The Democrats are inserting language into their resolution condemning “hate” words about the Charlottesville events…because a few losers with tiki torches definitely stand on the same plane as a Congresswoman on the Foreign Affairs Committee.
The Democrats are making Labour’s choice – that there is more money and votes in anti-Semitism than there is in opposing anti-Semitism. After all, if you remain pro-Israel, all you get is a fairly small number of Jewish votes (some in crucial areas, to be sure; but still an overall small number). If you allow anti-Semitism to slide, then you stand to gain the rapidly growing number of Muslim votes as well as tap into far left groups and people who have it in for Israel. You’ll also likely find that foreign Muslim powers will be willing to funnel money and other goodies towards you.
Lots of blame-casting going on about this, but if you really want to know who to blame, it was Eisenhower. He was the man who set the stage for this long-running, human tragedy by failing to back the British-French-Israeli alliance against Egypt in 1956. We had a chance to drop like a ton of bricks on Islamist nationalism…and we refused to do so. All else just flows from that failure.
Related: David Duke endorses Omar.
You can never be woke enough: Sarsour is accusing Nancy Pelosi of being a tool of the Patriarchy. Reached for comment, the SpokesUltimateMan for the Patriarchy said, “no f-ing way”.
A scientist – a real one – is being ostracized because of WrongThink. I’m not sure that science is supposed to work that way.
Blogs For Victory 
Not sure how a resolution condemning all kinds of hate speech is a bad thing. Sad that 23 Republicans couldn’t support it.
How does it make you feel Casper? Sad? Glum? Maybe post a frowny face on Facebook and get a few likes. That will make you feel better.
Sad that only 23 has the courage to vote against the immoral resolution. You can dress it up all you like, Casper, but the Democrats revealed themselves as protectors of anti-Semites today. Omar is laughing tonight – she got away with it: absolutely no penalty was extracted for her use of vicious anti-Semitic slurs. You stay a Democrat after today, you own this evil.
Condemning anti-semitism makes you an anti-Semitic? You live n a strange world.
The issue is not a about the pious virtue signaling of a resolution condemning anti-Semitism. Given the way it has been constructed to avoid being meaningful—-that is, its refusal to sanction a member of the House for virulent anti-Semetic rhetoric, including references to supporting the Palestinian goal of having their nation run “from sea to sea”, meaning the extinction of Israel, a pretty extreme and violent goal reeking of the same stench as Hitler’s Final Solution.
The Democrat House had a chance to take a meaningful and principled stand by openly condemning hate speech and racist rhetoric supporting genocide by a member of the House, but lacked the honesty and integrity to do so. Instead, in typically weaselly fashion, it concocted a fake resolution fashioned to let them announce that is necessary because of Donald Trump.
Naturally, this has impressed the weak-minded who find the resolution important and meaningful though in fact it really has no more significance that a bumper sticker saying MEAN PEOPLE SUCK—–another silly virtue-signaling platitude often seen on cars boasting other profound proclamations such as WAR IS NEVER THE ANSWER.
All any of this does is support my observation that being a Leftist is a shortcut to the Higher Moral Ground—-they believe that being “FOR” something is all that is necessary to be morally superior.
And, being steeped in the toxic stew of Leftist pathology, they find nothing ironic in proclaiming that hate is bad which is why we attack YOU, you deplorable dishonest racist immoral unprincipled sacks of vermin excrement Republicans!
The only reason the resolution was brought up in the first place was because of the towel headed anti semitic bitch your party elected to Congress. Which reminds me Casper, as a white male, you really have no place within the Democrat party anymore so listen to those gender fluid colleagues of yours who “are the boss” and just STFU. That’s what they expect of you.
“Casper, as a white male, you really have no place within the Democrat party anymore ”
I feel quite comfortable with my party, but then I’m pretty secure in my own manhood and I’m not afraid of sharing power with others. Having a diverse party is a plus not a minus.
Casper is “secure in his manhood” but he had to get out of Wyoming and among his own kind for that to happen. In the real world, not so much. He had to be someplace where simply identifying as a man is all it takes to be secure in ones’ manhood, surrounded by lots of Tammy-to-Tommy types equally secure.
Tell me what you consider to be diversity …..
Tell me what you consider to be diversity …..
I’ll tell you what it ISN’T — it isn’t diversity of thought.
Diversity to Casper is nothing more than different skin pigmentation and sexual orientation and as long as they all share the same ideology than everyone will be just fine.
It’s fascism with a flair.
And what is so funny, Cluster, in a sad and depressing and also frightening way, is that poor sap Casper can’t even explain, much less defend, that ideology.
He’s not in it for the political ideology, he’s in it because the Left validates his stupidity and his nastiness, tells him he doesn’t need to actually KNOW anything but just parrot the narrative of the day and he can feel smart, and being spiteful and malicious and attacking people because it feeds some sad pathetic emotional void in himself is not a sign of anything lacking in his character but means he is a soldier for The
Cause.
You may have noticed that when I asked him what it is about Constitutional governance that he dislikes, he never answered. His silly “explanation” offered in another post is that he just doesn’t read anything I post—-the conclusion he hints at is that he just didn’t see the question, but he could answer it if he had seen it. Yeah, he could have answered it, and really set me back with the brilliance and insight and erudition of his answer, if he had only seen the question. Yeah, that’s the ticket—he just didn’t see the question.
Uh-huh.
“Tell me what you consider to be diversity …..”
I consider diversity, having people from a number of different backgrounds with diverse ideas and experiences. I personally like being around people from many different backgrounds. Different States, different countries, men, women, gays, straights. it what makes life interesting.
That said, I would get bored as a Republican. It’s basically turned into the old white people’s party.
Casper writes this list of the kinds of people he likes to be around, with the subtext of “see how open minded I am” and then wraps it up with a comment utterly bigoted and intolerant as well as blindingly stupid.
Of course, he has no idea what “Republican” even means, being devoid of anything like an actual coherent political philosophy and just parroting whatever his masters tell him. He’s just in it for the spite and malice.
Remember, this is the guy who declared that anyone who believes the nation should be governed by the Constitution as it is written then believes that we should have slaves and not let women vote. When I asked if he taught this toxic nonsense to his students he said no, meaning he is not only bone-deep stupid he is a liar.
Lucky for him, and for Wyoming, he is now among his own kind.
Isn’t it really bizarre and rich that they condemned attacks on Kennedy for his Catholicism given their attack’s on judicial candidates for being catholic?
…..there is more money and votes in anti-Semitism than there is in opposing anti-Semitism.
Just as there is more money, votes, and I will add power in Leftism than there is in opposing Leftism. It’s easy and popular. Requires no personal responsibility or principles. Their policies are as fluid as their genders.
Amazona said this before I did but I will repeat it – You know who wants Socialism? The losers. True Socialism reduces society to the lowest common denominator …. that is a fact and provable.
Sad for Republicans. I’m actually surprised that that many Republicans voted for it.
Maybe start a hashtag campaign
Meanwhile:
The Commerce Department said Wednesday that — despite more than two years of President Trump’s “America First” policies — the United States last year posted a $891.2 billion merchandise trade deficit, the largest in the nation’s 243-year history.
The trade gap with China also hit a record $419 billion, underscoring the stakes for the president’s bid to reach a deal with Chinese President Xi Jinping as soon as this month. . . .The shortfall topped the 2006 record of $838.3 billion, set as the housing bubble was peaking, and marked the third consecutive year of rising deficits.
Trump makes the best deals.
We’re in a readjustment period – we’re no longer allowing ourselves to be a mere dumping ground for other country’s price-subsidized products. It’ll take five years, at least, before we see what the real effects of this will be.
And this:
The federal budget deficit ballooned rapidly in the first four months of the fiscal year amid falling tax revenue and higher spending, the Treasury Department said Tuesday, posing a new challenge for the White House and Congress as they prepare for a number of budget battles.
The deficit grew 77 percent in the first four months of fiscal 2019 compared with the same period one year before, Treasury said.
When Republicans seized control of the House of Representatives during the Obama administration, lawmakers and White House officials embarked on a number of strained negotiations to try to reduce the gap between spending and tax revenue. During the Trump administration, there have not been any similar discussions, and President Trump has largely enacted an agenda of tax cuts and spending increases that had grown the deficit markedly.
Tax revenue for October 2018 through January 2019 fell $19 billion, or 2 percent, Treasury said. It noted a major reduction in corporate tax payments over the first four months of the fiscal year, falling close to 25 percent, or $17 billion.
Serious question for conservatives: Do you actually care about deficits? Or is that something you only care about when a Democrat is in the White House?
The debt is a huge problem, but it’s not like Trump was elected as a deficit hawk. The man uses debt; he likes debt. He’s mistaken in this, especially as it comes to the federal budget, but the bottom line is that no one has the courage to tackle the debt problem…it would require massive reforms which would cause a lot of pain. We have two ways out of this:
1. A painful economic collapse if the debt becomes unsustainable.
2. Growing the economy significantly faster than we grow the debt, thus shrinking the relative size of the debt.
I figure we’ve only got about a 20% chance over the next ten years of the painful economic collapse – it would require not merely a problem here at home, but a global economic meltdown. The American economy is just too vigorous – and too important to the global economy – to sputter badly enough that the USA is unable to service her debt. As for growing the economy, it grew, thanks to Trump’s magic wand, at 3.1% last year…something we hadn’t seen in more than a decade and never under Obama. I suspect we’ll meet that level of growth this year, as well…and perhaps exceed it in 2020.
The man uses debt; he likes debt.
Yikes, can’t let that one pass. I mean, how many companies has he bankrupted? Six? Yes, he likes to use in debt, as in borrowing other people’s money and not paying it back. Yet another massive character flaw in the man.
And once again we have a Leftist trying to get a seat on the Morality Train. But it has not escaped notice that the whining, the bitching, the moaning, the howling at the moon, are all about things far in Trump’s past and often mischaracterized by the Complicit Agenda Media and swallowed with glee by mindless sheeple with absolutely no concept of the reality of the superficial characterizations spoon-fed to them by their masters.
I remember the same kind of accusations made against Mitt Romney when he was the target of the Leftist Hate Machine and its program of personal destruction. Romney’s company would buy up struggling companies on the brink of total failure, streamline the operations, fix the things that had hindered their success, sometimes merge two or three or more similarly unproductive companies into one functional and profitable company, and end up salvaging one or more failures.
The economically illiterate but eager-to-hate sheeple of the Left bought into the rhetoric that Romney was a cruel heartless shar who “bankrupted” companies, threw good people out onto the street to starve, blah blah blah.
The word “bankruptcy” really impresses the economically illiterate. We saw them howling that we mustmustMUST hand billions-with-a-
B BILLIONS of dollars to badly-run, union-crippled, automakers or they would go BAAAANKRUUUUPT !!!!!. At that level of understanding of any business model larger than a small school district that had to mean herding frightened employees out into the street, padlocking the doors and walking away. Of course, it only meant a temporary moratorium on some debts while the companies fixed the problems that got them to that point, including some ability to renegotiate some of the most crippling union demands, but at the level of comprehension of most Leftist sheeple that was just wayyyy too complicated and besides it didn’t fit into the dependent mentality that says Big Brother is there to solve all our problems and take care of us. Remove some of the speed bumps so Americans can solve their own problems? How Un-Leftist that is!
So spare us the bleating and pious pontificating about the moral failings you find so so so deeply distressing about Donald Trump. He hasn’t killed anybody, directly (Kennedy) or indirectly (Clinton), he hasn’t done any of the things that get your panties in a wad after being elected, he hasn’t brought in admitted domestic terrorists as presidential advisers, he hasn’t done any of the things that seem to fly below your hyper-sensitive Morality Radar, so you really just come across as a hate-driven selectively judgmental Identity Politics troll who admits to only coming here to scold us for what you declare to be moral shortcomings.
As I said: he likes debt. And his companies are still in business.
The debt is bad – it’s bad now, it was bad then. Perhaps you haven’t come around her long enough to know, but I’m opposed to any government debt, at all. I want us to return to the Gold Standard. Government debt is immoral because it denies future voters their right to decide how government revenue is to be spent. But, what are you going to do? Both parties are simply afraid to tackle the debt. So, we’ll either get too far into debt during a downturn and have an economic meltdown, or we’ll grow the economy sufficient to sustain the debt. And we’ll grow the economy faster with lower marginal rates and less regulation.
And in today’s edition of conservative upside down world, we learn that bankruptcies are the mark of superior business acumen.
No, but we realize that if you people have to stick to the truth you are pretty much shut down so your lies are not surprising.
Declaring bankruptcy is not a sign of superior business acumen. But understanding the bankruptcy laws and knowing when and how to use them IS
Being so eager to believe the worst of someone as well as being ignorant of such laws and the reasons they exist and how they work is nothing to be proud of, rgrg2, but you seem pretty smug about it
Bankruptcy laws are their for a reason. And there are an infinite number of reasons why they would be used but in your uneducated, myopic socialist world, anyone who uses those laws is a bad businessman. And you consider yourself smart. Wow.
Serious question for conservatives: Do you actually care about deficits?
Again, I can only speak for myself, but I have always thought continuous deficits were a bad idea. I loved Ronald Reagan for a variety of reasons, but he remains the only President in American History to have the national debt triple on his watch. It resulted in a panic among a number of economists, reflected in books like The Great Depression of 1990
Fast forward 30 years and the debt is now over 7 times what it was in 1989. So it’s tripled again, and is on track in about 3 or 4 years to triple again. Bush 43 and Obama ran up more 2-1/2 times more debt than all 42 previous presidents combined, and yet there seems to have been no serious repercussions — no great depression of 1990, or 2000 or 2010, and probably not 2020. The only serious downturn in that 30 years was The Great Recession of 2008 which economists claimed was over by June, 2009. And even that wasn’t tied to the debt so much as bad banking and financial market regulations.
So at this point I’d have to say that I’m not as concerned about the deficit as I used to be. And it’s not as though, if I voted for a Democrat, the deficit would suddenly and magically be under control.
Thanks, RS. I’m just reading Mark’s book about Obama, and it’s clear that they think debt during the Obama era was very bad indeed, and among the reasons they think he was the worst president in US history.
I will quibble with one point: I think that if you had voted for a Democrat, the debt would not have grown anywhere near the extent that it has because we wouldn’t have passed a tax cut that greatly exacerbated the situation. Also, the consequences of the Great Recession clearly lasted beyond 2009.
I guess we’ll have to wait and see when the next Democrat takes the White House to see if conservatives suddenly change their minds again. That is, after all, the track record.
Thanks, RS. I’m just reading Mark’s book about Obama, and it’s clear that they think debt during the Obama era was very bad indeed, and among the reasons they think he was the worst president in US history.
The difference between Bush’s and Obama’s debt accumulation and Reagan’s is that Obama and Bush didn’t get much for their combined 13-14 trillion in additional debt. For his additional $2 trillion in debt, Reagan at least got an end to the Cold War as well as solid economic growth, a drastic reduction in inflation, interest rates and unemployment (the 3 elements of Carter’s “Misery Index.”) Most of Bush’s and Obama’s debt was spent on endless war and, in Obama’s case, shoring up union pension funds. Virtually NONE of the infrastructure spending promised by Obama ever took place.
Thanks again, RS. I think your response telegraphs how conservatives will respond when the next Democratic president runs up debt. (Which is that his or her debt will be bad debt, whereas Republican debt is good debt.) As for Obama’s debt, you leave out the fact that the economy was in free fall when he took office and that we spent years digging our way out. That was a far bigger driver of debt than endless wars or shoring up union pension funds. As for infrastructure spending, I saw lots of those Recovery Act signs everywhere I traveled. But then I only made to parts of Indiana, so maybe your neighborhood was ignored. And of course, more could have been done, but Republicans decided that they would rather make Obama him a one-term president instead of lifting a finger to help the economy.
In my state the only company that made money was the one hired to make the signs.
Note how the Lefty troll just skims over the reasons for the economic meltdown. That’s one part of the Leftist legacy they hope we will forget.
I think your response telegraphs how conservatives will respond when the next Democratic president runs up debt. (Which is that his or her debt will be bad debt, whereas Republican debt is good debt.)
I did not realize that Bush 43 was a Democrat. My bad.
I did not realize that Bush 43 was a Democrat. My bad.
Of course he was not a Democrat. Sorry for not acknowledging that you consider the deficits during his administration to be a bad thing.
And of course, only you can speak for you, but I think you would have to acknowledge that conservatives in general were highly critical of deficits during the Obama era and not so much during the Bush era. I’d say there was a huge difference in conservative response. And now… well, it appears that conservatives just don’t care any longer, like they flipped a switch as soon as a Republican was in the White House. At least that’s how I see it.
Of course that’s how you see it. You see everything through Identity Politics goggles and then run it through your Hate The Right filters.
Things “appear” to you however they have to appear to fit into your narrative
If that’s the way you see it then you haven’t been paying attention and/or are just a blind partisan. No other way to put it.
The income is larger since the tax cut.
It’s adorable that RG and Casper employ Alinksy tactics. I wonder if they realize they are doing it, or if it’s just a pavlov dog reflex at this point.
Are you really concerned about the deficit RG? Do you realize the tax cut has resulted in record federal tax revenues? Did you bother to look into that, or did just rinse and repeat a leftist talking point?
Critics of the Trump tax cuts said they would blow a hole in the deficit. Yet individual income taxes climbed 6% in the just-ended fiscal year 2018, as the economy grew faster and created more jobs than expected. The Treasury Department reported this week that individual income tax collections for FY 2018 totaled $1.7 trillion. That’s up $14 billion from fiscal 2017, and an all-time high
Have you ever heard of the concept “velocity of money”. No? Look into it. The problem is the spending RG, not the revenue.
And also, please read up on bankruptcy laws. Your comments on both those issues, deficits and bankruptcy’s, reveal that you really don’t know what you’re talking about and just repeating nonsense you hear form the “experts”. Remember – velocity of money. That is the foundation of a healthy economy.
Are you really concerned about the deficit RG?
I am concerned that people like you rail against debt when a Democrat is president, but find it to be a non-problem when a Republican is. Let me spell it out for you: h-y-p-o-c-r-i-t-e.
I think it’s adorable that you find us adorable. That said, I loved this editorial.
Mark, these are the promises he broke.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trump-thinks-his-supporters-are-the-most-gullible-people-on-earth-are-they-really/2019/03/07/1e79a4c4-4119-11e9-9361-301ffb5bd5e6_story.html?utm_term=.c9c8e04fcebc
Eugene Robinson writing about gullibility? That’s priceless. Eugene has been wrong about everything over the last decade …. EVERYTHING. Just FYI
Casper, thank you so much for your ongoing and enthusiastic confirmations, via your links, to the concept GIGO.
You are a shining example of this, and its effects. Finally, you are good for something.
Casper, I like how the best they can do it try to impune the integrity of the author of the article rather than to address even a single point in the article. Impressive, indeed.
Too rich for words coming from the people who drooled over themselves and wet their pants at the prospect of Hope and Change. Gullible? You guys wrote the book.
And what makes you think I am not concerned with the debt? Explain to me the concept of reserve currency.
Cluster, no conservative has ever indicated a lack of concern about the debt, no matter who is president. This is just another of the lies the Left generates and repeats, because if they ain’t lying they ain’t posting.
Aww, ain’t that sweet? Someone is finally wanting to be Casper’s friend—-and for a change, it’s not an intellectually challenged socially inept marginal student in middle school, emotionally manipulated by a fleshy socially inept marginal teacher who feeds on the adulation of misfit kids to compensate for his inadequacy.
You two were meant for each other.
The Washington Post is akin to the National Enquirer on the credibility scale. You’ll have to do much better than that.
Neutering Progressives one Pajama Boy at a time:
Transgender Iowans can use Medicaid funds to pay for transition-related care, including surgeries, according to a unanimous Iowa Supreme Court ruling Friday.
Now I know why Casper and RG support Medicaid for all.
https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/investigations/2019/03/08/iowa-supreme-court-transgender-people-medicaid-ban-surgeries-transition-lgbtq-aclu-civil-rights-ia/3098963002/
I think it’s adorable how you think you are insulting us by linking to articles like this. Personally, I don’t care if someone is gay, straight, transgendered, male or female. I have friends that fit every category who I respect. i take comments like this as a compliment as you are comparing me with some really cool people.
And I think it’s adorable that you actually think anyone has ever compared you to some really cool people.
Ever.
Your political party supports anti-Semites.
The point sailed right over your head Casper. I don’t care if Tommy wants to become Tonia or if you think they are “cool”.
I OBJECT TO TAX PAYER MONEY BEING USED FOR IT. GOT IT?
I object to a lot of things taxpayer money is going toward. Golf trips by our grifter in chief comes to mind. I would much rather it go towards making some of my fellow American’s lives a little easier.
Casper (the teacher who doesn’t know how to use an apostrophe) doesn’t want taxpayer money used for protecting ANY president when he is away from the White House, or just Republican presidents? But a Dem president, well, that’s different—-hit the taxpayer with the bill for him, for his wife and her mommy and their children and entourage and yes, even the dog trainer on the public payroll at $100,000 a year.
But let’s take a look at what Cappy would LIKE taxpayer money to pay for. More to the point, what purposes are consistent with the only legal law of the land, the Constitution?
Uh-oh. Now we are back to POLITICS and Cappy don’t DO politics. Cappy just likes to reach back into his tighty whities for something to throw. Just a sneer, a snipe, a gibe, an insult, anything nasty and hateful and peevish, but do not think for a minute he is going to talk about anything meaningful. Problem solving? Not for him.
Golf trips by our grifter in chief comes to mind.
Oh I know …. Obama golfed a lot
Not near as much as Trump, the grifter-in-chief. And he didn’t do it to make money for himself. Funny though how none of the people complaining about Obama golfing care about Trump golfing.
You’re just jealous Casper. Trump has more money and prettier women than you could ever dream of.
“You’re just jealous Casper. Trump has more money and prettier women than you could ever dream of.”
I have all the money I need and unlike Trump, I got it honestly. As for the women in my life, they have been both beautiful and intelligent and I haven’t cheated on someone I’m in a relationship with. Trump has nothing I want.
I think it’s sweet that in his dotage Casper has been able to develop such elaborate and obviously gratifying delusions.
He not only has plenty of money, he has convinced himself that his teacher’s pension was earned honestly, not by lying to innocent children and filling their heads with crap. Now he has not only had many women in his life, but they have all been beautiful and intelligent. (Keep in mind, no intelligent woman could put up with him and I have seen pictures of him—let’s just say he would have to be REALLY beyond-Trump rich to have an attractive woman associate with him)
Now, after having to flatter and play games with the kids on the short bus in his school to have someone to sit with at lunch, he suddenly has LOTS AND LOTS of friends. And BTW, they are all really really COOL.
He’s obviously been working out the details of his fantasy for a long long time. He probably explains it all in loving detail on those long nights he spends with his (beautiful) inflatable girlfriend, Bambi.
However, I do believe he never cheats on Bambi. The reason is pretty obvious.
Golf trips by our grifter in chief comes to mind
When I hear the term “grifter in chief.” Clinton comes to my mind. He not only played a lot of golf, he was notorious for cheating at it. Something that neither Obama nor Trump has been accused of. But I realize Liberals don’t actually look at it as cheating, just doing whatever it takes to win — “the ends justify the means” so to speak. It’s near the top of the list of things about you that we despise.
As for cheating a golf.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ftw/2018/01/30/6-people-who-have-accused-donald-trump-of-cheating-at-golf/109934954/
“6 people who say Donald Trump cheats at golf”
ROTFLMAO!! Six whole people who have accused Trump of cheating at golf. BTW, if he cheats at golf — if he cheats at anything, I denounce it. If a solid, honest, unflawed Constitutional Conservative with decent leadership and managerial skills would run for President, he or she would likely get my vote. In the history of the country there hasn’t been one. Reagan came the closest, IMO, but even he was far from perfect. You can’t say that Clinton was a great president, and that his personal life was irrelevant, and then not apply the same standard to Trump simply because you don’t like him. OK, maybe you can, but it rings pretty hollow and disingenuous.
Something interesting — if you Google “how many people have accused Bill Clinton of cheating at golf,” you get mostly articles about Clinton cheating on his wife or article about Trump cheating at golf. Gotta love the Media.
“ROTFLMAO!! Six whole people who have accused Trump of cheating at golf. BTW, if he cheats at golf — if he cheats at anything, I denounce it.”
Let’s see; He’s cheated on all three of his wives, contractors who have done work for him, people who signed up for Trump University, probably his taxes, etc., but conservatives still love him. Sad.
Wipe away those crocodile tears, Cappy, before they get stuck in your chins.
Once again, you obsess about past sins of Trump. Once again you reject the basic Christian tenets of redemption, salvation and forgiveness. I can see you in a prior incarnation waddling up to Christ and scolding him for His choice of sinners to love, teach and make His apostles. Once again you just ignore the history of men leading bad lives, then reaching a point where they look back and say to themselves “I don’t want to be that man any more”—-and many, like Trump, have then dedicated themselves to public service, for the betterment of the nation.
But you just keep on reminding us of the folly, the utter stupidity, of Identity Politics and you just continue wallowing in abject bigotry.
Conservatives admire Trump for the changes he has made in his life and the good things he is doing for this country.
I’m sure I am not the only one who has noticed that the appearance of the twin Libs has not only added nothing in the way of actual political discourse, it has shifted the tone of the blog from cordial discussions on various political and social and cultural topics to the equivalent of a litter box in which the lads deposit their intellectual excrement. When you look at their posts they can be summed up as nothing more or less than spewings of how much they hate this Invented Other their masters have identified for them as “conservatives” or, alternately, as “Republicans”.
They don’t want to exchange ideas or contribute to discourse, but just to goad people into responding to their nastiness and lies, evidently under the misapprehension that being annoying is some kind of victory, that any attention is better than none. I understand that for the sheeple of the Left this Is what passes for political discourse and allows them to preen as political observers and commenters, but for those of us who think and analyze they wear thin quite quickly, though I have to admit that reading what they bring to the table—which I have to assume is the best they can come up with—I do have a better insight into the popularity of AOC.
After wondering for so long just who in the world could possibly see her as anything but the annoying brat whose doting parents let her dominate adult conversation rg and Cappy have shown me that there actually is a segment of the population so dense that by comparison she looks pretty darned brilliant. I guess it is all relative. In the land of the blind the one-eyed man is king so in the land of rgrg2 and Casper Sandy is the new best thing.
But I am reminded why we regularly realize there is nothing to be gained by letting these speed bumps burn up band width so they can have their little temper tantrums and show us how petty and ignorant and intolerant and hateful they are. My opinion is that if they haven’t had anything to say other than how awful they think we are, they should find someplace else to say it.
375 words of insults devoid of ideas or contributions to discourse. If that’s what you want, then maybe you should give it a try.
Now you understand why I don’t read or respond to her posts anymore. She has nothing to add to a conversation. Besides, the worst thing you can do to a narcissist is ignore them.
hahahahaha as if Casper is worth having a conversation with. Casper and RG are the intellectual equivalents of tree squirrels.
Hence their allegiance to a Central Authority.
Amazona is absolutely correct in her assessment of your appearance here. And it takes a lot of words to articulate both OUR position and YOUR position since you seem to be unable or unwilling to say what you believe and why. But since we’ve studied your playbook we know exactly what and who you are, even if you’re afraid to say so. And the fact that you don’t deny, ie., “no, my posts are NOT verbal excrement,” just solidifies our low opinion of you. You’ve pointed out ad nauseam that Conservatives view things like debt and personal behavior, especially the President’s personal behavior, as good when it’s done by OUR side (or at least not bad) and bad when it’s done by YOUR side, but then you do exactly the same thing. To criticize Trump’s personal behavior you have to ignore some pretty despicable behavior by many on your side. You also have to either distort and lie about what Trump has done or dredge up stories from decades ago to make it sound as bad as what Democrats have actually done. What has Trump done that compares to sodomizing a 21-year-old intern with a cigar in the Oval Office and ejaculating all over her dress? I realize it’s easier to do that than to explain at a deeper level why you believe what you believe, but at some point it just gets old, so why don’t you both run along and find another litter box.
“Casper and RG are the intellectual equivalents of tree squirrels.”
And yet you still respond to us.
The “responding” is really just handing you new shovels as you dig yourselves deeper and deeper into your fever swamps of seething snarling hatred and mindless sniping.
I don’t laugh at or ridicule people with infirmities dumped on them by Fate. I don’t make fun of people with physical disabilities or deformities, or those with intellectual deficiencies they did not ask for. But when people pound on the door and demand to be let in so they can unpack and strut around in an array of carefully chosen and lovingly developed mental and character defects, demanding that we pay attention to them, it’s tempting to play along for a while.
It might not be kind, but it IS kind of entertaining, leading you (plural ‘you’) on to see just how far you will go to display your negativity, your addiction to spite and malice, your abject (though carefully nurtured) ignorance and your pathetic conviction that getting people to argue with you means that you have said something of value.
But it gets old.
rgrg2, I have spent nearly two decades on this blog talking about political ideas, and wading through the hyper-emotional dreck you and your kind try to dump here.
You admitted early on that you only came here to lecture us on what you call our lack of morality. Fine. You got that out of the way, and then what? Just more lecturing on what you see as the moral shortcomings of people who believe the United States should be run according to its Constitutional rule of law. You pick an ACTION by a Republican and then pontificate on why it is wrong/immoral or otherwise offensive to you. Even when the action actually occurred and is not an invention (lie) you only complain about it.
If all you have to offer is an unbroken litany of things about the Right that tick you off, you have done so enough for us to get the point, and you clearly have nothing else to bring to the table.
You’ve been tossed a couple of slow ones over the plate and you never even took a swing at them. Why not? Because they were about POLITICS. Politics is not just sitting back on your ass making lists of what you, or more to the point your masters, want to complain about, and incessant complaining is not political discourse.
But fine—-let’s engage in political discourse. To lay a foundation for this, what is your objective political philosophy? That is, what do you think is the best structure, the best blueprint for governing the nation? Let’s talk about that. You whined not long ago about what you said is my belief that only conservatives believe in the Constitution—–I responded to that with one of those slow balls over the plate, giving you a chance to address what seemed to be a claim that the Left also believes in the Constitution while fighting it or ignoring it. You did not answer. You just jumped to a different track and started complaining about something else.
So much for political discourse.
If you disagree with my analysis of your contributions to the blog, say so. Otherwise you are just affirming it.
And it takes a lot of words to articulate both OUR position and YOUR position since you seem to be unable or unwilling to say what you believe and why.
That’s a funny way to look at it, since you and I, and Mark and I, have had perfectly civil discussions in the past day or two. You no doubt hold me in contempt–you profess to hold all people you disagree with politically in contempt–but we were still able to exchange our thoughts.
You asked for ideas the other day. I gave you four or five. You chose to engage with one. I asked for ideas from you and Cluster. I don’t think either of you offered any.
And as for not stating my positions, I think I have been quite clear about how I feel about conservatives who once claimed the mantle of moral righteousness and now offer their full-throated support of Donald Trump. Was I really not clear? Do you want to go over it yet again?
You just keep making my point, rg. Here take another shovel, or maybe a backhoe would suit you better.
To lay a foundation for this, what is your objective political philosophy? That is, what do you think is the best structure, the best blueprint for governing the nation? Let’s talk about that. You whined not long ago about what you said is my belief that only conservatives believe in the Constitution—–I responded to that with one of those slow balls over the plate, giving you a chance to address what seemed to be a claim that the Left also believes in the Constitution while fighting it or ignoring it. You did not answer.
Yes, I did say that you believe that only conservatives believe in the Constitution. If you responded, I did not see it. I was on the road for a week or so and did not visit this blog during that time. Feel free to respond again if you are so moved.
I believe that any worthy system of government must protect and guarantee the rights of individuals against the tyranny of federal, state and local governments. So the Bill of Rights is a pillar of American governance. It is particularly important now, when we have a would-be authoritarian in the White House who would like nothing better than to use his powers to silence his critics and enrich himself and his cronies.
I believe that any worthy system of government is one in which no one is above the law. Also important now, given who occupies the White House.
I believe that government has a role in advancing the general welfare of the people it governs. And this includes government at all levels, including federal. One of the beauties of our system of government, and the Constitution (including its amendments), is that it is adaptable to a country that is vastly different from the one for which is was originally written.
As a blueprint for achieving these aims, the Constitution is not perfect—the Electoral College is an absurd anachronism—but it has and hopefully will continue to serve us well.
In closing, I leave you with this quote from a review of the book, Justice Brennan: Liberal Champion. As a Constitutional scholar, I’m sure you would enjoy reading it, if you haven’t already.
“The Warren Court’s project was to protect the people who do not get a fair shake in the democratic process. People and groups who can protect their own interests by voting do not need—and should not get—extra protection from the life-tenured justices of the Supreme Court. But African Americans in the Jim Crow South, political dissidents, criminal defendants in unfairly rigged systems of justice, city dwellers in a state where a minority of voters has locked up control of the legislature—those are the people whom the courts should protect. William Brennan came to understand this vision of the Constitution instinctively, and he, probably more than anyone, was able to make it the animating spirit of a remarkable era in the history of the Supreme Court. If that is what it means to be a Liberal Champion, then liberals should be proud.”
Thank you for your response.
Correct me if I am misinterpreting your position statements, but while you praise the Bill of Rights as “a pillar of American governance” as you move on in your post you cite beliefs in the purpose and power of government that belie the 10th Amendment.
You toss in some Identity Politics nonsense about Trump, using the Crystal Ball tactic of informing us of his innermost thoughts and goals and agendas, but as none of these are apparent in his actual actions or the way he is handling his presidency I am writing them off as mere personal bias, though strong enough to color your perceptions quite intensely.
Equality under the law is always important. It is vital to the endurance and success of any nation. I believe that we are not such a nation. For many years we have had a different set of laws for people here illegally, watching illegal aliens walk away from crimes when an American would have been in jail. Then we had the Hillary Clinton posse, ranging from her staff to the highest levels of the DOJ, break law after law without any penalty. We saw other well-connected Democrats also skate after breaking law after law. Most recently we have seen an outrageously expensive and complex “investigation” into an alleged act that was not, even if it occurred, a crime while the list of real and known crimes have been ignored.
I do not agree that the FEDERAL government is responsible for advancing the general welfare of the people, a belief shared by the people who wrote the Constitution. States can do whatever their citizens want them to do, as long as they don’t violate the Constitution.
I could not disagree more with the statement about the Warren Court’s “project” and furthermore I believe that it t is this distortion of the role of the Court that lies at the heart of many of our problems today. The sole role of the Court is to examine lower court rulings and determine if they comply with the law of the Constitution AS IT IS WRITTEN. It is not, and never has been, the role of a handful of unelected political appointees to take it upon themselves to engage in any kind or level of social engineering or “correction” of anything they feel is wrong.
Liberals should not be proud of being part of, approving of and praising the subversion of our Constitution. This is a direction taken over the years and actually applauded and promoted by Liberals, who believe in absurdities such as the need for a “balanced” Court.
It is the belief that it is the role of government, at least the federal government, and the SCOTUS, to “fix” things and take actions in the guise of “promoting the general welfare” that leads to the conclusion that Liberals do not believe in following the Constitution.
re: the Electoral College The Dem-controlled Colorado Legislature recently passed a bill, signed by Governor Polis, giving all of Colorado’s Electoral College votes to whoever wins the popular vote.
That is, they just stripped Coloradans of their votes for the presidency and handed them to Los Angeles. There is now no reason to vote in a presidential election in Colorado.
Oh, I know that this will depend on a couple more blue states signing on to this Compact, which will give a minimum o 270 votes to the winner of the popular vote, no matter how the people in those states vote.
Naturally, no presidential candidate will campaign in Colorado, or even advertise here. Why bother?
This overreach is having an interesting effect here, as no Dem campaigned on a promise to take away our votes. This radical legislature has also passed an extreme sex ed bill that no one voted on, and a radical move to basically shut down the oil and gas industry in the state—-after a referendum to do that was soundly defeated. A few years ago a recall movement got two Dem representatives bounced and a third quit so The Looper could appoint another Dem and save the seat, and this not only has people really riled up a recall will get a lot of big money to back it. Many of us are just waiting for the paperwork to go through to donate and support a recall effort. Part of the outrage is based on the issues, but a lot is on the Bait and Switch tactic.
My uber-Lib brother is actually open to discussion of the dangers of Leftist governance, for the first time ever.
They clearly don’t – and even in rg’s comment, you can see it: calling the Electoral College a bad thing. How else are small population States to have a voice in their own governance?
It is called the Senate, which gives each state, regardless of size, the same representation.
The Senate does not give smaller states a voice in the election of the president, and you know it, RG. See my comment on what just happened in Colorado.
You either don’t understand the purpose of the Electoral College or you do but you don’t like it because it makes it harder for the Left to take over the country. Your snide dismissive comment indicates the latter.
The Senate does not give smaller states a voice in the election of the president, and you know it, RG.
I didn’t say they did. Mark asked, “How else are small population States to have a voice in their own governance?”
He didn’t asked, “How else are small population States to have a voice in the election of the president?”
And you know it.
In addition to have their own state and local governments, and elected Representatives as proportional to their population, and a say in electing presidents, somewhat proportional to their population they are given equal representation in the Senate, regardless of population. The Senate is the equalizer.
And of course, even without the Electoral College, the citizens in small population states would have just as much say in electing presidents as those in large population states. No more, no less. Makes sense to me. Get rid of the Electoral College. I hope the National Popular Vote compact is successful.
Oh, come on now, RG—-at least have the honesty to quote Mark’s full comment, which was clearly a question about how smaller states could participate in the governance of their own nation if the Electoral College were to be eliminated. Don’t be so coy and pretend that having equal representation in the Senate is related to having a voice in the election.
You go on to say something that is patently false—-that even without the Electoral College citizens in smaller states would have as much say in an election as those in larger population states. This comment does not “make sense” as much as it misstates facts to try to support a political goal, which is to have a few urban areas determine the leadership of our nation. Any look at the map of voting in the last election shows nearly all of the country voting for Trump, yet the popular vote total was a few million more votes for Hillary, the total of which could be accounted for by the votes of either Los Angeles or Manhattan. Election by the popular vote would have had our president chosen by one of the biggest urban areas, totally disregarding the will of people in most of the country.
The Supreme Court is mandated to rule on what the Constitution says but when there is doubt they turn to the contemporaneous writings of the Founders to determine the intent, and the Founders were quite clear about the intent of creating the Electoral College. The National Popular Vote Compact is an effort to do an end run around the Constitution.
You go on to say something that is patently false—-that even without the Electoral College citizens in smaller states would have as much say in an election as those in larger population states.
Of course they would. Every citizen’s vote for president should count just as much–no more, no less–as any other citizens’ vote. With the Electoral College, that is not the case.
Explain to me the concept of reserve currency.
Explain to me the concept of money laundering.
Another straightforward response from RG to a direct question. Or not. I guess his version of political discourse, the topic of his latest pinch-mouthed squinty-eyed scolding of me, is to treat a question like a tennis ball that has to be hit back over the net, and in his mind that means scrambling for some retort he thinks is so devastating it will derail the first question.
We are used to it, as Lefties seldom If ever answer a direct question or engage in a meaningful dialogue—because that is not why they are here
They are here because the hate and spite and malice that define them builds up so much pressure they need a place to vent it, which is why their posts always come across as mental flatulence.
That “money laundering” thing is a wide topic, rgrg2—-narrow it down a little, OK? Got an example? That phrase just burbled up like swamp gas so you must have something in mind.
(Note: The economically illiterate have gotten quite excited over the sinister-sounding term “money laundering” though, of course they are totally ignorant about what it is or how it is done or how it might relate to anything. It’s minds like this that make the work of the Left so easy—like dragging a string in front of a kitten. They are never clear, though, about details. Whose money, how and why are the questions that come to mind. That is, to those who HAVE minds.)
Another straightforward response from RG to a direct question. Or not.
If Cluster has a point to make about reserve currencies, no one is stopping him. I just don’t generally respond to commands to explain whatever pops into Cluster’s head at the moment. If he really wants to know what a reserve currency is, he has the entire Internet to help him. He doesn’t even need to pop on down to the library. For example, he could start here.
Mark Steyn has been sitting in for Rush a few days this week, and yesterday he took a call I thought was great.
The caller suggested dropping efforts to build a wall along our southern border, and instead building a really big, tall, solid foundation to support mile upon mile of wind turbines and solar panels.
While Congressional Democrats are busy subverting the Constitution and starting endless investigations, Republicans are acting in a number of responsible ways. I just got the following newsletter from my Congressman, Jim Banks (R – Indiana 3rd District)
Can you imagine getting something like this from a Democrat Congressman?
“While Congressional Democrats are busy subverting the Constitution and starting endless investigations”
Were the Republicans investigating Clinton’s emails and Benghazi subverting the Constitution? If not, what is different now?
WOW!!! If you don’t understand the difference I couldn’t begin to explain it in words that you would understand.
“WOW!!! If you don’t understand the difference I couldn’t begin to explain it in words that you would understand.”
Probably because there isn’t a difference. Congress is suppose to provide oversight.
What is Congress “overseeing” and please cite the article(s) in the Constitution delegating this duty to Congress.
What is Congress “overseeing” and please cite the article(s) in the Constitution delegating this duty to Congress.
It’s easier to quote Wikipedia than to write it myself (my emphasis added):
Although the U.S. Constitution grants no formal, express authority to oversee or investigate the executive or program administration, oversight is implied in Congress’s array of enumerated powers. The legislature is authorized to appropriate funds; raise and support armies; provide for and maintain a navy; declare war; provide for organizing and calling forth the national guard; regulate interstate and foreign commerce; establish post offices and post roads; advise and consent on treaties and presidential nominations (Senate); and impeach (House) and try (Senate) the President, Vice President, and civil officers for treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. Reinforcing these powers is Congress’s broad authority “to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof”.
The authority to oversee derives from these constitutional powers. Congress could not carry them out reasonably or responsibly without knowing what the executive is doing; how programs are being administered, by whom, and at what cost; and whether officials are obeying the law and complying with legislative intent. The Supreme Court has legitimated Congress’s investigative power, subject to constitutional safeguards for civil liberties. In 1927, the Court found that, in investigating the administration of the Department of Justice, Congress was considering a subject “on which legislation could be had or would be materially aided by the information which the investigation was calculated to elicit”.
You do realize that Wikipedia is really just input from readers, don’t you?
You do realize that Wikipedia is really just input from readers, don’t you?
No! Really? Are you sure?
But what about the description is wrong?
While Congressional Democrats are busy subverting the Constitution and starting endless investigations, Republicans are acting in a number of responsible ways.
Are you suggesting that Congress carrying out oversight of the executive branch is subverting the Constitution?
As a reminder, Republicans issued 1,285 subpoenas throughout the Whitewater and campaign finance investigations into the Clinton White House.
Heck, a special counsel was appointed to investigate “questionable financial dealings” inolving Jimmy Carter’s peanut farm. They investigated for months before determining that “the answer is a clear no” regarding whether any criminal charges were warranted.
And I’ll also remind you of what Jason Chaffetz said just before the 2016 election, regarding the prospect of Hillary Clinton winning. “Even before we get to Day One, we’ve got two years’ worth of material already lined up, She has four years of history at the State Department, and it ain’t good.”
Enjoy the next two years, Trumpers. Democrats are merely employing your own playbook.
Are you suggesting that Congress carrying out oversight of the executive branch is subverting the Constitution?
I was thinking more about rejecting the amendment to their campaign reform bill that would prohibit illegal aliens from voting. And I have no objection to legitimate congressional oversight of the Executive Branch, but you and I both know that’s not what’s going on.
And I have no objection to legitimate congressional oversight of the Executive Branch, but you and I both know that’s not what’s going on.
Was investigating Whitewater legitimate Congressional oversight? Jimmy Carter’s peanut farm? How do you draw the line between legitimate and illegitimate investigations?
Whitewater represented several identified crimes, for which every single person involved was found guilty and sentenced—-except the leaders, Bill and Hill. And the crimes associated with Whitewater went all the way into the White House when Hillary refused to produce documents subpoenaed by the investigation.
A legitimate investigation is an investigation into an actual crime. The Mueller charade, referred to by Mark Steyn the other day as “prosecutorial dinner theater”, was kicked off without a single crime to investigate—without an identified crime, people were targeted merely for being associated with Trump and then pursued, hounded, threatened, intimidated and bullied until a couple of process crimes were uncovered and a couple of others, none of which were related in any way to Trump or to the campaign.
Again, it has been Stalinesque in its perversion of justice and the rule of law, and its pursuit of Star Chamber proceedings to keep the mobs energized.
“I was thinking more about rejecting the amendment to their campaign reform bill that would prohibit illegal aliens from voting”
There is no reason to add an amendment when it is already against the law for illegal aliens to vote in federal elections.
There is no reason to add an amendment when it is already against the law for illegal aliens to vote in federal elections.
Sorry Cap, that ship has already sailed. The nose of the camel is already under the edge of the tent.
As the last sentence of the article says:
To which I say: not yet. You can bet Democrat leaders are already trying to figure out how to get away with expanding it from local elections to federal.
In a free land, a crime is identified and then an investigation is mounted to find the guilty party.
In a tyranny, a person is identified and then an investigation is mounted to find a crime.
Congress has not identified a crime, but has merely targeted people associated with Trump to see if they can find a crime. Call it “oversight” all you like, it is still an abuse of power,. a mob in search of someone to hang.
There is no reason to add an amendment when it is already against the law for illegal aliens to vote in federal elections. For now, anyway, at least where a photo ID is required and there is some oversight of voter registration.
But Nan hopes to change that:
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/bethbaumann/2019/03/09/um-what-pelosi-tries-to-argue-illegals-should-be-able-to-voteusing-a-reagan-quote-n2542872
Heck, a special counsel was appointed to investigate “questionable financial dealings” inolving Jimmy Carter’s peanut farm. They investigated for months before determining that “the answer is a clear no” regarding whether any criminal charges were warranted.
Heck yourself. Special Counsel Paul Curran was appointed by Griffin Bell, Carter’s own Attorney General, during a time when Democrats controlled the White House and both houses of congress. Other than the fact that Mr. Curran was a Republican, the GOP didn’t have anything to do with it.
Other than the fact that Mr. Curran was a Republican, the GOP didn’t have anything to do with it.
I merely said a special counsel was appointed to investigate Carter’s peanut farm. I didn’t say the Republicans did it. The overall point being that investigation of Trump’s financial dealings is hardly without precedent.
rgrg2, I’m trying to make sense of your focus on the Carter investigation. I was still a Liberal at the time, which means I was on the mushroom farm, kept in the dark and fed shit and not seeking out information on political matters, so I paid no attention to it, but it certainly has kept a high position on your radar. Hmmmm.
You seem to be saying—–and do correct me if I am wrong, not that I worry about that—–that you are arguing that if Congress, or some other government entity, made a mistake in the matter of the Carter investigation that means that this kind of error should thereafter be enshrined into law or at least custom, to allow the same kind of error/injustice/abuse of power/really bad thing or however you choose to characterize it to be repeated.
OR, alternately or possibly as well, anyone who failed to meet some standard of outrage at the Carter investigation that rises to your evidently high level of acceptability is not qualified or allowed to notice the irregularity and political agenda underlying the determination of the Left to use every means at its disposal, including the power of Congress, to pursue and harass this president now that the original mechanism for doing this has been proven to be a failure. Because for the life of me I can’t think of any other reason to keep dragging it into this discussion.
Well, there is that Lefty conviction that anything negative said or done to or about any Democrat must be met with at least equal treatment if not more aggressive retaliation.
From the outside of the Leftist insane asylum it is obvious that the rabid Lefty—-and increasingly we are seeing there is no other kind—–is determined to unseat this president by any means possible, and failing to do that to use the power and influence of the United States Congress (and any of the weaponized federal agencies still able to act to promote Leftist agendas) to smear the man so thoroughly one of your hair-on-fire radicals might have a chance of winning. (Of course you realize the need to also rig the election by finding a way to negate the votes of about half of the nation as well.)
The Mueller “investigation” has done what it was intended to do. Everyone knew that there was no “conspiracy” between the Trump campaign and the Russian government to influence the outcome of the campaign. That was just a smoke screen, dressed up in the pseudo-legalistic term “collusion” to stir up the mouth-breathers. But its true purpose was threefold.
1. To provide a semi-official legitimacy to the smear campaign the Left realized it would need to unseat this president
2. To send the message that being aligned with Donald Trump, or seen to be aligned with him, is dangerous as it will call down the wrath and power of the government and you will be targeted, harassed, hounded, persecuted and broken by the very government that is supposed to protect you from such abuses of official power
3. To establish a minefield between the criminals of the Deep State, who used the power of their federal agencies to spy on American citizens and defame a presidential candidate in an effort to expand Leftist power and control in this country. By first setting up the perception that any investigation into the criminal activities of the FBI, for example, would be “obstruction of justice” the Left established a wall of protection for its criminals that would stand as long as the bogus “investigation” could be stretched out.
The Democrat House strategy of using its power to harass, intimidate and smear the president is just the next step in the Left’s power grab. Even the looniest of the Loony Left knows that Trump can’t be impeached for things he did before being elected, but the mechanism of the impeachment process will allow them to drag out every claim of every bad thing they can dig up—–not to actually impeach him, but to hinder his reelection. It is a gross and blatant abuse of the power of the House and an object lesson on the depravity and dishonesty of the Left. The pretense of “Congressional oversight” is dishonest and transparent, just another lie told by the Left in its effort to take over the government.
The Mueller charade, referred to by Mark Steyn the other day as “prosecutorial dinner theater”, was kicked off without a single crime to investigate.
“The Mueller charade,” as you call it, was kicked off to determine if there was Russian interference in the 2016 election process, and related matters.
Do you not think that foreign adversaries interfering with U.S. presidential elections is a serious thing that needs to be understood?
Do you not think that individuals conspiring with foreign adversaries during the process of a presidential election, either for personal gain or to influence the election, is a serious thing?
Name a crime.
Asking someone from a foreign nation if he or she has knowledge of criminal activities of a presidential candidate is not a crime, even if it happens. Paying an agent of a foreign nation to invent scurrilous lies about an American presidential candidate to influence an election is closer to being a crime, but I don’t know the actual statute that would be involved.
The laws says a special counsel may be appointed when a crime has been identified. Cite a crime that was identified.
It is not in the tradition, or structure, of American justice to name a person and then mount an investigation to try to find a crime.
And a conversation, or sharing of information, is NOT a “conspiracy”.
The phrase used was “collusion” between Trump and./or his campaign, based on the assertion that he or someone on his campaign had asked some Russian if there was any dirt on Hillary known to Russia, and of course the assumption that this dirt, if found, would be used by the Trump campaign to help him defeat Hillary
Even if this happened., it would not have been a crime.
And if the concern was about espionage, or counter-espionage neither would be in the purview of special counsel.
Is “a serious thing that needs to be understood” by definition a crime?
Please cite the statute.
rgrg2, I’m trying to make sense of your focus on the Carter investigation.
I’m not focused on it. Just pointing out that there is past precedent for investigating the businesses of presidents.
And of all the points I made in my post the only response you have is that you aren’t focusing on the Carter investigation.
Got it.
Name a crime.
One purpose of an FBI investigation is to determine if crimes were committed. There was ample reason to suspect that there may have been, and there have been several indictments and convictions as a result of the investigation.
But the FBI is also charged with foreign counterintelligence. From the FBI website:
“As the country’s lead counterintelligence agency, the FBI is responsible for detecting and lawfully countering actions of foreign intelligence services and organizations that employ human and technical means to gather information about the U.S. that adversely affects our national interests. Our investigations include foreign and economic espionage, or ‘spying’ activities, that may involve the acquisition of classified, sensitive, or proprietary information from the U.S. government or U.S. companies. The FBI investigates whenever a foreign entity conducts clandestine intelligence activities in the United States. Our counterintelligence investigations also help combat international terrorist threats, including those involving weapons of mass destruction and attacks on critical infrastructures.”
Special counsel is not allowed in cases of counter-espionage.
No indictments and no convictions have been related to Trump or to the stated purpose of the “investigation”.
The investigation started with the naming of individuals and from that proceeded to seeking out any crime any of them might have committed at any time. In other words, the FBI did not have information about tax evasion which then led them to Paul Manafort. No, they went after Manafort for political reasons and then, using the power of the State, were able to uncover crimes they had never known to exist.
This is justice turned upside down and inside out, this is abuse of power and this is a hallmark of a tyrannical government.
The phrase used was “collusion” between Trump and./or his campaign, based on the assertion that he or someone on his campaign had asked some Russian if there was any dirt on Hillary known to Russia, and of course the assumption that this dirt, if found, would be used by the Trump campaign to help him defeat Hillary</b
You're the only one who has used the term "collusion" in this discussion.
Here is the charter of the Special Counsel:
The Special Counsel is authorized to conduct the investigation confirmed by then-FBI Director James B. Comey in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on March 20, 2017, including:
(i) any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and
(ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation; and
(iii) any matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. section 600.4(a).
If the Special Counsel believes it is necessary and appropriate, the Special Counsel is authorized to prosecute federal crimes arising from the investigation of these matters.
See how that works? They investigate. If crimes are found, they prosecute them. It’s not the other way around. Furthermore, they obviously have found that crimes were committed because people who were high level officials of the Trump campaign, as well as his personal lawyer, have been convicted of crimes.
In conservative upside down world, if the Special Counsel uncovers crimes, they should just ignore them. Sorry, that’s not how it works, nor should it.
It’s not the Special Counsel’s fault that Donald Trump surrounded himself with people who engaged in criminal behavior for years.
Only the best people.
But they did not start with a list of crimes,. investigate those crimes and then indict the perpetrators. They started with a list of people taken from those who had been involved in the Trump campaign and once they knew WHO they had to prosecute they set about finding crimes and WHY to prosecute.
You cite C.F.R 600.4 but you don’t quote this: The Special Counsel will be provided with A SPECIFIC FACTUAL STATEMENT of the matter to be investigated No “specific factual statement” was provided. What WAS provided was not a crime at all. Name the statute making it a crime to “coordinate” some undefined whatever with “the Russian government”.
The regulation does not permit the Justice Department to appoint a special counsel in order to determine if a crime has been committed, calling for a criminal investigation. Go back to C.F.R. 600.1—-The Attorney General, or in cases in which the Attorney General is recused, the Acting Attorney General, will appoint a Special Counsel WHEN HE OR SHE DETERMINES THAT CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION OF A PERSON OR MATTER IS WARRANTED. Note the required sequence
The AG or Acting AG first must have some evidence that a CRIME might have been committed. No such alleged crime was named. THEN this activates C.F.R 600.4 in which the special counsel is provided with a SPECIFIC FACTUAL STATEMENT of the matter to be investigated. This did not happen. That is because no crime took place. Trump could have treated Putin himself to a golf weekend at Mar-Al-Lago where they chortled over Putin’s stories of bribing Hillary to get the uranium deal and it would have broken no laws.
To quote former prosecutor Andrew McCarthy, “It is the criminal investigation that triggers the special counsel, not the other way around”.
Michael B. Mukasey, former U.S Attorney General and chief judge of the United States District Court for New York, pointed out this legal defect in Mueller’s appointment when he wrote a column for the Wall Street Journal:
Possible Russian meddling in the 2016 election is certainly a worthy subject for a national-security investigation, but “links” or “coordination”—or “collusion”, a word that does not appear in the letter of appointment but has been used as a synonym for coordination—does not define or constitute a crime”
Okey dokey—-let’s get to the part that has you guys so giddy—–(ii) and (iii) which you insist gave Mueller free rein to go looking everywhere and anywhere he liked for anything and everything he might dig up. But don’t look at buddy Rosenstein’s broad wording—-look at what is really included in “the scope of C.F.R 600.4 (a):”
The jurisdiction of a Special Counsel shall also include the authority to investigate and prosecute federal crimes committed in the course of, and with intent to interfere with, the Special Counsel’s investigation such as perjury, obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence, and intimidation of witnesses. Which of the crimes uncovered in the investigation of anyone falls into any of these categories?
ONLY IMPEDING MUELLER’S INVESTIGATION, ITSELF, IS RECOGNIZED BY THE REGULATION
You cite C.F.R 600.4 but you don’t quote this: The Special Counsel will be provided with A SPECIFIC FACTUAL STATEMENT of the matter to be investigated No “specific factual statement” was provided. What WAS provided was not a crime at all. Name the statute making it a crime to “coordinate” some undefined whatever with “the Russian government”.
From Judge Ellis in the Manafort case:
“Specifically, the August 2 Scope Memorandum, consistent with 28 C.F.R. § 600.4, identifies specific factual matters to be investigated by the Special Counsel, including allegations that defendant ‘[c]omitted a crime or crimes by colluding with Russian government officials with respect to the Russian government’s efforts to interfere with the 2016 election for President of the United States, in violation of United States law[.]”
Name the law. Cite the law. What IS the law?
An interesting detail is that the judge is not referring to the actual letter appointing Mueller as Special Counsel. That letter identified NO “specific factual matters”. On May 17, 2017, Rosenstein appointed Mueller to investigate an alleged act which was not a crime, a violation of C.F.R. 600.1 which allows for appointment of a special counsel AFTER there is determination of a crime having occurred which then calls for an investigation.
It also violated 28 C.F.R. . 600.4 which states The Special Counsel WILL BE PROVIDED WITH A SPECIFIC FACTUAL STATEMENT of the matter to be investigated.
Possible Russian interference in the election would have been a national security concern, not a crime. The appointment called for investigation of something that was not illegal.
But Rosenstein then created a new, secret, memorandum on August 2, 2017. In THIS Rosenstein admitted to trying to mislead the American public by issuing what he ADMITTED was worded categorically in order to permit its public release without confirming specific investigations involving specific individuals and THEN, almost three months after C.F.R.600.1 was violated in the original appointment he instructed Mueller to investigate allegations that Paul Manafort committed a crime or crimes by colluding with Russian government officials with respect to the Russian government’s efforts to interfere with the 2016 election for President of the United States, in violation of United States law”
Here is the accusation of COLLUDING, which you have contended was never part of the special counsel assignment, and here again are references to crimes which, oddly enough, do not appear anywhere in any statute. “In violation of” WHICH law?
This secret after-the-fact memo is what the judge is referring to in your quote.
But it gets better. The FBI raid on Manafort’s home took place on July 26. Do the math. That is a week before the memo authorizing something like this was written. Hmmm. Mueller claims that it was the second memo that authorized him to go after Manafort, which is really an admission that he was NOT authorized to order the raid as the memo was written a week after the raid.
In a clumsy CYA effort, the August 2 memo also said that Mueller’s authority to investigate Manafort was within the scope of investigation at the time of your appointment and are within the scope of the Order In other words, Rosenstein tried to retroactively fix the defective first Order, but even then did not cite the actual law(s) claimed to have been broken, though there has to be a belief that an actual law HAS been broken to justify the appointment of a special counsel.
So your judge’s ruling, which clearly refers to the CYA belated memo and not the original defective appointment, does not address any of the pertinent issues and in fact refers to violation of United States law which does not and did not exist.
On the lighter side.
Spot on article.
Cluster, did you change your email address? I just tried to send you something and it came back “recipient not found.”
Teacher takes her students to see Diane Feinstein , and push her to vote for the Green New Deal.
Watch to the end…
Amazona: In my state the only company that made money was the one hired to make the [American Recovery and Reinvestment Act] signs.
Perhaps, but your state was the beneficiary of much more than signs. According to the State of Colorado, it received an estimated $6.7 billion in Recovery Act funds.
According to CODOT, the state received approximately $533 million just for transportation projects.
So sorry, it was a lot more than signs.
My goodness, you are certainly tightly focused on keeping me in line, aren’t you, you busy little fact checker you.
But you are right—–I shouldn’t have failed to end my comment with //sarc off.
Sometimes I forget that the Left does not recognize humor when it sees it, and if it does, it squashes it. I’m used to the tongue in cheek banter among us regulars.
Should have addressed this yesterday:
Correct me if I am misinterpreting your position statements, but while you praise the Bill of Rights as “a pillar of American governance” as you move on in your post you cite beliefs in the purpose and power of government that belie the 10th Amendment.
As a Constitutional scholar, you know there has been disagreement over the interpretation of the Constitution with respect to the federal government’s ability to “provide for the general welfare.” The commerce clause gives wide latitude, as does the power to levy taxes and expend funds to “provide for the general welfare.”
Article I, Section 8, Clause 1:
The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.”
The debate over what powers this actually gives the federal government goes all the way back to the Founders, even the authors of the Federalists Papers. Hamilton took a broad view of implied powers. Madison took a strict view. Two hundred plus years later, and we’re still debating it.
And Madison, Monroe and Jefferson, who actually WROTE the Constitution, were quite steadfast in denying that the General Welfare Clause referred to anything but the welfare of the government—NOT the people. I’m not home now and am typing on a small tablet, so it’s hard for me to get to a copy of the Constitution but I doubt that it actually states that taxation can be imposed to “provide for the general welfare”. Even you had to admit it says for the general Welfare OF THE UNITED STATES and that is the contemporaneous argument made by Madison and Jefferson —-that the general welfare of the United States meant nothing beyond that, nothing beyond the welfare of the entity created by the Constitution.
As for Hamilton, he took a broad view of pretty much everything, leading to many disputes between him and most of the other Founders. He was definitely a Big Government, nanny-state kind of guy, at odds with his fellows and their determination to make it as close as they could to impossible to devolve into a massively powerful Central Authority. In their pre-Marx, pre-Lenin, pre-Hitler, pre-Mao etc time the only massively powerful Central Authority reference we had was that of monarchies, and we fought a long, costly and bloody war to escape that kind of centralized power.
The only ones “still debating it” are the ones yearning for a modernized version of a monarchy, one in which the leadership changes every few years and the leader is selected by a select elite but one in which almost all authority rests in the centralized seat of power with little left to the states, or to the people.
Even you had to admit it says for the general Welfare OF THE UNITED STATES and that is the contemporaneous argument made by Madison and Jefferson
Good Lord. I didn’t “admit” anything. I quoted Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1 of the Constitution of the United States.
But you look it up when you can.
No, you gave two versions, one which allowed you to claim Constitutional power to tax for the general good without including the limitation inherent in the wording and then you also included the full statement, which has a different meaning than the partial statement allowed.
As for the Wikipedia piece, it connects its own dots. It starts off by stating that the right or duty of Congress to oversee the actions of the Chief Executive is merely IMPLIED, and then goes on to build on the author’s interpretation. It is clearly not objective and not sourced and the example given is not even about “oversight” of the president.
If we’re going to depend on implications, I assert that the authority to oversee the actions of another branch of government, particularly those of its Chief Executive Officer, carries with it the implication of the power to approve or disapprove of those actions and I am not aware of anything that gives that kind of control to Congress.
As a Constitutional scholar I am sure that if this authority exists in the Constitution you can quickly put your finger on and share it with us. Keep in mind that there is a large segment of observers of the Constitution who are skeptical of
“implied” rights and duties, having dealt with nonsense such as important decisions being made on the sensing of an emanation of a penumbra of a right never seen in the Constitution.
As a Constitutional scholar…
Unlike you, I don’t claim to be a Constitutional scholar.
You say, ” Keep in mind that there is a large segment of observers of the Constitution who are skeptical of ‘implied’ rights and duties, having dealt with nonsense such as important decisions being made on the sensing of an emanation of a penumbra of a right never seen in the Constitution.”
Keep in mind that there is a large segment of observers of the Constitution who are not.
I have never claimed to be a Constitutional scholar.
The “observers” of the Constitution who favor basing legislation not on what it says but on what they want to do that they justify by inventing unseen, unwritten, imaginary meanings, “rights” and permissions are called Leftists and no, they do NOT believe in the Constitution. Not in the one written by the Founders, anyway.
Some play a distraction game by paying superficial lip service to it, but when push comes to shove their/your true colors show through—as in the sneaky effort to subvert the Constitutional requirement for having the representatives of the states’ voters represent those voters by casting state votes in the Electoral College by setting up a cabal of states agreeing to pretend to be honoring the law while doing an end run around it.
It is not that the people you mention simply see the broad “interpretations”
of the Constitution as valid, it is that you don’t respect the Constitution as it is written and don’t think it should be the blueprint for governing the nation.
The states can legally do most of what the Left wants, but that is not good enough. There are too many people in too many states who think the “wrong” things and want the “wrong” things, and think their opinions and votes should count, and the Leftist elites want them brought to heel.
Failing to make them believe, they will at least be made to comply. That is the operational concept of the Left.
The “observers” of the Constitution who favor basing legislation not on what it says but on what they want to do that they justify by inventing unseen, unwritten, imaginary meanings, “rights” and permissions are called Leftists and no, they do NOT believe in the Constitution.
And we’ve come full circle. I told you two weeks ago that you believe that only your interpretation of the Constitution is valid, and anyone who doesn’t agree with you doesn’t–according to you–believe in the Constitution. I think you denied it at the time, but thank you for confirming it now.
You know full well that the subject of implied powers has been debated since the time of the Founders, and that the Hamiltonian via has generally found favor among scholars and the courts, not just “observers,” which was your word in the first place, whatever you meant by it.
In any event, please bookmark this page. The next time you whine that posters don’t engage in political discourse, don’t have any political philosophies, etc.–the next time you deflect from the subject at hand by attempting to invalidate a poster’s points by claiming he or she doesn’t address the topics you want–you will be referred back to this page.
So now you are inventing rules? How too too Leftist of you.
I don’t “interpret” the Constitution, at least not in the way you people do. It’s the convoluted “interpretations” that are the problem. I cited one—–the vague individual perception of something ephemeral which is not written, cannot be seen or touched but only PERCIEVED, somehow, and even that at three levels of distance from something that does not exist, is considered a valid “interpretation”.
I once called out the news manager of a local TV station for a report that was simply, factually, incorrect. His news reader had breathlessly reported on the problems associated with “President Trump’s new immigration law”. I pointed out that there IS no “new law” much less one that could be attributed to the President, and that he had merely stated that the existing law should be enforced. The reply was “Thanks, but I like my own interpretation”. But it wasn’t just an “interpretation”, it was an invention. And so are most if not all of the Leftist “interpretations” of the Constitution.
I go by what is said by the people who WROTE it, when they answered questions about its wording and what it meant and why it said what it said. When the people who actually wrote the document chided Hamilton and his cronies for their efforts to expand the size, scope and power of the federal government barely before the ink was dry and told him, essentially, YOU ARE WRONG, THIS IS NOT WHAT IT SAYS AND THIS IS NOT WHAT IT MEANS I’m going to go with that and not the latest efforts of the modern-day Hamiltonians who are still trying to claim they have found some hidden meaning in the Constitution that contradicts what its writers insisted it said and meant and means.
There is a reason the 10th Amendment was written. It was to shut up the Hamilton-type efforts to distort the Constitution and push the federal government in directions it was not only never intended to go but not allowed to go.
While you are bookmarking and archiving and otherwise preserving this exchange, let me cap it by stating, firmly and unequivocally, that I agree that you have engaged in actual political discourse. You have addressed most of the topics I have raised, though you have studiously avoided some of them—but to be fair, I set the bar pretty high.
You have stated your political philosophy both directly and indirectly, and I appreciate that. That makes two Liberals in 20 years able or willing to do so. You have done an excellent job of trying to shape reality to fit your preferred model, but reality is a stubborn thing and when facts are part of the public record it is hard to reshape them after the fact into something more desirable. You’ve done a much better job than most at presenting the view the Left wants to prevail, and it is even possible that you believe it.
I got the feeling that you entered this discussion armed not with all the facts but only the bits and pieces that could be used to support the Leftist narrative, and that a lot of what you learned here came as unhappy surprises. But it happens. It happened to me when I was a Liberal.
Thanks for participating
I don’t “interpret” the Constitution, at least not in the way you people do.
Sure you do. You admit that in order to understand the meaning of the Constitution, you resort to external documents; that you resort to divining its meaning from what the Founders said at the time. That is clearly a form of interpretation.
I got the feeling that you entered this discussion armed not with all the facts but only the bits and pieces that could be used to support the Leftist narrative, and that a lot of what you learned here came as unhappy surprises.
So now you’re going to imagine what I might have done and what I might be thinking so you can argue with that? I’m not surprised. First you demand that I write down things. When I do that, you then move on to what I didn’t.
So I get the feeling that in demanding that I respond to your requests, you were not sincerely interested in an exchange of ideas, but instead merely intended to criticize whatever I wrote to show your superiority.
OK, you are now back to sniping and bickering. Too bad. You are also misstating what I said, to try to keep your bickering going.. Consulting the actual words written by the Founders to explain why they wrote what they wrote is a LONG way from “resorting to external documents”. It does not change the content or intent of what they wrote but only clarifies it—which is why the Left does not do this, preferring to consult “world opinion” and whatever Leftist tea leaves you have lying around. It is this defaulting to lying and insults that has gotten you bounced from this site before and is likely to do again.
Isn’t there someone else you can annoy with your incessant whingeing and sniping? I dragged you into an actual discussion, but you instantly defaulted to the same old same old as if we have some obligation to put up with your sour nature and your constant complaining.
Get a life.
The way people talk as well as the individual words they use can tell you about the character of that person. In describing what we believe and the principles that guide our lives, the Conservatives who are regulars on this blog frequently use terms like “rule of law” and “personal responsibility,” and words like “freedom,” “liberty,” “accountability,” “honor,” “honesty,” and “truth,” just to list a few off the top of my head. I cut and pasted all of RGRG2’s comments into a separate document and did a word search for those phrases and words. Here’s the result of the number of times he/she used any of those words.
Rule of law – 0
Freedom – 0
Liberty – 0
Personal responsibility – 0
Accountability – 0
Honor – 0
Honesty – 0
Truth – 0
Quite frankly I can’t recall EVER having a conversation with a Liberal, either written or verbal in which the Liberal ever used any of these words. These words represent things that not only aren’t important to the Left, they are all an impediment to the Left’s agenda. If the Left would live and let live, stop attempting to force their beliefs on everyone else, and stop attempting to change and subvert the rules (ie., the Constitution) I wouldn’t care what they believe. If they would just mind their own business, I wouldn’t care what they believe.
I get the distinct impression that you really don’t like Trump.
I guess you need to check back through the last 15 years of archived posts. You seem to thrive on research. No, actually that’s not fair. I fully support all aspects of the Bill of Rights, especially the mostly overlooked Tenth Amendment.
and that his supporters have compromised their self-professed principles in order to support him.
The “support” is for the policies that have been implemented during his first two years. I don’t know a single Conservative who admires or supports Trump’s past lifestyle. That said, all the ethical and moral failings that the Left accuses Trump of are either ignored when the individual is one of their own, or, as is often the case, celebrated and rewarded with re-election and committee chairmanships.
Instead of honor, for instance, I have talked about morals and ethics–and lack thereof–repeatedly. Apparently those words don’t count for anything among conservatives.
It’s not that those words don’t count for anything so much as they’re so subjective in their use. I suspect your view of morality often differs from mine, but you’re either an honorable person or you’re not.
So to see them turn their backs and the very things they claimed they were [word ommitted?] has been rather breathtaking. Cynical. Hypocritical.
You lost me. So you’re saying that the policies that Republicans have been promising for decades that Trump is finally delivering on are immoral? Because that’s what we support.
Oh, so now there are specific words one must use?
No — now you’re putting words in my mouth. Those are words that Conservatives routinely use to describe what we believe and what’s important to us. I don’t care if you ever use any of those words — most Liberals don’t. It was just an observation of a very basic difference between Conservatives and Liberals.