The author lays out what I and many others have been thinking
The behavior of the Democrat party over the last decade has been that of an overt criminal enterprise, using the power of government to shield themselves from prosecution while engaging in eye-popping levels of corruption.
The articles and charges put forward by the Democrats spring from a laughable pretext, requiring a willful suspension of rational thought to accept.
Presumably, those elected to office as Democrats are not so intellectually disabled as to be unable to see through the obvious charade, a reality that leaves only one other conclusion to explain their behavior: they are fully and knowingly engaged in this seditious scheme and intend to reap the benefits of absolute power should they succeed.
This is not the behavior of a political party. These are not the activities of a "loyal opposition," but rather the acts of an organized revolutionary element attempting to overthrow our government.
It is my opinion that the Democrat party has rendered itself illegitimate in the extreme by not only crossing the line of illegality, but by obliterating it entirely.
Attempting to subvert the will of the people (as expressed through our electoral process) by creating impeachable offenses out of whole cloth is not merely a breach of decorum, a "mistake," or "wrong-headed." It's sedition.
#2
For a long time, the establishment has been playing a "privatize gains, socialize losses" model for economic and political activity. Absent accountability in the form of tangible pain for specific actors when things go wrong, there will be no improvement.
Posted by: M. Murcek ||
12/16/2019 8:33 Comments ||
Top||
#3
How? Destroy them at the ballot box.
Follow Boris Johnson's example: "One Nation" platform + one overriding cultural/social/political issue.
That issue is The Constitutional Rights of CITIZENS.
- roll back all the Obama/Bush stupid policies that infringe upon our constitutional rights - amnesty/"Sanctuary Cities," campus kangaroo courts, gun confiscation, and shut down the rolling nonstop FBI/DOJ/CIA coup and the clownish impeachment Shitshow
- conclude our land wars in Asia and shift our strategic doctrine to one of staying offshore and balancing regional powers
- new trade agreement with U.K. & Australia
- vigorous pro-growth and pro-employment policies at home, with a central focus being the significantly raise incomes and savings for working class American citizens
- deport illegals, finish the wall, enforce employment laws, push up wages for unskilled native-born workers
- expand vocational education and reduce the number of people floundering in neither-nor, third-rate, 4-year colleges
#6
"The behavior of the Democrat party over the last decade has been that of an overt criminal enterprise, using the power of government to shield themselves from prosecution while engaging in eye-popping levels of corruption."
#9
In line with the author's comments, there are only 3 kinds of Democrats:
1) those that are corrupt and fully intend to loot what they can and/or accrue personal power
2) those that aren't personally corrupt but are willing to ride the Dem's filthy coat tails to achieve their own ends
3) those that are too stupid to realize and admit that the Dems are an organized crime syndicate.
All three groups are morally ineligible to hold any public office.
[TheFederalist] During a question and answer session on NBC's "Today" show, former vice president and rumored presidential 2020 contender Joe Biden said the hero who stopped the Texas church shooter earlier this month should not have been allowed to carry an AR-15.
"With the tragedy that just happened in Texas, how do you justify the Democratic view on gun control when the shooter was stopped by a man who was legally licensed to carry a gun?" a young woman in the audience asked Biden.
"Well first of all, the kind of gun being carried he shouldn't be carrying," Biden said. "I wrote the last serious gun control law . . and it outlawed assault weapons and outlawed weapons with magazines that held a whole lotta bullets so you could kill a lot of people a whole lot more quickly." When your devotion to your rhetoric is greater than your devotion to logic...
"Assault weapon" is a nonsense term not usable in legislation, since it could apply to any object used to attack another person. An assault rifle generally means a select-fire or automatic rifle with an intermediate cartridge designed for military use. The AR-15 is not an assault rifle, most clearly because it is semiautomatic. Civilians are already banned from owning automatic weapons.
The Texas man who stopped the shooter from killing more people used an AR-15 to confront the alleged murderer, who wore a ballistic vest and was armed with tactical gear and a rifle of equal firepower.
"If I had run out of the house with a pistol and faced a bulletproof vest and kevlar and helmets, it might have been futile," Stephen Willeford told CRTV in an interview last week. "I ran out with an AR-15 and that's what he was shooting the place up with." The left doesn't want you to do that. You will stay there and be defenseless so they can kill you when they want too.
Biden apparently doesn't think guns are useful for self-defense and protecting others, even though police and soldiers can't stop bad guys without guns, and neither can private citizens. Public records are replete with instances of private citizens enjoying protection against evil when armed.
"It's just rational to say certain people shouldn't have guns," Biden insisted, however. "The fact that some people with guns are legally able to acquire a gun and they turn out to be crazy after the fact, that's life. There's nothing you can do about that, but we can save a lot of lives and we've stopped tens of thousands of people from getting guns who shouldn't have guns." No. You have killed thousands of people by denying them their constitutional right. And would kill millions more if you had your way.
#3
This moron in Breitbart 2013: On Tuesday, Vice President Joe Biden appeared on a Facebook townhall, where he was asked a question about gun ownership by a female viewer from Parent Magazine. Biden’s suggestion: nobody needs an AR-15, especially women. Instead, he stated, “If you want to protect yourself, get a double-barrel shotgun.” In fact, Biden went further, describing his strategy for home defense:
I said, ‘Jill, if there’s ever a problem, just walk out on the balcony here … walk out and put that double-barrel shotgun and fire two blasts outside the house.’ … You don’t need an AR-15 — it’s harder to aim, it’s harder to use, and in fact you don’t need 30 rounds to protect yourself. Buy a shotgun! Buy a shotgun!
There are a few problems with this. First, it is illegal to discharge a firearm in public in Delaware, as it is in virtually every state. Shooting a gun into the air would arguably not constitute self-defense and poses a threat to the public, especially since a slug would come down at some point.
Second, if you have a typical double-barreled shotgun, the gun only holds two shells. If you fire twice into the air, you have just disarmed yourself.
Third, shotguns are used in more murders every year in the United States than the rifles the left wants to ban.
Fourth, for Biden to suggest that women are incapable of handling AR-15s, even as the Obama administration pushes women into frontline military combat, is ridiculous to say the least.
Leave it to Joe Biden to repeatedly undermine his own gun control case – and to get basic self-defense with a shotgun wrong.
Posted by: Frank G ||
12/16/2019 10:56 Comments ||
Top||
#4
His handlers must dread him being out of his cage.
This is a really strange story with so many angles and issues. You have Uncle Sam the Indian Giver. You have a founding force of the Democrats Andrew Jackson. A bill signed by a president and congress. A bill that should have really been an Amendment to the Constitution so therefore signed by 2/3rds of the states. Since it wasn't, maybe it should be unconstitutional. If it is unconstitutional then is the treaty with the Cherokee Nation invalid? Is it a still-pending amendment to the constitution waiting for 2/3rds of the states to vote on it? Is there an expiration time on amendments? Oh, and the lady who would win the seat is an activist who was in political alignment with Obama. Lots of interesting questions.
[RollCall] Move poses technical and moral questions, including whether Cherokees would get ‘super vote’
Kim Teehee was an intern combing through dusty archives when she first learned of a largely forgotten agreement between her Cherokee tribe and the federal government.
More than 25 years later, that document has placed Teehee at the center of a historic reckoning of the way Congress treats Native Americans, while raising questions about what representation in Washington really means.
Continued on Page 49
#4
Another little problem for the Cherokees were that they were slavers and sided with the South during the Civil War, and yes they did have sex with their slaves. Watch the Black Caucus spin in circles it that comes up.
#8
Plenary power doctrine: Congress, and not the Executive Branch or Judicial Branch, has ultimate authority with regard to matters affecting the Indian tribes. Federal courts give greater deference to Congress on Indian matters than on other subjects.
#9
What would happen if all the 'reservations' were cut free and allowed/forced to become one or more independent nations. Or a geographically disconnected 51st state? Would they sink or swim?
Those who were able to hire good management companies for their c@$inos might do alright.
Posted by: Abu Uluque ||
12/16/2019 11:32 Comments ||
Top||
#12
..yep. Have two big ones in the immediate area. Watched the before and after. Far better off than when they were at the tit of the Bureau of Indians Affairs. Have a policy that basically says 'he who will not work will not eat'. The communities did it right. Biggest discovery was the power of lobbyists and their benefits.
[THEGATEWAYPUNDIT] Rudy Giuliani traveled to Hungary and Ukraine a couple weeks ago and met with officials in Kiev in his ongoing efforts to expose corruption and pay-to-play schemes involving the Biden crime family and other Democrats.
Mr. Giuliani revealed last Monday morning on Steve Bannon’s radio show "The War Room: Impeachment" that he was working to release a report on his findings from his latest trip to Europe ...the land mass occupying the space between the English Channel and the Urals, also known as Moslem Lebensraum... to Attorney General Bill Barr and GOP politicians in Congress.
A few hours after his initial tweet on Sunday, Rudy began dropping bombshells one tweet at at time.
Rudy said Victor Shokin, the Ukrainian prosecutor general investigating Burisma was not only fired after Biden threatened to withhold aid from Ukraine, but that he was poisoned and barely survived the poisoning.
"Shokin holds documents proving money laundering by Burisma & Biden’s," Giuliani said. "He was fired due to VP Joe Foreign Policy Whiz Kid Biden ...Failed seeker of the Democratic presidential nomination on multiple occasions, vice president under Barack Obama, giving it a last try in his dotage for 2020... ’s threat not to release $1 billion in vital US aid."
Giuliani then said, "Shokin’s medical records show he was poisoned, died twice, and was revived."
"Lots of heads will roll in Ukraine if this opens up," he added.
"All of a sudden Shokin gets this communique from Latvia that shows a $16 million laundering transaction ‐ classic laundering transaction," Giuliani said. "It goes from Ukraine, to Latvia, it’s disguised as a loan to another company to ’Wirelogic’ I believe ‐ it then goes to Cyprus, gets disguised as another loan ‐ this is called "Digitech" then it’s dispersed as payment as board fees," he added.
Giuliani added, "Now you don’t make two loans to make board fees unless you’re laundering the money. $3 million gets to Hunter Biden in that way."
"That is a straight out violation of a money laundering statute," he said.
[BREITBART] Harvard Law School professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz pointed out on Friday that the Supreme Court had undercut the Democrats’ second article of impeachment by agreeing to hear three White House appeals against subpoenas.
The second article of impeachment passed by the House Judiciary Committee earlier Friday on a party-line vote accuses President Donald Trump ...dictatorial for repealing some (but not all) of the diktats of his predecessor, misogynistic because he likes pretty girls, homophobic because he doesn't think gender bending should be mandatory, truly a man for all seasons...... of "obstruction of Congress" because he appealed to the courts rather than immediately obeying congressional subpoenas.
George Washington University Law School professor Jonathan Turley had warned Democrats not to impeach the president for obeying the Constitution: "If you impeach a president, if you make a ’high crime and misdemeanor’ out of going to the courts, it is an abuse of power. It’s your abuse of power. You’re doing precisely what you’re criticizing the president for doing. We have a third branch that deals with conflicts of the other two branches."
But the House Judiciary Committee ignored Turley’s warning, passing two articles of impeachment. The first accused Trump of "abuse of power" ‐ a new standard never before used against a president ‐ and "obstruction of Congress."
Appearing on Hannity on Fox News that evening, Dershowitz pointed out that the Supreme Court’s decision later the same day completely undermined the second article of impeachment.
Posted by: Fred ||
12/16/2019 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
If I understand this right:
Democrats sent out subpoenas to government officials who ignored them. Then Democrats said, we're not going to the courts to force the witnesses to comply, we just name it "Obstruction of Congress" if they don't.
Dershowitz says it can't be obstruction as long as you haven't exhausted your legal possibilities. And the Supreme Court, by taking Trump's case, is signaling that you have these legal possibilities.
It makes sense. Whatever the government or Congress asks or forces you to do, you must have the possibility to legally challenge this.
Any subpoena can be challenged in court before you have to produce anything.
The problem I have with Dershowitz is this: You can't just ignore a subpoena, you must challenge it. If you don't, you could be held in contempt of court.
It will be interesting to see whether this also applies to subpoenas issued by Congress. If not, any investigation will just be a hell of a lot more difficult, because it could take years before a witness can be forced to appear before Congress and testify.
Posted by: European Conservative ||
12/16/2019 0:26 Comments ||
Top||
#2
...see AG Eric Holder, Fast and Furious, non-compliance with Congressional investigation. Anybody go to jail? /rhet question
#3
The penalty for ignoring a Congressional subpoena is a misdemeanor which would require a separate intervention by DOJ or a federal DA-- which almost never happens in reality.
People ignore Congressional subpoenas all the time. This is because it's just a dead-letter, minor feature of the power-sharing relationship between Congress and the other government branches.
#4
Will these Congressional scofflaws be punished for their transgressions? Although, I think they should be slapped hard, it probably won't happen judging from the past.
#5
we just name it "Obstruction of Congress" if they don't.
Euro conserve: The Dems say 'obstruction of Congress'; however, it is just one chamber of the two Houses of Congress who make this claim--the radical left-wing branch.
#6
How it is supposed to go, since no one branch of our government has power over the other, is congress sends out subpoenas. If the Executive branch ignores or disputes them, Congress is supposed to go to the judicial branch where the matter can be decided.
The demoncrats NEVER went to the courts and filed impeachment over "obstruction". Dershowitz is right. They didn't follow the process and now are doing the very thing the other article states Trump did. Abuse of power.
#5
The biggest voter fraud was in Californicate where some district’s had votes counted in excess of 154% of the registered voters in that district
In fact almost 2million of Shillary’s 2.5 million majority came from that failed state
I went to vote in the 2016 election and when I signed in I was told I had already voted
I bet they tossed my provisional ballot when they saw I voted for Trump
#6
Another well for Dim rigging closed. Election results may begin to look realistic. Maybe, we will even get rid of those sitting in Congress who look like they were 'placed' instead of elected.
#7
The left will claim voter suppression and have a number of folks ready who were turned away from voting because of this. GOP has to see that play coming, I hope they are prepared for it.
Make it as easy as possible to register up until election day. Demand two forms of ID for any late registering voters (assuming no voter ID laws). Something like that.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
[TheFederalist] During a question and answer session on NBC's "Today" show, former vice president and rumored presidential 2020 contender Joe Biden said the hero who stopped the Texas church shooter earlier this month should not have been allowed to carry an AR-15.
...the land mass occupying the space between the English Channel and the Urals, also known as Moslem Lebensraum...
...dictatorial for repealing some (but not all) of the diktats of his predecessor, misogynistic because he likes pretty girls, homophobic because he doesn't think gender bending should be mandatory, truly a man for all seasons......
