUR United States Constitution expressly provides at Article I, Section 5, clause 2, that: “Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two-thirds, expel a Member.”
So i is entirely Constitutional under our civilized system of law to expel Ilhan Omar post-haste, and get her the hell out of OUR House of Representatives.
Getting back to that essay:
Members of Congress are not removed by way of an “impeachment” procedure in the legislature, as are executive and judicial officers, but are subject to the more simplified legislative process of expulsion.
A removal through an impeachment requires the action of both houses of Congress — impeachment in the House and trial and conviction in the Senate; while an expulsion is accomplished merely by the House or Senate acting alone concerning one of its own Members, and without the constitutional requirement of trial and conviction.
An expulsion is a process, considered inherent in parliamentary bodies, which is characterized as a self-disciplinary action necessary to protect the integrity of the institution and its proceedings, which is exactly why someone like Ilhan Omar who thinks that you get political power in this country by “grabbing” it, as if this were her home nation of Somalia where the Supreme Revolutionary Council seized power in 1969 and established the Somali Democratic Republic, which collapsed in 1991 as the Somali Civil War broke out, and during that period most regions returned to customary and religious law, which means the Sharia law that Ilhan Omar cleaves to today, as is evidenced by her wearing a hijab on the floor of OUR House of Representatives, as we are told in a New York Post article entitled “House finally lifting hat ban after 181 years” by Marisa Schultz on November 15, 2018, as follows:
WASHINGTON — It’s taken 181 years, but the House of Representatives is finally getting around to changing a rule that bans hats on the floor.
The ban was enacted in 1837 by members who wanted to break from the hat-wearing tradition in British Parliament.
They didn’t anticipate Ilhan Omar.
The Minnesota Democrat is one of two Muslim women elected this year and she’s the first to wear a hijab.
A Democratic source said the rules will be clarified to allow religious headwear, as well as coverings for medical reasons.
“There are those kinds of policies that oftentimes get created because people who have blind spots are in positions of influence and positions of power,” Omar told The Post Thursday.
“I think it will be really exciting to see the stuff that we notice within the rules that don’t work for a modern-day America.”
end quotes
And there, Ms. Omar is completely full of **** with her statement about people with “blind spots.”
With respect to the hijab of Ilhan Omar that Nancy Pelosi changed the long-standing house rules to allow Omar to wear on the floor of the House, in an article entitled “Understanding the Veil: A Primer in Muslim Women’s Head Coverings” by Mary Sparrow on July 9, 2018, we are informed as follows:
For Muslim women, wearing a veil or head covering acts as a show of obedience to the Qur’an and to Allah, as well as being a symbol of modesty and womanhood.
end quotes
So, when Nancy Pelosi changed the rules to allow Omar to wear a hijab on the floor of the House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi was showing a PREFERMENT to Omar’s religion of Islam, and more to the point, by changing the rules to allow Omar to wear her hijab on the floor of the House, Nancy Pelosi was showing PREFERMENT to someone who wears a head covering as a show of obedience to the Qur’an and to Allah, as opposed to our laws, which are not based on the religion Omar shows obedience to, and that is insulting to the American people, indeed!
As to “grabbing” power, which is what they do in Somalia, according to history that I am very much aware of, having been alive back then, on October 15, 1969, while paying a visit to the northern town of Las Anod, Somalia’s then President Abdirashid Ali Shermarke was shot dead by one of his own bodyguards, and his assassination was quickly followed by a military coup d’état on the afternoon of October 21, 1969 (the day after his funeral), in which the Somali Army seized power without encountering armed opposition — essentially a bloodless takeover.
The putsch was spearheaded by Major General Mohamed Siad Barre, who at the time commanded the army.
When Ilhan Omar talks about grabbing power, that is the tradition that she is talking about, how it is done in Somalia, because that is all she knows – power comes from the muzzle of a gun.
Alongside Barre, the Supreme Revolutionary Council (SRC) that assumed power after President Sharmarke’s assassination was led by Lieutenant Colonel Salaad Gabeyre Kediye, General Mohamed Ainanshe Guleid and Chief of Police Jama Korshel.
Kediye officially held the title of “Father of the Revolution,” and Barre shortly afterwards became the head of the SRC.
The SRC subsequently renamed the country the Somali Democratic Republic, arrested members of the former civilian government, banned political parties, dissolved the parliament and the Supreme Court, and suspended the constitution.
And there is the tradition of government Ilhan Omar knows and references when she uses the phrase “grab power.”
Getting back to the history that produced Ilhan Omar, following the 1969 coup d’état, the Supreme Revolutionary Council took over all the duties of the President, the National Assembly and the Council of Ministers through the proclamation of the Law Number 1.
Essentially a military junta, the SRC became the de facto executive organ of the new state and consisted of 25 almost exclusively military officials.
With respect to the socialist political theories of Ilhan Omar, in July 1976, Barre’s SRC disbanded itself and established in its place the Somali Revolutionary Socialist Party (SRSP), a one-party government based on scientific socialism and Islamic tenets.
The SRSP was an attempt to reconcile the official state ideology with the official state religion by adapting Marxist precepts to local circumstances.
Emphasis was placed on the Muslim principles of social progress, equality and justice, which the government argued formed the core of scientific socialism and its own accent on self-sufficiency, public participation and popular control, as well as direct ownership of the means of production.
end quotes
And that is exactly what Omar intends to bring to the United States of America should she in fact be successful in grabbing power in this country, as she is trying to do as I write these words.
Having lived here in what is called “America” for over seventy years now, and having received my initial education as an American citizen in the years following the close of WWII, a war against Nazi aggression in Europe, and having been assailed with a continuous fear campaign about the COMMIES and the IRON CURTAIN and the spread of Communism, which would render us servile and without liberty, from the time I was young, and having then lived through the WAR AGAINST COMMIE AGGRESSION in VEET NAM, and having returned to “here,” to what was even then a broken and very divided nation, I would say that fifty years later, I am seeing us on the verge of a brewing and nascent civil war based on skin color with the “people of color” now trying to literally “grab” power away from the white folks, in the words of Democrat Congresswoman Ilhan Abdullahi Omar, born October 4, 1982, the Somali-American politician serving as the U.S. Representative for Minnesota’s 5th congressional district since 2019, which district includes all of Minneapolis and some of its suburbs, who was recently babbling on to the Netroot Nation conference, an annual meeting of progressive activists, about “lawmakers shouldn’t ask for permission or wait for an invitation to lead” during the “Making Herstory: The Women who are Shifting the Balance of Power in Washington,” keynote address, along with “We are not really in the business of asking for the share of that power, we are in the business of trying to grab that power and return it to the people.” after having previously been quoted in a New York Post article entitled “House finally lifting hat ban after 181 years” by Marisa Schultz on November 15, 2018, as follows:
“There are those kinds of policies that oftentimes get created because people who have blind spots are in positions of influence and positions of power,” Omar told The Post Thursday.
“I think it will be really exciting to see the stuff that we notice within the rules that don’t work for a modern-day America.”
end quotes
A “modern-day” America, and that “modern-day America is going to be dictated to us by Ilhan Abdullahi Omar, born October 4, 1982, the Somali-American politician serving as the U.S. Representative for Minnesota’s 5th congressional district since 2019.
And that leads us directly to an on-line petition now circulating the internet from a group calling itself “The Other 98%,” which group was founded on the premise that our economy and democracy should work for everyday Americans, not the elite 2% of bankers, CEOs and lobbyists who’ve hijacked our democracy and rigged the system to serve themselves.
Its website goes on to say that it’s the middle class that’s too big to fail, and “we’re using creative tactics — both online and in the streets — to, well, rally ourselves to our own cause” and “We stand in solidarity with Occupy Wall Street and allied efforts to build a people-powered movement that can break the corporate stranglehold on our democracy and achieve true economic justice,” and what they say in that petition is this:
This week, Trump’s latest racist rant targeted Rep. Ilhan Omar, a Somali refugee who got elected to Congress.
Instead of recognizing Rep. Omar as an example of the American dream, Trump led a rally in a chant of “Send her back” to the country she came from, simply because Rep. Ilhan is critical of her President.
Trump is unamerican.
end quotes
And my response as an American citizen who is not a part of this “The Other 98%” is that if Ilhan Omar is an example of their “American dream,” then their dream is a nightmare to the rest of us in this country who do not wish to live in a country with a one-party government based on scientific socialism and Islamic tenets where emphasis is placed on the Muslim principles of social progress, equality and justice which form the core of the scientific socialism of Omar and the “GANG OF FOUR,” with its own accent on self-sufficiency, public participation and popular control, as well as direct ownership of the means of production.
“These congresswomen are every bit as American as you — and represent our values better than you ever will.”
That, people, was none other than 2020 Democrat presidential contender and former Texas Rep. Beto O’Rourke TWEETING at Donald Trump, and “these congresswomen” who are supposed to be every bit as American as Trump, whatever meaning that is intended to convey, are the Democrat DRAMA QUEEN Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, known to her TWITTER TWIBE of some 4.7 million lost souls as QUEEN AOC, who compares herself with Evita Peron of Argentina, and in return is compared to Jiang Qing of China, otherwise known as Madam Mao, along with the foul-mouthed and ignorant Rashida Tlaib (Rashida Tlaib | We’re Gonna Impeach The Motherf***er https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qfpNap6XQeE ), and Ilhan Omar, who intends to grab political power from us by force (“Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun” – Chinese communist leader Mao Zedong), and Ayanna Pressley, who collectively are known as the GANG OF FOUR, or THE SQUAD.
And when 2020 Democrat presidential contender and former Texas Rep. Beto O’Rourke TWEETED at Trump that the GANG OF FOUR “represent our values better than you ever will,” he is not talking about American values, because none of those four represent American values – to the contrary, the only values they represent are the un-American values of the Democratic Socialists in America and the Progressive Democrats.
And God help America if those values that crowd represents ever extend beyond the lunatic fringe that follows the ramblings and maunderings of the GANG OF FOUR.
What a sad day for OUR America that would be if it ever came to pass that the GANG OF FOUR took control of our federal government.
And so much for 2020 Democrat presidential contender and former Texas Rep. Beto O’Rourke – with that inane statement, the dude has demonstrated that inside his head is nothing but dead air, which is why he is running for president as a Democrat.