We are the drain the swamp people

The Turtle refers to sworn testimony regarding election fraud as “Conspiracy theories”, indeed!

Pardon us ‘benighted’ voters, but it sure looked like there was enough “evidence” to warrant an investigation “Lisa”, er, I mean, Mitch.

Were all those folks giving sworn affidavits ‘lying’ ? Were those video clips “photo-shopped”? Were those votes shown being delivered after hours and counted after Republican observers were sent away “imagined” by us “unhinged listeners”?

“Mitch Murkowski” and “Lisa McConnell”…two “nominal Republicans” that if the Party can’t do without, I can do without the Party

“The leader of the free world cannot spend weeks thundering that shadowy forces are stealing our country and then feign surprise when people believe him and do reckless things,” Mr. McConnell said. “Sadly, many politicians sometimes make overheated comments or use metaphors, we saw, that unhinged listeners might take literally. But that was different.…This was an intensifying crescendo of by an outgoing president who seems determined to either overturn the voters’ decision or else torch our institutions on the way out.”

WSJ Lindsay Wise opines:

Trump’s Second Impeachment Trial Sharpens Republican Divides 
Seven Republicans voted to convict, and several more, including Mitch McConnell, criticized the ex-president, who still commands loyalty

WASHINGTON—The dramatic conclusion of former President Donald Trump’s second impeachment trial laid bare deep philosophical rifts between Republicans, as GOP senators splintered not only over the question of Mr. Trump’s guilt, but also the future of their party and Mr. Trump’s role in it.

Seven GOP senators voted to convict the former president of inciting an insurrection on Jan. 6—not enough to find him guilty but, as Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer pointed out, the final tally was the most guilty votes cast by members of a president’s own party in any impeachment trial in American history.
The rest of the Senate Republican conference—43 senators in total—voted to acquit Mr. Trump, but not without some angst, reflecting a party schism that has also fractured the House and will likely play out in primary elections in 2022 and 2024.

“It’s been a tough day,” said Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R., W.Va.), who voted to acquit.

Sen. John Thune (R., S.D.), the No. 2 Senate Republican, said as he left the Capitol: “It’s an uncomfortable vote and time will tell, but…I don’t think there was a good outcome there for anybody.” Mr. Thune also voted to acquit Mr. Trump.

Senate Democrats were unanimous in voting to convict Trump, as House Democrats were in last month’s impeachment vote, but some in the party were left frustrated by the speed of the trial and the lack of witnesses—particularly the hasty agreement Saturday that didn’t result in testimony from Republican Rep. Jaime Herrera Beutler. “Way to snatch hope,” tweeted Melissa Byrne, a progressive strategist.

Maryland Rep. Jamie Raskin, the lead impeachment manager, defended the decision to forgo witnesses, saying being able to enter Ms. Herrera Beutler’s statement into the record and read it out loud was all that the impeachment managers wanted. He said no matter how many witnesses they called, they would be unable to sway Republicans who argued that it was unconstitutional to try a former president or that Mr. Trump was protected by the First Amendment.

While some Democrats differed on tactics, the Republican rift was more profound, as GOP senators tried to distance themselves from Mr. Trump while stopping short of a step that would permanently exile the de facto leader of their party—a figure still very popular with their base—from future federal office. If the Senate had mustered 67 votes necessary to convict Mr. Trump, 51 senators in a subsequent vote could have barred him from holding office ever again.

Instead, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell took to the Senate floor to try to bury Mr. Trump’s political future and salvage the Republican Party’s brand from the legacy of Jan. 6.

Earlier in the afternoon, Mr. McConnell voted to acquit Mr. Trump. But in a harshly critical speech, the Kentucky Republican made it clear he had cut all ties to the former president—and suggested he might have voted differently had Mr. Trump still been in office.

Mr. McConnell called the mob’s Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol a disgrace and laid the blame squarely on Mr. Trump. “They did this because they’d been fed wild falsehoods by the most powerful man on earth because he was angry he lost an election,” he said. “President Trump’s actions that preceded the riot were a disgraceful, disgraceful dereliction of duty.”

There is “no question, none,” he said, that Mr. Trump “is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of the day. No question about it.”

Mr. McConnell appeared to agree with the argument presented by House managers that the people who stormed the Capitol building believed they were acting on Mr. Trump’s wishes and instructions.

“The leader of the free world cannot spend weeks thundering that shadowy forces are stealing our country and then feign surprise when people believe him and do reckless things,” Mr. McConnell said. “Sadly, many politicians sometimes make overheated comments or use metaphors, we saw, that unhinged listeners might take literally. But that was different.…This was an intensifying crescendo of conspiracy theories by an outgoing president who seems determined to either overturn the voters’ decision or else torch our institutions on the way out.”

By strictly criminal standards, Mr. McConnell said, the president’s speech was probably not incitement. But in the context of impeachment, he said, the Senate might have decided that this was “acceptable shorthand for the reckless actions that preceded the riots.”

He argued, however, that the question is moot because Mr. Trump has left office—a view he said he came to after intense reflection on the text of the Constitution.
The Republican leader could have brought the Senate back early with agreement from the Democratic leader under a 2004 law that authorizes the emergency return of the Senate provided that both lawmakers agree.

Mr. McConnell also chose not to pressure Republican senators to vote one way or another, although in an email to his Republican colleagues Saturday morning, he had revealed that he would vote to acquit, and characterized the verdict as a vote of conscience for lawmakers.

With a tough Senate map on the horizon for Republicans in 2022, Mr. McConnell and other GOP senators face the thorny task of rebuilding a party still dominated by base voters who favor Mr. Trump, while winning back suburban, independent and college-educated voters who fled the party over the past four years, disgusted by Mr. Trump.

Saturday’s Republican divides stretched beyond the Senate. In the House, Rep. Matt Gaetz (R., Fla.), a fierce Trump defender, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R., Ga.), a Trump ally known for promoting conspiracy theories, and Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R., Ill.), an outspoken Trump critic, all took different tacks on Twitter over the role of Ms. Herrera Beutler and whether her testimony on Mr. Trump’s actions during the riot would be relevant or brave.

As Senate Republicans publicly wrestled with their decisions on impeachment this week, they also grappled with the prospect that Mr. Trump might roar back onto the political scene after being acquitted, newly emboldened.

Sen. Kevin Cramer (R., N.D.) voted to acquit Saturday. But he said it would be harder for him personally to vote for Mr. Trump for president again, given what happened Jan. 6.

“That has got to be part of what weighs on me, what anybody would have to measure,” Mr. Cramer said. “But I can assure you that just as sure as that would measure negatively for me, there’s a whole lot of people who feel the opposite about it. And a lot of them are my constituents.”
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R., Alaska), who is up for re-election in 2022, told reporters she agonized over her decision to convict Mr. Trump.

“There’s consequences, I guess, with every vote, and this was consequential on many levels, but I cannot allow my vote—the significance of my vote—to be devalued by whether or not I feel that this is helpful to my political ambitions,” she said.

“What I’m taking home is that at the end of the day, right won,” Ms. Murkowski added, referring to Congress’s constitutional obligation to finish certifying Joe Biden’s electoral win after the riot. “And we did it because we had some extraordinary men and women that were willing to stand up and defend and protect, and that was good,” she said.
“I just wish that Donald Trump had been one of them.”
—Eliza Collins and Siobhan Hughes contributed to this article.

Reply Reply All Forward
© 2021 Verizon Media

0

0

Same basic tactic by both, say/do whatever it takes to curry favor

Re: Biden*                                                             Re: Trump (see below)

With “friends” like this…

The Hill reported:

Former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley issued stunning remarks breaking with former President Trump, telling Politico in an interview published Friday that she believes he “let us down.”

“We need to acknowledge he let us down,” Haley, who served in her ambassador role under Trump, said. “He went down a path he shouldn’t have, and we shouldn’t have followed him, and we shouldn’t have listened to him. And we can’t let that ever happen again.”

Haley’s remarks are her strongest yet against the former president in the aftermath of the Jan. 6 Capitol riot and come as Trump’s legal team is set to continue its defense of Trump on Friday in his second Senate impeachment trial.

Apparently Nikki changed her mind…  (Fox News)

Haley says Trump has record ‘every American should be proud of,’ ahead of re-election campaign fundraiser

(Haley)…pointed to Trump’s foreign policy successes in areas such as fighting Islamic terrorism and pushing back against rogue regimes across the globe.
“If you look around the world, President Trump has a record every American should be proud of,” she said. “In the Middle East, the ISIS caliphate has been destroyed, and we’ve stopped handing billions in cash to Iran that it used to fund terrorism. The North Korean regime is no longer testing long-range missiles. America is once again treating the Cuban dictatorship like the pariah it is, and Maduro’s days are numbered in Venezuela.”(Nikki Haley)

*https://thefederalist.com/2020/03/09/after-calling-joe-biden-an-old-racist-kamala-harris-and-cory-booker-endorse-him-for-president/

0

0

• The democrats are the Wile E Coyotes of Constitutional jurisprudence

As long as ACME corporate is there to lend them credit, the Democrats will continue to pursue “Road Runner” Trump, never catching him, but destroying the country in the process.

…if, as widely predicted (though we never like to make “assumptions”) the current impeachment of former president, Donald Trump fails, there is a handful of Democrat congressmen who are so dismissive and fearful of legal American voters, that they are willing to resort to any measure in their desperation, to prevent the electorate from restoring President Trump to office in the next presidential election!

No other rational explanation is possible other than that.

And when you consider the Democrats who are advancing the “idea” as a way to prevent Mr. Trump’s election, you can’t be surprised.

Democrats in impeachment hearings hoist by their own petard

They are a band of Democrats of which their own party has got to be embarrassed. Rather than responsible legislators, they are closer to a pitifully amateurish act at a comedy club, managed by a small time editorial board of a third rate local “newspaper” like many of Veritaspac’s readers are most familiar with:

“The Democrats leading the charge on the Fourteenth Amendment gambit include Senators Tim Kaine of Virginia, Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, and Dick Durbin of Illinois, along with Representatives Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Florida and Steve Cohen of Tennessee.”

Like you, we wonder where the equally clownish Maxine Waters, Barbara Lee, and rodeo hat wearing, Frederica Wilson, are. Together with Schultz and Cohen (noted above), these five knock 10 to 15 points off the average IQ of the Democrat congressional caucus (in our opinion, of course).      dlh

————————————————*************************———————————-

At Front Page
DEMS NEXT PLOT AGAINST TRUMP WHEN IMPEACHMENT FAILS

With the Senate impeachment trial underway that is virtually certain to end in acquittal, the Democrats are already planning their next move against Donald Trump. They are looking to use an obscure clause in the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, written in the aftermath of the Civil War and aimed at disqualifying ex-Confederate rebels from public office, to bar Trump from holding any future public office. Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment allows for the disqualification of individuals from holding federal or state office who both previously (1) took an oath to support the U.S. Constitution as a federal or state government legislator or officer, and (2) then “shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.”

The Democrats leading the charge on the Fourteenth Amendment gambit include Senators Tim Kaine of Virginia, Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, and Dick Durbin of Illinois, along with Representatives Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Florida and Steve Cohen of Tennessee. They are being advised by leftist academics who believe that Congress has the unilateral power to pass a joint resolution invoking the Fourteenth Amendment’s disqualification provision against Trump. As far as the Trump-haters are concerned, it is perfectly all right to put aside due process and fundamental fairness, so long as Trump is barred from holding public office ever again.

The Democrats’ unconstitutional Senate show trial is bad enough. The House’s lead impeachment manager has even gone so far as to suggest that Trump’s refusal to testify be used as an inference of guilt – precisely the opposite of the presumption of innocence and the Fifth Amendment’s protection against self-incrimination. But even that is not enough for the Trump-haters. Assuming the likely outcome of acquittal in the Senate impeachment trial on the incitement of insurrection charge, the Democrats want to further upend the Constitution by taking another bite at the apple. This time they want to do so by majority vote of both Democrat-controlled chambers under a perverted reading of the Fourteenth Amendment. They have one insurmountable problem. The Constitution includes a specific provision prohibiting bills of attainder (Article I, Section 9, paragraph 3).

Bills of attainder have been described by the Supreme Court as legislative acts, “no matter what their form, that apply either to named individuals or to easily ascertainable members of a group in such a way as to inflict punishment on them without a judicial trial. . . .” The Court explained the rationale for prohibiting such bills of attainder in a case that dealt specifically with a statute barring certain individuals Congress deemed guilty of “subversive activities” from ever engaging in any federal government work, except as jurors or soldiers:

Those who wrote our Constitution well knew the danger inherent in special legislative acts which take away the life, liberty, or property of particular named persons, because the legislature thinks them guilty of conduct which deserves punishment. They intended to safeguard the people of this country from punishment without trial by duly constituted courts.

Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment was obviously written with those who served in the Confederacy’s military or government in mind. If ex-Confederates had previously taken an oath to support the U.S. Constitution and then engaged in “insurrection or rebellion” against the Constitution, they were automatically disqualified from serving in any federal or state office. There was an escape hatch. Congress could, by a vote of two-thirds of each chamber, remove the disqualification. Unless Trump has a time machine at his disposal, he was not an insurrectionist or rebel during the Civil War.

Congress has the power under the Fourteenth Amendment “to enforce, by appropriate legislation” its provisions. But this authority does not override or amend the Constitution’s bill of attainder clause.

What Congress can do is pass legislation criminalizing insurrection or rebellion, which is precisely what it has done (18 U.S. Code § 2383 – Rebellion or insurrection). A violation of the law can result in fines, imprisonment, and disqualification from “holding any office under the United States.”

Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment would extend that penalty to also bar individuals convicted of insurrection or rebellion, who had taken an oath to support the U.S. Constitution, from holding a state government office as well. However, The Fourteenth Amendment’s disqualification clause would kick in only if Trump is first convicted of insurrection or rebellion in a court of law with full due process. Moreover, it would be a complete travesty of justice to say the least if Trump is acquitted in the Senate impeachment trial, only to then be disqualified from public office anyway by a joint congressional resolution.

There is a fundamental principle at stake here. The Democrats plotting yet another way to bar Donald Trump from holding any future public office are seeking retribution against Trump by any means they consider necessary. They believe that the end justifies the means. But that is not how the U.S. Constitution works. It has guardrails against abuses of power that trample on the rights of individuals. The Trump-haters’ obsession with the former president is so intense that they would first abuse the constitutional impeachment process and then twist the Fourteenth Amendment to prevent Trump from ever holding federal office again. This is an affront to the Constitution and to the right of voters to cast their votes for the candidate of their choice.

0

0

Stupendous article by Daniel Greenfiled writing at Front Page.  The Daily Caller (see previous post) should be ashamed. Forwarded thanks to TN

The Democrat Precedent for Impeaching Trump Comes From a Racist Senator Who Wanted to Kill All Black People

Democrats say you can impeach a president after leaving office. Where did they get that idea?

0

0

This is from a putative conservative publication, Why would they impart such shoddy journalism. The Daily Caller — now we think has an agenda more GOP establishment. A Phillip Nieto article. Bold our emphasis.

‘Pretty Damning’: Lisa Murkowski And Lindsey Graham React To New Capitol Riot Footage

Republican Sens. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina reacted Wednesday to unearthed security camera footage from the Jan. 6th Capitol Riot, revealing near-misses between the mob and lawmakers.

Democratic impeachment managers presented the never-before-seen footage during the impeachment trial of former President Donald Trump. The videos show lawmakers and journalists evacuating the Capitol as the pro-Trump mob stormed the building. Republican Utah Sen. Mitt Romney and Democratic Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer almost came in close contact with the rioters.

Murkowski reacted more critically towards Trump than Graham did, telling reporters, “I don’t see how after the American public sees the full story laid out here … I don’t see how Donald Trump could be re-elected to the presidency again.”

“I’m angry. I’m disturbed. I’m sad. As you say, we’re re-living this,” Murkowski continued, according to The Hill. “The evidence that has been presented thus far is pretty damning.”

Murkowski is seen as one of the few Senate Republicans open to convicting the former president.

Graham, a firm ally of Trump, was also shocked by the unearthed footage saying, “The main thing that struck me is, what kind of rules of engagement do we have to defend the Capitol.”

“I can’t believe that an unarmed mob could do that,” he added.

The riot resulted in five deaths, including Ashli Babbit, a 35-year-old Air Force veteran who was fatally shot by law enforcement. Capitol Police officer Brian D. Sicknick also died after being injured “while physically engaging with protesters,” as previously reported.

We responded to the publication:

You repeat the calumny that five people died. One person died as result of actions during the overwhelmingly peaceful assembly where a few likely false flag agitators and a relative handful of unarmed people broke ranks to assert their message directly, obviously NOT listening to Trump’s actual peace abiding speech. That person was an unarmed woman who was unjustifiably shot and killed by a police officer who had no reasonable cause to use deadly force. Seriously, other than to continue calumny, how do you pretend without evidence that four more deaths were directly a result of events in question on January 6th. A police officers suicide!!! Another police officers death likely from a stroke ( DC police officers engage in more violent protests from Democrat instigated rioting) and two protestors who died of what would rationally be considered natural causes coincidental to their presence. Your repetition of the shibboleth “resulted in five deaths” is disgusting, a journalistic atrocity.

We add here as regards Murkowski and Graham, pure creatures of DC ,who apparently have NOT viewed video of Seattle Portland or Davenport Iowa for that matter where killings by participant rioters and extensive wanton destruction actually took place. The January 6th events were overwhelmingly  peaceful assemblies as a result of President Trump’s urging.

0

0

Joni Ernst: What happened at the Capitol ‘is not the America that I know’

To equate the actions of a few on Jan 6 DC with the sustained rioting throughout the summer of 2020 and other times in recent American history, not to mention throughout our history is just silly.  What she is referring to on Jan 6 in DC were aggravated if not instigated and mostly owned by false flag agitators. Sustained riots in 2020 were under the BLM Antifa flag and Democrat leadership  practically cheared them on .

Read her statement and reflect on American history recent and past.

Kurt Schlichter with sufficient authority answers such pathetic utterances well.

Stop Calling It an ‘Insurrection‘

Sen Ernst wrote to the constituents and published in DM Register:

Joni Ernst: What happened at the Capitol ‘is not the America that I know’

We are and forever will be the UNITED States of America, and no difference or disagreement is too big for us to overcome.

As Published In: The Des Moines Register | January 11, 2021

Wednesday was a tragic day in our nation’s history. The very institution that millions of people from across the world revere, visit, and look to for democratic decision-making was pillaged by an angry mob incited by false hope.

To say I’m saddened by what happened is an understatement. I’m furious. This is not the America that I know, that I love, and that I fought for.

In this nation we have a beautiful history of debating and disagreeing on very, very tough issues. We also have a long-standing record of peacefully transitioning power from one administration to the next. And let me be perfectly clear: We will have that again on Jan. 20, 2021, when Joe Biden is sworn in as our next president.

Peaceful protest is a fundamental freedom that Americans are able to enjoy — one that I worked to defend in my 23 years in the military, and that I proudly support. But storming the U.S. Capitol in an attempt to influence elected officials — an insurrection as many have called it — is not, and will never be, a peaceful protest. It is anarchy — and America and her people cannot stand for it in any form.

Last summer, I gave the looting and rioting that swept across our country, from Portland and Seattle to the streets of Washington, D.C, the same label — anarchy. And what I stated then rings true today: Peaceful protesters are being drowned out by the sounds of shattering glass and splintering wood.

I understand that many Iowans are upset with the results of the 2020 presidential election, and that most of these hardworking people would not resort to the violence we saw this week in an attempt to get a different outcome. I’ve received countless calls, texts, emails, and letters from Iowans with real concerns about the integrity of our election system. I hear their voices, and believe we should have a thorough review of this past election — which is why I support my good friend and colleague Sen. Tim Scott’s bipartisan effort to establish a commission to do so.

But there can be no doubt that the violent mob who lawlessly breached the Capitol in hopes of intimidating elected officials and disrupting our constitutional duties are criminals. Blood was shed and lives were lost because of their heinous actions. They should all be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, and as a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I will fight to make sure that happens.

I am gravely concerned that dictators around the world will use last week’s indelible images against us. A divided America is communist China’s dream. They spew propaganda about the United States by portraying us as unstable and undeserving of global leadership. And you better believe there is nothing that Vladimir Putin loves more than to point out the flaws of Western democracy.

It is past time to tone down the rhetoric — from the president down to every single American — and treat each and every human being with dignity and respect. We should once again be able to enjoy a meal around the table with our family, friends, and neighbors without having harsh political debates.

I believe in this country, and what she stands for. I wouldn’t have served in military uniform, local elected office, and now as a United States senator if I didn’t. We are and forever will be the United States of America, and no difference or disagreement is too big for us to overcome.

America, we must always strive to be a more perfect union and to remain a beacon of hope and freedom for people around the globe.

Joni Ernst of Red Oak is the junior U.S. senator from Iowa.

0

0

• The six Republicans who went along with them in not dismissing the impeachment case are just as bad

How does a prosecution with any integrity offer “video proof” of then President Trump’s alleged incitement of a crowd violence on January 6 and leave out this :

“everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically, make your voices heard.” That he only wanted them to show their support for legislators who were supporting him. That the assault on the Capitol’s security lines started before Trump began speaking.

Trumps statement along with the timing are absolute irrefutable definitive evidence of innocence.  In a real court with an unbiased judge and jury something not present in this impeachment trial no serious prosecutor would bring it to trial but the partisan one who did would never ultimately get a conviction.

This is why they are impeaching Trump as conviction would not be possible in a regular court of law. They could avoid constitutional questions and pursue a criminal case in a regular court ,but they are not.  The reason is obvious.

0

0

Good for her as they have been politicized control freaks to the detriment of overall public health — possessed of a dystopian mindset, truly warped personalities.                      Iowa governor lifts mask mandate without public health input 

Much of the sequelae from the COVID  “pandemic” is a largely public health authority induced disaster which has been going on for a year.  Reynolds went along doing better than most governors to moderate those freaks. We wish she would have dismissed them earlier. These people denied/ inhibited life saving treatments. They of course will never say they are sorry, only that if we had just worn four masks and “eschewed” human contact all would be well, or something.

Related reading:

Pathophysiological Basis and Rationale for Early Outpatient Treatment of SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) Infection

Hydroxychloroquine recognized as effective early outpatient treatment  American Journal of Medicine article, also reposted by National Institute of Health (NIH)

Viral Hydroxychloroquine Doctor Demands Joe Biden Apologize After Media Finally Acknowledges HCQ Works

Iowans’ addiction struggles grow in pandemic’s shadow

Addiction counselors say some Iowans are relapsing amid the pandemic’s stress and isolation and the loss of support from in-person group meetings.

Watch: Man Exposes Ridiculous COVID Double-Masking

A TikTok user is going viral after heading outside in snowy weather to demonstrate how far water vapor particles travel when wearing different numbers and styles of face masks.

Considering COVID-19 is said to travel on respiratory droplets, this visual representation amid the freezing cold shows just how much air escapes commonly worn masks.

What happened to “flu season?” In the age of COVID, “the flu” has been reclassified as coronavirus, says epidemiologist

Study: CDC violated federal law by inflating coronavirus death counts

It’s Time We Started Counting the Victims of Anthony Fauci’s Lockdowns & Asking Ourselves How Likely It Is They Weren’t Intended

REPORT: CDC Apparently Changed COVID Criteria That Inflated Fatalities 10-Fold 

New Study Indicates Lockdowns Didn’t Slow the Spread of Covid-19

“Perhaps there is a sort of heroic romanticism about flexing the muscles of the state to stop a fearsome enemy that makes lockdowns so attractive. The only problem with this is that we are dealing with reality, and society is not a playset.” ~ Ethan Yang

Duke, Harvard, and Johns Hopkins Experts: COVID Lockdowns Will Cause ONE MILLION Excess Deaths

Useful resource:  PandemicNews.com

0

0

In the previous post, we asked a question related to Cardi B’s disappointment with us pitiful “Republicans” who, for some silly reason did not see the “unique” way her song “WAP” portrayed ‘true love’.

We asked how future ‘artists’ would be able to outdo Ms. B’s ‘over the top’ raunchy song. For a reason which totally befuddled the singer, we wondered how a song, regarded as a top hit for 2020, lyrics of which were so gross, vulgar, and sexually explicit (a 100 on a scale of 1 to 10), could be topped by singers in the future.

But then we thought, actually, the opportunities are limitless given the fact that WAP has opened the door to “musical interpretation” of any sex act, perverse, grotesque, disgusting, or otherwise.

Actual picture of Cardi B posted by her, imparting dialogue has become a popular meme

As we reported on another occasion, Cardi’s “WAP” is National Public Radio’s choice for “Number One Song of 2020”!

Imagine how delirious NPR would be over a future song that celebrated multiple sex acts by a full cast of characters including ‘numerous genders’, of various ages, races, (species?) using an array of  sex toys, machines, and devices.

And there will be an “artist” who recognizes this…in the very near future. One prediction: Soon , your 12 year old will be ‘singing along’ with a recording by the likes of Cardi B. to NPR’s “Best Song of All Time”!

Yep…time’s they are ‘a-changin’.
———————-

“I grew up listening to ‘freaky’ and ‘nasty’ music all my life”: Cardi B

And, now, she wonders why there was so much “criticism” and “backlash” toward her hit song “WAP”; must be those “right-wingers” (who, Cardi is presumably convinced, voted for Trump; and it’s ‘all ’cause they know she endorsed Biden”.)

As “B” tells it, she grew up listening to that kind of music”…, “why should you mind if your kids do?” seems to be her message.

And, with Biden’s eager acceptance of Cardi B’s “endorsement”, it seems that’s “Joey’s” message as well.

(It may also provide a clue to the kind of household and parenting Ms. B had as a child. And, now she’s seems to be promoting the same for everyone else’s!)

But, that’s just us…WAP! WAP!

dlh

0

0

• So saying the songs aren’t for HER child ring a little hollow
• The girl’s a poet and you just don’t know it

How could anybody think that a ‘beautiful love song’ like “Wet Ass Pussy” (WAP)
could be “freaky” or “nasty”?

Only a “Republican”

– Cardi says it’s those “Republican Motherf—–s” who think this beautiful song is “so nasty”, “freaky”.

– She also said she “grew up listening to freaky” and “nasty” music all her life.

– Huh?

–“Other people might think its ‘strange and vulgar’, (this “Rhodes scholar” says,) “but to me it’s almost like really normal…you know what I’m sayin…'”

– The article emphasizes that Cardi didn’t get the backlash from “elected officials”… “not senators and shit like that”!        dlh

CARDI B SLAMS REPUBLICAN CRITICS, BLAMES THEM FOR BACKLASH TO HIT SONG “WAP”

The singer collaborated on the adult track with Megan Thee Stallion

Cardi B says she noticed that a majority of the negative reactions to her hit song “WAP” in August came from Republican influencers.

The singer and rapper released the song in collaboration with Megan Thee Stallion and it quickly became one of the summer’s biggest hits. However, given the graphic and adult nature of the song, it also faced criticism that the star now says was mostly from the right.
Speaking with Apple Music’s Zane Lowe, the 28-year-old explained that she was surprised that people reacted so much to the song, arguing that she grew up listening to “nasty” and “freaky” music all her life.

“When ‘WAP’ came out, the people that were criticizing it the most, they were like, ‘This is so nasty, this is so freaky’ — I don’t even think it was religious people, it was really a lot of Republicans,” she explained.

Cardi made sure to note that she didn’t get any backlash from elected officials, but said that social media influencers who typically court a right-leaning audience were among the song’s biggest critics.

“Big Republicans, not like senators and s— like that,” she said. “It was literally like those motherf—–s that got blue checks on Twitter, they’re big influencers and it’s just like… out of anything that y’all could have talked about?”

Cardi B was previously a vocal supporter of prominent Democrats in the 2020 election, first throwing her weight behind Bernie Sanders before pivoting over to Joe Biden once he became the presumptive nominee.

“I used to endorse Bernie [Sanders] and then Joe Biden, so they were just trying to figure a way out to pick on me,” she said. “Like, ‘Oh Joe Biden is this the girl you were doing that interview with? The girl that’s talking about WAP? That’s what you want America to be influenced by?'”

She added: “It’s like, bro, come on now.”

Cardi B previously defended the song during an appearance on the Australian radio show “The Kyle and Jackie O Show.”

“The people that the song bothers are usually conservatives or really religious people, but my thing is I grew up listening to this type of music,” Cardi explained at the time (via People). “Other people might think it’s strange and vulgar, but to me, it’s almost like really normal, you know what I’m saying?”

She also took to social media to defend herself from people calling her a hypocrite for not letting her 2-year-old daughter listen to the track.

“Ya needs to stop with this already! I’m not [JoJo Siwa]! I don’t make music for kids I make music for adults,” she said at the time.

Added the Grammy winner: “Parents are responsible on what their children listen too [sic] or see. I’m a very sexual person but not around my child just like every other parent should be.”

0

0