We are the drain the swamp people

The resident evil part would be closer to the persons of Rita Hart and the Democrat apparat supporting her. Our support of MMM does not absolve her of very serious apostasies that undermine what we presume to be genuineness in other policy areas. But if you have not noticed from our raison d’être, long set forth on our page bar under the moniker  about   “We will not hold back criticizing a “Republican” who . . . has done something to compromise Republican principles or other ethical values. We believe it is an ethically devoid thought that a Republican should be beyond reproach because they “won” the primary, or are in office, or may be helping other Republicans, that those factors require they be given a free pass on a significant matter.” 

So as regards our critique of MMM consistency we point out that MMM issued the following as part of her explanation for voting to accept the alleged validity of electoral college submissions regarding the 2020 presidential election: (bold our emphasis)

I have serious concerns about how elections were conducted in some states and outraged at abuses of the election systems in those states.  Such abuses undermine election integrity and trust in the system of that state, and more broadly those actions have affected the presidential election. I share the disappointment of millions of Iowans and Americans with the outcome of the presidential election results. I have suspicions about the integrity of the votes cast in several states, the mass mailing of ballots to every name on the voter rolls which are not up-to-date, the allegations of a lack of a chain of custody of their election materials, and the actions of elections boards and courts assuming authority beyond what is granted to them in a state’s constitution or by their legislatures.   . . .

Indeed the abuses were serious enough to subvert our constitutional republic and did not require rubber stamping through weak constitutional and historical analysis. She went on to maintain that:

I am also concerned about the effect that it would have on the rights of states and the precedent it would establish by putting power in the hands of whichever party controls Congress, and not in the hands of the people who reside in those states or the laws that have been enacted in those states through their legislatures.

As a Member of Congress who wants to limit the power of the federal government, I must respect the states’ authority here. I understand this decision will disappoint and anger my supporters, but I have sworn an oath to support and defend the Constitution above myself.

The above statement should have had implications for her vote, dramatically out of step with the Republican caucus including 87% of Republican women as regards the assault on states rights and other matters embodied in the Violence Against Women Act .  We will flesh that out a bit in the next day or two.

0

0

I’ve often pondered: Do lunatics know they’re “crazy”? Do they really understand the concept of “sanity/insanity”? These questions arose as I watched a Saturday Night Live skit masquerading as the new guy’s first press conference.

Gene’s observation and analysis:

1. I saw a doddering old man; being spoon-fed softball, correction, TEE-BALL questions from pre-selected “journalists”; who asked them in an apologetic tone, almost as if they were parents consoling a child..

2. I saw “President Harris’ VP” barely able to read his cliff-note answers (which were mostly unchallenged prevarications), a man obviously unable to keep an unscripted train of thought going for more than a few seconds. Yet I’ve seen reactions from “the other side” that are the exact opposite of mine. Is it possible that I’ve gone totally insane? Asking for myself.

Eugene Mattecheck Jr.

0

0

Democrats call 2020’s election the “most secure ever”.

Mainstream media and “big-tech” agree: Voter rolls were current, purged of felons/illegals/dead people. States mailed millions of unsolicited ballots, no multiples, no obsolete addresses, no ineligible people. USPS was on the “Up & Up.” Absentee ballots were carefully examined, every signature matching. Republicans were denied access to the counting only to expedite tabulations, not to hide irregularities. Voting machines were incorruptible and their software completely impervious to hacking.

Not only was the election “squeaky-clean,” those claiming otherwise are either crackpots or liars. Challenges disputing results have been filed, judges/justices in state/federal courts have dismissed them.

November’s election was entirely fair, fraud-free and accurately tabulated … except for one tiny area of the country: Iowa’s 2nd Congressional District. Mariannette Miller-Meeks’ victory over Rita Hart is tainted.

Loser-elect Hart’s supporters claim Iowa’s election processes were corrupted: Votes miscounted. Machines improperly calibrated. Military voters disenfranchised. Counting methods/standards unevenly applied. Absentee ballots discarded simply because voters didn’t follow instructions.

Hart herself describes Iowa’s judicial institutions as untrustworthy, hence election challenges cannot be fairly heard in her home-state’s court system.

Contending Iowa judges are corrupt and partisan, Hart petitioned Speaker Nancy Pelosi to have the corrupt and partisan House of Representatives decide Iowa’s election in Washington, D.C.

Democrats are facing a conundrum. To stymie Trump, they have to deny voter fraud and/or counting errors exist, yet to steal Miller-Meeks’ seat, they have to claim irregularities ran rampant in Iowa’s 2nd.

What’s a mother to do…?

Eugene Mattechek, Jr.

0

0

• Dems, being who they are, don’t have an ethics problem but they have an optics problem, and they know it
• More committee action Monday

Sitting in the district I see it as a convoluted situation for us Trump supporters and probably so do Democrats as Trump haters.  So what are the negatives for Democrats if they do not remove the provisional member status that Queen Pelosi bestowed on MMM as a temporary political maneuver?   There are enough that we suspect that a sufficient number of Dems will decide not to unseat MMM, she will remain Iowa’s 2nd District congressman.

It will not be overwhelming because they will feel obligated to keep Rita Hart viable for the next go-around.  Safe district Dems will for the most part vote to seat Hart. But enough others will soberly realize it hurts Dems in the long run in the district, and might even help solidify Trump votes against Democrats in general and to some extent not just in the Iowa congressional district. In the scheme of political image making it shows Dems as clawing for a vote that effectively won’t make much difference and in a way that undercuts their rhetoric against Trump’s appropriate legal objections to the 2020 steal.

Miller-Meeks has said there was fraud in the 2020 election but weirdly supported certifying the election for Biden without advocating for time for a decent hearing to sort it out. So maybe she thought it was onesy-twosy fraud, in spite of the evidence of a lot of fraud and clear violations of statutes and constitutional law in key states. MMM’s position (along with Chuck Grassley and Joni Ernst) was not a profile in courage,  was not  unassailably mandated by the Constitution. Failing to exercise arguable Constitutional powers was a practical capitulation to a great assault on the Republic with predictable great harm to American security, prosperity and cultural conservation disheartening free people across the globe. Their championing of election integrity in this district is kind of pathetic in the scheme of things. But of course that is just another convoluted unsettling aspect to this.

Rhetorically, MMM could maybe have closed the deal early if she, as the winner, had responded to Hart by publicly challenging results in all the counties because Dems cheat everywhere and MMM could claim that she would find more votes, increasing her victory margin. In close elections it ought to be standard operating procedure, win or lose for Repubs, or people interested in one man one vote, to challenge close-vote elections in every county within the legal margin to do so, and force as many hand recounts as possible — it will only result in a net pick up of votes for Repubs because the Democrat apparat cheats and if you don’t realize that you are a loser. The rhetoric should even be used as regards counties with a high margin of victory .

Welcome paper recounts everywhere. Doing that MMM would avoid using rhetoric about how trustworthy the Iowa system is. The very reforms the Iowa legislature has initiated validate our position.  Otherwise there was no reason to pursue them because everyone in Iowa is honest don’t you know.  Had they been in place a year ago, MMM would have won by more, as sure as the Democrat apparat has it in their blood to cheat.

Dems only formally alleged issues in a few counties (and are no-doubt ticked  at Democrat auditors in some who helped certification of the wrong people). But a few votes cherry picked in a few counties does not mean others were fault free but that they went unchallenged by either side because of the margin of victory in those counties. But CD elections are not like the Presidential with the electoral college system transferred to congressional districts according to county votes. It is the totality of votes, the popular vote wherever they come from in the district. County lines do not make a difference.

Why think Democrat operatives  in one county are honest and another not so? It results in haggling over some votes your opponent picked which is what is going on. Mariannette Miller-Meeks might be owed a lot more votes elsewhere in the district.  She should emphasize that point not how unassailable Iowa’ system was.

It would not be a disaster for her to lose as the district would by default be competitive in 2022 and she is a minority congressman. A loss will expose Democrats. That said I hope she prevails in spite of the delicious hypocrisy Dems must eat by winning  a race to no great avail.

The editor of The Iowa Standard issued a commentary on March 17th that is very well considered.  We share the concerns and attitude presented there. Our posts on the matter of Miller-Meeks and the November vote go back to December.  Links to our posts are immediately below the Iowa Standard item.

While DC Democrats should not overturn Iowa’s Second District election, I won’t cry about it if they do and here’s why 

From V’PAC:

We’re fine with Rita Hart taking her election case to the Democrat controlled House

If this information and analysis (see links) does not put the skids on Jan 6th proforma certification of electors, then we are doomed as a republic

Miller-Meeks sworn in, maybe shouldn’t order new curtains just yet

Miller-Meeks not helping engender enthusiasm for her fight to retain 2nd District seat

Pelosi hasn’t lost Hart (her soul, yes)

0

0

• Dance with the ones that brung ya

Note:

The following are some thoughts on how Second District Congressman Mariannette Miller-Meeks (MMM) is sending the wrong message to constituents and other Republicans during and in the effort to retain her seat against Pelosi’s efforts in the House to “bump her off”.  We continue to support that she won election to represent our district by getting more votes than Rita Hart. Nevertheless, besides this recent development outlined below, as we have maintained in other posts, is our concern over the implications of rhetoric she and her champions employ.

Her antagonist Rita Hart refused to submit to Iowa’s mechanism for challenging contested elections which ultimately involves a judicial panel.  Instead Hart has taken the matter to the House which maintains a right to seat or not seat its members. Miller-Meeks’ employment of, shall we say, excessive confidence in Iowa election mechanisms and judges is troublesome in our estimation because those “features” are not unassailable.  A limited challenge process involving a few counties can mask discovery of even a larger margin of victory for MMM. Congressional races are not “by county” they are about total votes throughout the district i.e. the total popular vote. We have no doubt that in counties MMM won handily, or conceded, there are likely relatively many more votes for her, if thoroughly reviewed.

There are other nuances about some of MMM arguments that we find clumsy if not a  little reckless as to the bigger picture. Trump not being in the White House is far more devastating to our country than a minority member who won on Trump coattails who manages to give ground or show apostasy on key matters.

Miller-Meeks recent vote not helping engender enthusiasm for her fight to retain 2nd District seat

Second District Congresswoman Miller-Meeks joining House Democrats in repotedly voting for the Violence Against Women Act disappoints a lot of conservatives in the district, culture warriors, gun -rights activists and genuine feminists. It should be noted an overwhelming number of House Republican caucus members opposed the bill, nearly nine out of ten including most of the Republican women in the House. We see only two possibilities here and ask which calculation is worse for Miller-Meeks:  be seen groveling for Democrat votes regarding the challenge to her seat from Rita Hart, or believing the legislation was supportable as written?

MMM has to know the legislation would have passed without her support so furthering it for any reason and ignoring what should be considered poison pills in it, creates a significant psychological hurdle for many to develop much enthusiasm for her election being sustained. They wonder, how does a serious conservative entertain Democrats,  gratuitously helping them pass such bad legislation?

We suppose it disappoints her fellow Iowa Republican House members Representative Ashley Hinson and Representative Randy Feenstra who opposed it for good reason. Or maybe they think that MMM must be given a pass to maintain the seat, because well the vote made no difference. If that is their calculation then they have no appreciation for the brand and it is just more of the political circus that disgusts people. We will presume that is not the case.

Some conservative voters are probably asking if such politcal calculus is in play ~~ how far to go sustaining someone revealed as a once and future high-maintenance congressman regarding key votes, when Republican interests and resources can be applied elsewhere?

R Mall

0

0

Can’t add anything to this:

0

0

You all know the basic story by now, have probably seen the clip on conservative media, not so much mainstream media outlets that were happy to repeat anything that called into question Trumps physical and mental fitness for office. Note the clip as it follows Biden  in his walk from Marine One to Air Force One. — the plodding clumpy old man’s gate (even more so seen in other clips in other venues)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73R11e5kNGk

1. One trip going up the stairs, no big deal although see item 7 below
   
2. Two trips in a row, Houston we may have a problem
3. Three trips, this is a Chevy Chase routine about Gerald Ford
4. With Biden, his keepers will keep him from the ridicule for the most part
5. Seriously, the wind did it!?
6. It is really not about Biden as much as exposing our country’s vulnerability and the Democrat’s and media’s lying disgusting ways
   
7. Biden just a few months ago was given lines ridiculing Trump for taking it slow down a slope,
8. Biden’s handlers, nevertheless have no shame
9. By the way, remember Biden’s interview with George Stephanopoulos where Biden mentioned walking and chewing gum?

Related reading:Joe Biden: Watch how I run up ramps while Trump ‘stumbles down’  

Trump Jr. Responds to Biden Falling Down With a Funny (and Edited) Video Featuring His Dad 

And these chilling articles:

A Detailed and Disturbing Overview: Joe Biden Looks Seriously Unwell

As Biden Continues ‘Struggling Physically,’ Former Democrat Adviser Just Comes Right out and Says IT  

0

0

• Readers feel free to surmise herein

DLH  picked up on this photo and got us both to wondering, what is that in Biden’s pocket?

Is it weeds. . . as in maybe he was out wandering in the garden and picked a few to present to mom?

Or, forgive our sardonic ways, is it the weeds you might find growing out of a corpse?

Or is it “weed” as in a little “mary jane,” tucked there by attentive staff
“just in case” he gets excited over something or other  . . .

Maybe its parsley, a few sprigs for “Plugs” to munch on, said to promote hair growth

Then again, him “presiding” over the most pro-abortion regime in our history, second only to Communist China, parsley is said to be an abortifacient, so this is his, Jill’s, and Kamala’s signal and promotion.

0

0

A number of outlets related how “President” Joe Biden, in an interview with George Stephanopoulos on Good Morning Mourning America this week described a recent conversation with Russian President Vladimir Putin.  The NY Post was one:

Biden says ‘killer’ Vladimir Putin ‘will pay a price’ for election meddling 

The United States sanctioned seven senior Russian officials earlier this month for poisoning and imprisoning opposition leader Alexey Navalny, who is currently serving a sentence in a remote Russian labor camp.

In an interview Wednesday, President Biden said he believes President Vladimir Putin is “a killer,” vowing that the Russian would “pay a price” for his US election meddling efforts.

The commander-in-chief made the remarks to ABC’s “Good Morning America” after being asked about a report from the office of the Director of National Intelligence that implicated the Kremlin in efforts to undermine US elections and divide American society.

“He will pay a price. We had a long talk, he and I, I know him relatively well,” the 46th president said. “And the conversation started off, I said, ‘I know you and you know me. If I establish this occurred, then be prepared.’”

Asked by “GMA” anchor George Stephanopoulos about his previous comment that he did not believe the Russian president had a soul, Biden confirmed those remarks.

“I did say that to him, yes, and his response was, ‘We understand one another.’ I wasn’t being a wise guy, I was alone with him in his office and that’s how it came about.”

Biden then referenced former President George W. Bush’s famous remark following the 2001 Slovenia summit between himself and Putin that he “looked the man in the eye. I found him very straightforward and trustworthy — I was able to get a sense of his soul.”

Biden said to the Russian leader, “I said, ‘I looked through your eyes, and I don’t think you have a soul,’” the president told Stephanopoulos — and Putin looked back and replied, “We understand each other.”

“Look, the most important thing dealing with foreign leaders in my experience — and I’ve dealt with an awful lot in my career — is just know the other guy.”
see also

Killer? Well duh, its what we do

Asked if he thinks Putin is “a killer,” Biden responded, “I do.”

Biden said the Russian leader would pay a price for his actions undermining the United States, but that the two nations would still need to work together.

“The price he’s gonna pay, well, you’ll see shortly,” he remarked before adding that he wanted to be able to “walk and chew gum at the same time, and there are places where it’s in our mutual interest to work together.”

Now we all know anything Joe says ought to be considered either 1) a lie, 2) plagiarized or charitably 3) apocryphal.  We should all be able to agree that it was pretty bold talk for a vacant-eyed blundering oaf prone to such stories. But our sources tell us  what Joe really mouthed off to George about, which ABC  decided to edit to protect their favorite geezer.

(Biden)  I told him if he messed with our elections again, I’ll take him out. And then, I asked him if he wanted to see if he could do as many pushups as me.

(George): What did he say?

Bioden) What did he say, George? He didn’t believe I’d ‘take him out’.

(George): “What did you say to that?”

I just asked him if he’d ever heard of a guy named…Corn Pop! Then I walked out!

dlh with R Mall

0

0