I got into a slight Twitter tiff with a friend – and no hard feelings, at all. Just a short exchange which made me realize something: we need to have a Revolution.
It had to do with a discussion surrounding Prince Andrew’s connections to Jeffrey Epstein – which seem rather extensive and continued long after Epstein’s first conviction. Andrew, of course, being the second son of Queen Elizabeth…which means you can’t get more social or economic elite than he is. As the discussion went on, I blurted out (as it were) a desire to confiscate the wealth of people like Andrew and distribute it (via lottery) among the people. This rather upset my friend – being as we’re both Conservative and thus defenders of Property. And I do defend Property…but I also despise a traitor. And that is, first and foremost, what Prince Andrew is: a traitor. A traitor to civilization.
And he’s not alone: he is legion among the Ruling Class. Think of all the people who had connections with Epstein for decades, and continued after his conviction. There is a story in the Daily Mail – British papers still engaging in actual journalism from time to time – about a party at Epstein’s after his conviction which included among the guests Prince Andrew, Woody Allen, Katie Couric, Chelsea Handler and the daughter of a former Australian Prime Minister. This was, as I said, after Epstein’s conviction. From the story, it seems that Epstein has pornographic pictures on the wall and liked to blurt out astonishing sexual crudities during conversation. And this is where the son of the Queen of Great Britain said, “hey, bro, cool place to hang out”.
Prince Andrew lives a life of extreme luxury. He’s worth an estimated 75 million dollars and he’s never had to earn a penny of it – and, remember, he’s the second son of the Queen. As soon as Diana pushed out William in 1982, the chances that Andrew or anyone descended from him would ever sit on the British throne became nil. He’s a biological dead end, as far as royalty goes. But, he’s got 75 million dollars…and all of it, ultimately, because a distant ancestor built a castle in Milan in the 11th century and so became the founder of a dynasty which eventually produced George I. Now, one should never fuss about the good fortune of others – envy is a sin, after all. But you’d think that someone sitting on a vast fortune of unearned wealth who has no particular purpose in life would at least try to sustain the civilization which provided and protects his gigantic privileges. But, no: he’s hanging around with the Pimp to the Stars. And so were lots of other people just as rich and privileged (but most not having the lineage).
And I think that is what has been gnawing at me, unspoken, for many years, now: that those who are in charge of our civilization are traitors to it. Not all of them, of course. There are rich people who do try to live decent lives – even some of the old noble houses (the Hapsburgs, long dethroned, do seem to keep their act together); the Koch family (whom I mostly disagree with, politically) seem to be upstanding as well as generous. But time and again we find that the rich are living lives of gross immorality – and if not directly participating in it, keeping their mouths shut about it. They defend nothing which the common people hold dear – not God; not family; nothing…except their own wealth and position, of course; they are fierce in defense of their money…and their private, secluded, heavily guarded playgrounds where, it would seem, quite a lot of the sons and daughters of the poor are brought in to be abused by the layabout sons and daughters of the rich.
But here’s the thing – if they were just destroying themselves, it wouldn’t be any concern of ours. But people with vast fortunes and social prestige have a gigantic effect on everything and everyone else. If I drop $10 into a collection plate, it is only a ripple…a rich person dropping a million dollars is a tidal wave. And if the money is dropped into the plate of a group out to destroy us (you and me, I mean), then it is horribly destructive. That its dropped to keep the anti-Civilization dogs off the backs of the rich just makes such things an insult on top of an injury. What this tells me is that we can’t just let matters be: we’ve got our billionaire on our side in Donald Trump and he’s one heck of a fighter for us…but he’s one guy, and no later than January of 2025, he’s gone. Meanwhile, these malefactors of great wealth (Teddy Roosevelt’s exquisite phrasing) will still be around…being nauseating and still providing money and prestige for interests which want us destroyed. What do we do? Just let it keep on going?
I can’t say that I agree with that – I can’t say, that is, that my defense of private property extends to the defense of private property being used to destroy what I hold dear (which includes property…it isn’t poor people demanding that zoning laws be changed and property seized by government for transfer to rich developers). It is, in short, time for a Revolution – and kicking over the tables and a chasing of the money-changers out of the Temple. We can no longer endure a Ruling Class which is working directly against our interests…they either have to get on board with us, or be removed. And we won’t get rid of the current Ruling Class if they are able to retain their money…money is power; it is, really, the ultimate power, in any form of government. Whomever commands it has absolute power, unless there’s an equally large sum of money opposed…but we see it that, in general, our entire Ruling Class is on the same side, even if they call themselves variously Liberal or Conservative; all of them are at war with us…with what we want. Which is things like common decency; the Rule of Law; equality under the Law; a defense of faith, family and property.
I can’t see how we win the battle if we leave the Ruling Class in possession of their money. If you’ve got a way to leave Soros and his heirs with billions of dollars without their being able to wreck us, then I’m all ears…but unless someone has a way to do just that, then self defense requires us to relieve quite a large number of rich people of their wealth.
Blogs For Victory 
Say, did you guys see the reporting yesterday where Nothing But A Showman is urging his staff to break the law with respect to building The Wall, promising that he will pardon them afterwards? Is this what you mean by respecting the rule of law? I thought the president took an oath to uphold the laws of the land. (“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”)
James Madison—who you acknowledge as the greatest political thinker ever to walk the face of the earth—anticipated someone like Trump occupying the White House. In fact, he said:
“There is one security in this case to which gentlemen may not have adverted: If the president be connected in any suspicious manner with any persons, and there be grounds to believe he will shelter himself; the house of representatives can impeach him: They can remove him if found guilty: They can suspend him when suspected, and the power will devolve on the vice-president: Should he be suspected also, he may likewise be suspended till he be impeached and removed, and the legislature may make a temporary appointment. This is a great security.”
Is this what you mean by respecting the rule of law?
So now you want to lecture us on “respecting the law” … hmmmmm interesting.
Coming from someone who endorses a party that advocates post birth abortion, sanctuary cities, open borders, special rights for contrived genders, violating city zone ordinances, and abolishing the electoral college.
Consistency is not your strong suit sport
OMG, is rg still sloping about, whining as usual?
1.) Quote Trump’s incitement to break the law and promise to pardon lawbreakers.
2.) The “suspicious manner” that you seem to think could support impeachment exists only in the fever swamp of the rabid Leftist mind.
3.) Do some research and come back and tell us if this alleged Madison quote was from a period before he helped write the Constitution, during that period, or afterward. Because a lot of ideas seem good till it comes to figuring out how to make them work, IF they will work. As Madison didn’t make the slightest effort to put this vague guilty-until-proven-innocent concept in the Constitution, and contrary to that did put in the innocent-until-proven-guilty bit, I doubt that the cited alleged quote was more than a little brainstorming preparatory to actually making the laws.
One thing to support my guess is the fact that this “quotation” is not compliant with the sequence of assumption of the presidency codified in the Constitution.
Refresh my memory—isn’t it rg who whines about people allegedly putting words in his mouth? Yet, in typical two-faced Liberal hypocrisy in action he posts this, about me: …James Madison—who you acknowledge as the greatest political thinker ever to walk the face of the earth—”
Yes that would be the thin skinned RG who bristles at anyone who may “put words in his mouth” but has no problem doing that to others.
Also, by RG’s own success metric, we can now label the following as “complete failures”
1. The DNC
2. The NYT
3. MSNBC
4. CNN
5. NPR
6. The LAT
7. Rachel Maddow
All of them complete failures by RG’s measure. Good to know
As rgrg2 is whining about “failures” I suppose he includes Winston Churchill in his list of “complete failures”, After all,:
• He failed many times in life. He first failed in sixth grade. Churchill’s early political career was tumultuous; and he was defeated in every election for public office until he finally became the Prime Minister at the age of 62.
• During Churchill’s political career, he made numerous decisions that would turn into failures.
In the First World War, he led the troop who invaded Turkey in order to establish a southern link with Russia, which resulted into a complete failure and loss of many young soldiers from Australian and New Zealand Army Corps, ANZAC. In the Second World War he was chiefly responsible for taking over Norway and he was defeated by the German army.
• In spite of all the failures and criticism, Churchill is regarded as one of the greatest leaders and orators of the 20th century.
• In 1953 he received the Noble Prize for Literature for the book ‘The Second World War’, In 1963, the US Congress granted him an honorary American citizenship. In 1940 and in 1949, the Time magazine honored Churchill with the “Man of the Year”.
What did he say about failing?
• “Courage is going from failure to failure without losing enthusiasm.”
• “A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.”
And he also said something else we conservatives need to remember: “Never give in, never give in, never, never, never, never – in nothing, great or small, large or petty – never give in except to convictions of honor and good sense. Never, Never, Never, Never give up.”
We will never have to worry if we should give in to the Left, as the Left never has and never will represent a conviction of honor, or good sense. His opinions of Leftism are brutal, and accurate
http://brainprick.com/winston-churchill-the-journey-to-success-through-failures-and-comebacks/
I can think of another Republican failure:
• 1832: Ran for state legislature – lost.
• 1832: Wanted to go to law school but couldn’t get in.
• 1833: Borrowed some money from a friend to begin a business and by the end of the year he was bankrupt. He spent the next 17 years of his life paying off this debt.
• 1834: Ran for state legislature again – won.
• 1838: Sought to become speaker of the state legislature – defeated.
• 1840: Sought to become elector – defeated.
• 1843: Ran for Congress – lost.
• 1846: Ran for Congress again – this time he won
• 1848: Ran for re-election to Congress – lost.
• 1849 Sought the job of land officer in his home state – rejected.
• 1854: Ran for Senate of the United States – lost.
• 1856: Sought the Vice-Presidential nomination at his party’s national convention – got less than 100 votes.
• 1858: Ran for U.S. Senate again – again he lost.
We tend to forget all this, and only remember him as one of our greatest presidents., Abraham Lincoln.
And the funny things is, Abe didn’t blame anyone.
“Never, Never, Never, Never give up.”
AGREE. AGREE. AGREE.
Cluster brought up and mocked Bret Stephens. Stephens is an example of a conservative opinion writer who, apparently, cannot stand the thought of being criticized. When a rather unknown university professor jokingly referred to Stephens as a “bedbug,” it seemed to be more than Stephens could handle, so he tried to use his status as an op-ed writer for the paper of record to get the professor in trouble, by complaining of the professor’s temerity to the professor’s boss. It didn’t work. Now Stephens is mocked by those on the left and the right.
Previous to the New York Times, Stephens wrote for the Wall Street Journal, a newspaper with a very conservative bent. Stephens could write his conservative opinions essentially without fear of being criticized by his readers, because he was merely writing for people who basically agreed with him. In other words, he wrote in a bubble. Now that he is at the Times, he no longer writes in a bubble and, given his actions, seems not to be able to handle it well.
Similar things could be said for Limbaugh, Carlson and Kelly, when they attempted to break out of the conservative bubble. None of them were successful in doing so.
And the same things can be said abut Rachel Maddow, Lawrence O’Donnell, Chris Hayes, Fredo Cuomo, Don Lemon, Chris Matthews, Joy Reid, Al Sharpton and on and on and on. What’s your point? And I would wager to say that Rush Limbaugh is more successful than all of them combined.
Re: Bret Stephens, your first mistake is assuming Stephens is a conservative. He is not. He is an establishment member perfect willing to say anything he has to to get more ink, influence, or air time and for those of us in fly over country, we are more than happy to do without him. And this is something Democrats just don’t understand. The new coalition of Republicans includes a lot of Democrats in fly over country and has moved on from establishment politicians like MCCain, Ryan, Romney, Bush, and pundits including Kristol, Goldberg, and Hayes.
It’s a new aggressive and determined party and based on fundraising … very motivated
The Democratic National Committee raised $8.5 million in June, the month of the party’s presidential debates in Miami — less than half of the $20.7 million the Republican National Committee pulled in during that time period, disclosures show.
The DNC also spent almost as much money as it raised — $7.5 million — during that time and finished the month with $9.3 million cash on hand. Meanwhile, the RNC is building a large war chest during the lead-up to 2020 and had $43.5 million cash on hand at the end of the month.
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/07/20/dnc-fundraising-june-1424116
3.) Do some research and come back and tell us if this alleged Madison quote was from a period before he helped write the Constitution, during that period, or afterward.
Constitutional Convention, June 18, 1788, in which they were discussing the breadth of the pardon clause and indeed the very idea of giving pardon power to the president.
https://teachingamericanhistory.org/resources/ratification/elliot/vol3/june18/
Actually RG you and James Madison are 100% correct and I think Nancy Pelosi’s HOR should suspend Trump immediately to protect this republic. Wouldn’t you agree? Why do you suppose she is not doing that?
Why aren’t the Democrats doing more to protect this country? I can only conclude that they are colluding with Russia. Or are racist. It can only be one or the other.
I looked at the link, and the Madison quotations don’t make sense. His history was one of consistency but these comments are totally inconsistent with what he had said before and what he put in the Constitution. In this quotation he seems to have abandoned the idea of innocent until proven guilty, as well as due process, when he says, (referring to the House of Representatives) “They can suspend him when suspected”. Prior to that he said, after commenting that the House of Representatives could impeach a president, “They can remove him if found guilty:”
In his own Constitution he said, or at least the Constitution says, that the House can impeach (which means just to make a formal accusation of wrongdoing) but the Senate holds the power to remove from office after the House has impeached him and after the Senate has held a trial.
I’m not saying he never said these things, but I will say that I put more credence in what he put in writing in the formal document he had to know would be his legacy than in something he said later in the heat of an argument—and from reading many of the other comments from other participants it is clear there were some contentious discussions.
Here is another article that provides context. The point is, on June 18, 1788, during the Virginia ratifying convention, George Mason argued that the president “ought not to have the power of pardoning, because he may frequently pardon crimes which were advised by himself.”
Madison’s response was that the remedy for such abuse of the power to pardon was also covered in the proposed constitution–the remedy being impeachment.
Are there formal writings of Madison’s in which he further addresses the possibility of a president abusing the power of pardon? You seem to suggest that there are, so if possible, bring them to our attention.
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2018/07/25/the-pardon-power-and-original-intent/
A question is usually just a request for information, not a “gotcha”. I merely pointed out that Madison’s comments were both out of character and not in agreement with his prior statements and writings. And in law, it doesn’t matter what you said or when, what matters is what you put in the contract. What Madison put in the contract is not what you cited.
We can talk about what there is, or you can quibble interminably about what might have been or what you wish had been or what you wish could be or whatever. As for me, I’ll stick to what is in writing and signed, not what was said in the course of a discussion at some other time.
If you want to argue that Madison didn’t think due process was important, didn’t believe in the concept of innocent until proven guilty and that while impeachment is in the purview of the House it takes the Senate to remove the president and then only after a trial, not on suspicion, then please make those arguments. Those are the points I made and you are dragging in something I didn’t say.
A question is usually just a request for information, not a “gotcha”.
It wasn’t a gotcha. It sounded as though you might be able to shed more light on Madison’s writings regarding the pardon power and its potential abuse.
If you want to argue that Madison didn’t think due process was important, didn’t believe in the concept of innocent until proven guilty and that while impeachment is in the purview of the House it takes the Senate to remove the president and then only after a trial, not on suspicion, then please make those arguments. Those are the points I made and you are dragging in something I didn’t say.
I’m not arguing that Madison didn’t think due process was important. Not sure where you get that. Where did you get that?
His point in the sources cited was that the House could initiate impeachment if it felt that the president abused his or her power of pardon. So far as I know, there is nothing in the Constitution that would prohibit the House from doing so.
It seems like you’re trying to make this more complicated than what it is, but feel free to correct me if I’m wrong about the above.
Hey, I responded to the quotation YOU provided, in which I noted Madison appeared to be taking those positions. If you didn’t read what you posted, or understand it, don’t get pissy when someone points it out to you. Try reading the Madison quote and you will see that he says the House can remove the president, and that this can be done based on suspicion.
So yes, as usual, you are wrong.
In this quotation he seems to have abandoned the idea of innocent until proven guilty, as well as due process, when he says, (referring to the House of Representatives) “They can suspend him when suspected”. Prior to that he said, after commenting that the House of Representatives could impeach a president, “They can remove him if found guilty:”
In my post of three hours ago. Simple straightforward language, about a quotation YOU provided, presumably to make some kind of point you must have thought was important.
The next time you post something you don’t understand or agree with, give us a head’s up —-maybe a ***** to indicate you are just throwing it at the wall to see if it will stick but don’t know what it means or care or agree or whatever.
“They can suspend him when suspected”
Now I’m wondering what you think the word suspend referred to. It meant that during the impeachment process, the president’s pardon power would be suspended. I believe that provision made it’s way into the Constitution. As I think I already said, Madison was responding to a concern raised that presidential pardon power could be abused, including by pardoning people while the president is undergoing the impeachment process.
The second article I linked to, with the further context, explains it perhaps better than I:
It means that an action can be taken merely on a suspicion, which is a denial of due process and of the concept of innocent until proven guilty. A suspicion can be nothing more than wishful thinking, as your suspicions are, mere brain farts based on what you wish were true. We don’t take dramatic action based on suspicions.
Well, the Left does, but then the Left lives by the Beria motto of “Show me the man and I will find you a crime”.
You are sure spending a lot of time and energy on this elaborate paranoid fantasy of yours.
Yes, keep copying and pasting that paragraph. It really seems to gratify you. But it isn’t relative to anything going on now, so I don’t understand why you are so hung up on it.
Everyone has known all along that the president can’t pardon himself if he is being impeached, I don’t know why you are so proud of digging up this obscure quotation from Madison, as if it is breaking news. My comments were on the overall tone of the quote, which is very un-Madison-like, but that seems to have gone right over your head.
So keep repeating yourself in the vain hope that if you post it often enough someone might be impressed by it. Or something.
Article Two, Section Two, Clause One:
“The president … shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.”
In other words, his powers of pardon are suspended.
I may well have failed to explain or cite this properly previously, so please accept my apologies if I wasn’t clear.
I read it. I understand it. I just don’t know why you are so hung up on it. Trump is not being impeached. Trump will not be impeached. The Left can’t afford to impeach him because then the whole charade would fall apart but as long as they can keep fools nattering on about impeachment they can sustain the fantasy that it is possible.
I read it. I understand it. I just don’t know why you are so hung up on it.
It’s kind of obvious that you didn’t understand it, and still don’t understand that it is talking about the president not being able to pardon anyone while being impeached. But that’s okay. No shame in not getting after five tries.
Yeah, right. You just hang onto that feeble fantasy, Buttercup, as it seems to be what keeps you going. You just keep pretending that you are the smart one and no one else can keep up. Whatever keeps your spirits up.
So what if you have to also pretend that I didn’t say this: Maybe he is trying, in his own shrill and inarticulate way, to say that if Trump is being impeached then he can’t pardon anyone—but it is always hard to tell with him.
I never said, hinted, implied or any other manner conveyed the idea that I did not understand the Madison quotation, I addressed the fact that it didn’t seem consistent with his other comments and writings and I wondered why you were so hung up on it, but never that I didn’t understand it. Of course I understood it,
Poor baby, so desperate to feel special that you have to invent shortcomings and inabilities in others to shore up that massive yet hollow ego.
If this doesn’t make you stop and reflect on where we are and where we’re headed, then I don’t know what will. And the fact that Paul Harvey’s words from 54 years ago could be superimposed over video from today and still make perfect sense, shows how little things really change.
In light of RG’s most recent James Madison post I think it’s proper to lay out just exactly the Democrats position:
We are told with zero room for error that Trump is – a white nationalist, a white supremacist, beholden to foreign powers, on the verge of dementia, and quite possibly responsible for more deaths than Hitler, Stalin, and Mao combined yet the Democrats are reluctant to impeach … it just doesn’t make sense.
Also I am curious to know that since this is such a violent and scary white supremacist nation according to the Complicit Agenda Media, why do Democrats want to take away our guns? That doesn’t make any sense either.
So I broached the subject above, but received no serious responses, so I’ll try again (leaving the Founders out of it). Spook? Mark? Rico? Casper?
Yesterday it was reported:
Does it concern any of you that the president of the United States would urge his staff to break the law with the promise of a pardon? That seems problematic.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/immigration/take-the-land-president-trump-wants-a-border-wall-he-wants-it-black-and-he-wants-it-by-election-day/2019/08/27/37b80018-c821-11e9-a4f3-c081a126de70_story.html
NO ONE thinks you care about the law RG so it’s laughable question. It would be like Ted Bundy asking us about our views on the sanctity of life. You support a party that violates the law whenever they choose. NEXT
To “…disregard environmental rules.. is NOT to “break the law.”
A law is something legislated to designate an act as a crime. A rule is something generated by a non-legislative body, in the case of the undefined “environmental rules” in question.
Bill Clinton appointed Ken Salazar, a Colorado Leftist, to run the EPA. and then issued an Executive Order saying, basically, the EPA could unilaterally, without the advice much less consent of Congress, state that anything was a pollutant or danger to the environment, and then also without participation or oversight from Congress invent whatever rules it wanted to address whatever it had named.
This had the effect in fact of establishing a fourth, extra-Constitutional, branch of government which could legislate without being legislators and could make its own rules to cover its own arbitrary definitions. This is the kind of expansion of federal power we elected Donald Trump to correct—-and he has been doing so, and you Lefties are freaking out about it.
To claim that ignoring a rule invented by this agency, probably to address or control something only this agency deemed in need of addressing or controlling, is “breaking a LAW” is just another of the lies the Left tells. This is disgusting and despicable. If you know that an “environmental rule” is not a law but you make the claim anyway, YOU are disgusting and despicable. If you couldn’t be bothered to look it up or think it through and just parroted what you were told then you are also pretty disgusting, but for your lack of intellectual vigor and integrity.
Either way, thanks for the quote. I’ve been hoping one of the trolls would pull it out to flaunt, so I wouldn’t have to produce it myself. I was happy to hand you the shovel.
Does it bother you to boldly and completely misstate a fact just to slime a political opponents? That seems problematic.
Or it would for someone of good character.
For you, it’s just another Wednesday. Or any day ending in Y.
Wow. The article says, “When aides have suggested that some orders are illegal,” the president offered a pardon. How much plainer does it have to be than “some orders are illegal”?
How much more vague can you get than some unidentified person “suggested” that some orders are illegal. Was this anonymous person a lawyer? Someone who knows the difference between a law and a rule?
I think the elites figured they had it made. Bill gave them a book of signed checks and they’ve been filling them out and cashing them for years, figuring no one would ever challenge any of the rules they were never legally, Constitutionally, allowed to make.
Trump can talk about a pardon if people are convicted, because he knows they never will be. It’s not a crime to break a rule made by an agency that never had the legal authority to make the rule. If it had been adjudicated by Congress and made an actual law, then maybe there would be a problem But the reason Bill just wrote out an EO saying the EPA had all this power is because everyone knew Congress would not go along with the radical agendas of the Left. The thing is, Bill didn’t have the power to grant the EPA the power and now Trump is grinning at them saying “Bring it on” and they are bumfuddled. If it were not for eager little foot soldiers like you happy to carry the flag and spread the lies, this would just be a few enviro-Nazis weeping into their chai lattes.
Gosh, I’ve been asked to respond to a question on B4V! I’m so, well, I really can’t say honored. Surprised maybe? Anyway, I remember how affronted Mitch McConnell was at the executive privileges Obama took when he was in office. Now he’s perfectly fine with those that Trump takes with even more reckless abandon. I mean really, what’s the point of having a legislative branch?
I mean seriously… what do you guys think is the point of having a legislative branch? I understand there has been much discussion about the utility of the electoral college. But without a functional legislative branch, doesn’t that change the question? Or is it all just what benefits one’s preferred point of view?
rico, you really do need to try to keep up.
Obama tried to reshape the structure of American government through the use of Executive Orders. Trump’s Executive Orders for the most part try to reverse the overreach and abuse of power represented by Obama’s EOs.
And a couple, I think, are designed not to shove a policy down the throats of Americans by overriding Congress but in fact to force issues ignored by Congress into both the public consciousness for consideration and discussion and into courts where they can be decided, given the flaccidity of Congress and its reluctance to do its job.
You seem really easily confused. Or maybe it’s just your writing style.
Nah, that’s not it, or at least not all of it, because what you write also reflects a very poor skill at processing incoming information. And you do love to litter your supposedly intellectual and objective “observations” with a lot of personal opinions, such as describing Trump’s use of EOs as “reckless abandon”. You do do a good job of illustrating why you have so little credibility, in spite of your vocabulary.
Well, like I said, there haven’t been any serious responses…
There’s never been a serious inquiry
I don’t even care to give the report credence, hence my responses but if I were to address it, my first question would be – does it bother RG that these are all anonymous sources and hearsay? “According to current and former officials …” BFD
Secondly, there was this revealing commentary in the article:
The companies building the fencing and access roads have been taking heavy earth-moving equipment into environmentally sensitive border areas adjacent to U.S. national parks and wildlife preserves
This article was written by an activist, not a journalist.
Oooooh!!!!! ADJACENT TO…
And SENSITIVE !!!
In other words, no harm, no foul, and it’s all just gaseous emissions from overheated Liberal brain pans.
Some political appointee made some rule without oversight or adjudication by Congress, decided it had the power of law, and is now melting down into a puddle because Trump has called a bluff and said “We’re going to do it, if you don’t like it take it to court” and of course after the last freakout when the word “pardon” was uttered it was too good an opportunity to pass up so he tossed that little bombshell out there, too.
Now he’s got poor rg spinning in circles chasing his own tail, researching when the president can pardon anyone for anything and maybe himself but probably not, blah blah blah blah blah.
I need more popcorn.
rgrg is like Roseanne Roseannadanna, going off half-cocked based on partial and inaccurate information, but without the intellect or integrity to admit it and say “Never mind,,,”
In this case what has him howling at the moon is an article in a Leftist propaganda rag, written by a Leftist enviro-Nazi activist, citing anonymous sources such as “former officials” one of whom “suggested” that something MIGHT be “unworkable or illegal”, and OMG!!!! heavy equipment is in a SENSITIVE area CLOSE TO someplace else!
That is obviously enough for a Pajama Boy to dissolve into a puddle of ick, and also for some reason to send him into the archives of obscure Madison comments about pardons and impeachments. Maybe he is trying, in his own shrill and inarticulate way, to say that if Trump is being impeached then he can’t pardon anyone—but it is always hard to tell with him.
What he’s missing is that there will not be anything to pardon.
Maybe he can post that paragraph again, with another sneer about having to ‘splain it.
Are you starting to see why you are not welcome here? You have absolutely NO interest in discussing anything. You just want to treat this blog as your personal litter box where you can deposit your mental excrement.
It’s almost as if you believe that if you whine long enough and loud enough about how much you hatehatehatehatehatehatehatehatehateheatHATE Trump, we will finally go:
OMG!!!!! Now that rg has repeated the same lies and whines so many many times the scales have fallen from my EYES! I can SEE!! I can SEE! I now hate Trump as much as he does because I now also buy into the elaborate skein of lies that forms his entire perspective, and now all I want to do is run out and vote for someone who in every way represents everything I find offensive in government and a danger to the United States as it was conceived, designed and created!
Or we will just say “Oh, rgrg2, give it a rest. Just crawl back into your sewer, where you love the smell and the view of the crap never changes, because you are incapable of bringing anything to this blog but illustrations of your mental defects and personality disorders.”
You’ve been given dozens of chances to prove that you have even a hint of a desire to be objective and discuss facts, but when absolutely proved to be spouting nonsense all you can do is revert to your natural state, which is name calling and whining.
And lying. Don’t forget the lying.