We are the drain the swamp people

Pope Francis is as hypocritical, obtuse and corruptive as anyone whose policies he has ever castigated. But at least one, such as President Trump, he has essentially lied about.  Worse he does not seem to go after the real tyrants of this world.

Pope Francis Asks Immaculate Virgin Mary to Intercede for US After Capitol Violence

Not sure he offered this prayer during or after  rioting and looting in Portland, Seattle and numerous “blue” cities  etc. in the last year or so. If he did we doubt that in his heart he was thinking the same people be mitigated. But OK, genuine prayer as opposed to mere political posturing in the form of pronouncements, exhortations and encyclicals is good.

In our view an answer to the prayer might be for the Pope to assist Holy Mother and stifle himself most of the time.  The underlying tone of much of his running off at the mouth as opposed to unassailable prayer have served to reinforce violence from BLM and ANTIFA  for a long time as he has unfairly characterized President Trump, his policies and by implication his supporters while giving political succor, lustration, dispensation outside of confession and apologias to members of the most evil political establishment in our nation’s history –  the Democrat party apparat — cumulatively lending great confusion to the faithful and scandal to the Church.  In our humble unGodly opinion of course.

We pray for the same intercession but pretty sure what the Pope and we envision is not the same thing.

0

0

Clarice Feldman writing at American Thinker …provides an excellent, timely, extremely insightful column. Too many informative, incisive passages to excerpt and then for you to valuably reflect on. Column is a ‘must read” in its entirety.   This is a sample of her work, read other of Clarice commentaries at American Thinker.        dlh

The Night of the Tech Long Knives

In any event the Capitol has been the scene of worse.

It was set afire by the British in 1812. In 1915 a Harvard professor planted dynamite near the Senate Reception Room which went off  as “an exclamation point in my appeal for peace.” In March 1954 four Puerto Rican nationalists in the visitors’ galley shot and wounded five members of Congress. President Carter later pardoned them. In March of 1971 the Weather Underground set off a bomb in the Senate side of the Capitol causing hundreds of thousands of dollars in damage. (Bill Ayers was the leader of the group. He was a Chicago colleague of Barack Obama and is widely believed to have ghostwritten Dreams of My Father, improbably attributed to Barack. Ayers’s wife Bernardine Dohrn, also a member of the group, is a retired professor of law at Northwestern University. The son of two other members of the group whom they raised while his mother was in prison, Chesa Boudin, is a George Soros-funded district attorney of San Francisco, where he’s been successful in adopting policies causing significant increases in crime.) Twelve years after the Weather Underground bombing, a leftist group set off a bomb which blew off the door of Senator Byrd’s office.

In contrast to those events, videos show the Capitol police removing the barriers to the building and ushering through the mostly obedient and respectful crowd. (A crowd which in such a multitude usually includes a number of attention seekers and ne’er-do-wells like this nonaffiliated man photographed with Pelosi’s lectern.

The Capitol demonstration was far more peaceful than the ones outside the White House last summer, when Secret Service men were injured protecting the White House during the BLM/leftist rioting:

The attacks near the White House were more violent than the one at the Capitol, which did not involve most of the forms of assault described above. Yet, media and Democrat outrage over these attacks was muted at best. At worst, it was directed at those like William Barr who tried to ensure the safety of the area.

Crowds often attract outliers who use them as a cover for theft and mayhem, the reason I avoid large groups even at things like Black Friday at Walmart.

Along with an election they believe was stolen without an adequate opportunity to prove it, the crowd was also rightly infuriated by our two-tier System of Justice. So far not a single member of the soft coup Russian Collusion plotters has been sentenced, to give but one example.

Contrast the impassioned but not violence-inducing language of the President with just a few examples of these calls for violence by Democratic leaders.

Just last year Congresswoman Ayanna Presley called for unrest in the streets:  Maxine Waters regularly does. Indeed, there are 26 times the media and Democrats excused or endorsed violence committed by left-wing activists.

Not only did they endorse and excuse the violence, Democratic supporters and donors paid to bail out any who were arrested. 

Mark Steyn details the outrageous double legal standards involving protests and protestors.  He wonders why we should be surprised when a mass protest tactic which proved useful for one side is used by the other.

Other resentments were at the boil as well.

In the Wall Street Journal, Edward Luttwak also makes the point of the double standard:

Given all these exclusions, only one description remains: a venting of accumulated resentments. Those who voted for President Trump saw his electoral victory denied in 2016 by numerous loud voices calling for “resistance” as if the president-elect were an invading foreign army. These voices were eagerly relayed and magnified by mass media, emphatically including pro-Trump media.

Then they saw his victory sullied by constantly repeated accusations of collusion with Russia from chairmen of intelligence committees and ex-intelligence chiefs who habitually accused Mr. Trump of being Vladimir Putin’s agent, claiming they had secret information, which, alas, they could not disclose. They deplored Mr. Trump’s “subservience” to Mr. Putin weekly for four years while refusing to entertain the possibility that in a confrontation with China, it might be a good idea to overlook Mr. Putin’s sins, as Nixon embraced Mao to counter the Soviet Union.

It amused me to see the photograph in the Wall Street Journal’s James Freeman’s article urging the president to attend the inauguration. As you can see Trump is shaking the hand of Biden while the Obamas look on, barely hiding sneers. Both Biden and Obama had just the day before set off the Russian Collusion soft coup to tie up Trump’s candidacy.

As the Intelligence Community works to cover for China and the Silicon Billionaires strip dissenting voices from their platforms, leading Democrats join the overreach.  Omar tweets she’s drawing up articles of impeachment; Chuck Schumer, our new Senate Majority Leader, tweets “This president must not hold office one day longer.” Assistant House Speaker Katherine Clark says that if the Vice President and Cabinet don’t remove him they will vote to impeach him by the middle of next week. Congresswoman Diana DeGette supports impeachment, tweeting, “He is a real danger to our country. He must be removed from office immediately and barred from ever holding an elected office again.” (Someone should explain the Bill of Attainder to these people.) House Speaker Nancy Pelosi went so far as to call the Pentagon Chief of Staff, ostensibly worried that he’ll set up a nuclear war on his way out. Who’s unhinged?  James Freeman continues:

Mr. Trump also ranted and raved at length claiming the election was fraudulent, and for this reason many Americans will be happy to see him depart on Jan. 20. But if the speaker wants to make an incitement case on political grounds and Mr. Trump is permitted to mount a defense, he will likely be able to cite plenty of quotations in which the impeachers made similarly inflammatory remarks.

If on the other hand Mrs. Pelosi wants to argue the legal merits, just like last time she will have trouble defining how exactly Mr. Trump broke the law. He has First Amendment rights just like everybody else, and no doubt the manner in which he exercises them is a big reason why so many people voted against him in November. But did he meet the legal standard of incitement? UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh thinks not.

The very brilliant Daniel Greenfield details why this trend of shutting off the views of about half the country is likely to become even more complete and onerous. 

I’m old fashioned. From the days before — to  paraphrase one wag — the party of JFK became the party of Lee Harvey Oswald. So old fashioned, I think the best way to determine policy and to understand events is open dialogue. Without it, it’s a thugs’ and idiots’ paradise. So I’ll keep writing online until my doubleplusungood thoughts get cancelled. I’m too old to pass the exam for a ham radio license, but I’m sure we’ll figure out something.

0

0

• How would it be if we “Do unto Dems what they do unto us”
• The left’s boilerplate denials, sophistries and universal disclaimers

Chris Wallace this morning on FOX news Sunday interviewed James Clyburn…talk about throwing gasoline on a fire: Wallace’s questions were of course all intended to ‘lead’ Clyburn (who didn’t need much). The two of them were engaged in incitement and inflaming racist violence on the part of Blacks. I won’t detail the interview (transcript here), but Wallace should be fired for “inciting violence” and promoting racial division, “without evidence”! Clyburn should be urged, then forced to resign from Congress for essentially the same reasons.

Nancy Pelosi must be impeached…for incitement, rousing the left to violence against Trump supporters, and urging the overthrow of legitimate government (the President of the US), also on “baseless” charges!

Forbes Magazine must be immediately shut down for urging corporations not to hire former members of the Trump administration and to publicly shame and condemn any that do! Discrimination in the extreme, and, done “without evidence”.

All are ridiculous proposals? Yes, perhaps. But they are even less outrageous than current actions and attempts by the Democrats, the Left, the media, and racist Blacks.

I emphasize “without evidence and baseless”…a favorite meme of the media and far left toward anything offered as defense of Trump, when, in fact the evidence of Voter Fraud and election criminality is overwhelming.              dlh

Now we recall just one year ago the same Hagenbeck & Wallace Circus* Clyburn & Wallace Show and this remarkable be-clowning moment of political dialogue techniques emanating from the Democrat’s Majority Whip, unchallenged, un-scoffed at by Wallace.  Via Real Clear Politics — January 20, 2019:

Clyburn: If You Preface Statement With “If This Is True” That Gives You All The Cover You Need

House Majority Whip James Clyburn defends Democrats who jumped on Thursday’s Buzzfeed story that was debunked by special counsel Robert Mueller’s office by noting that they all qualified their statements with, “if this is true.”

“When you preface your statement with ‘if this is true,’ that, to me, gives you all the cover you need,” Clyburn said on FOX News Sunday. “If they had said something as if it were true, then that would be one thing to be concerned about, but they’ve all said, ‘if this is true.'”

Note to attached photos: we put the clown accoutrements on Wallace because doing so to Clyburn would of course be racist (another catch-all “argument” of the left)

*”Anonymous sources” ( an example of a prevarication with impunity the media often uses) tell us that the Hagenbec-Wallace Circus was famous for clowns and contortionists (thus you will understand our confusion en re Clyburn & Wallace.

0

0

• Turley is right even tho somewhat left

This is an excellent piece by Jonathon Turley, a thoughtful and responsible liberal. He echoes many of our thoughts, including a very important one:

“…the president’s speech doesn’t “meet the definition of incitement under the U.S. criminal code.”

However, there is another observation we have that isn’t dealt with:

“Although the law professor took issue with Trump’s speech before supporters, as well as Republicans objections to certifying the electoral votes in Joe Biden’s favor,”

Unlike the professor, we do NOT ‘take issue’ with President Trump’s objections related to certifying Biden’s election. There is, in our view, overwhelming evidence of ‘irregularities’ and ‘tampering’, and outright criminal activity which amounted to the theft of the presidential election.

Please tell us of a case where there has been a mountain of photographic and analytic evidence, supported by sworn affidavits by hundreds of people with firsthand knowledge that has not been thoroughly INVESTIGATED by proper authorities! To suggest that allegations of fraud and ‘rigging’ are “baseless” and “without evidence” is absurd, dishonest, and in itself, criminal.

“But numerous courts and judges have rejected such “allegations”, we hear. But in Georgia a “U.S. District Judge” rejected ‘arguments’ to remove from voting rolls ineligible persons. Yes, and the “judge” was the sister of Stacy Abrams who’s never seen an election she lost that wasn’t “rigged”. (There was “no basis” for recusal?)

We contend that President Trump is right in strenuously objecting to the fraud and rigging that went on in the election. Eventually, the American people will see the consequences of this blatant criminality…but, too late!

The demands of Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats to remove Mr. Trump from Office days before his term ends should indeed appropriately enrage every American who still values the rapidly disappearing freedom this country once prized.          dlh

———–

LIBERAL LAW PROFESSOR, JONATHON TURLEY ISSUES A WARNING TO DEMOCRATS ABOUT IMPEACHMENT

Liberal law professor Jonathan Turley on Saturday issued a warning about Democrats’ long-term damage to the Constitution should they continue to press forward with their plans to impeach President Donald Trump (yet again) as his administration comes to a close.

“In seeking his removal for ‘incitement,’ Democrats would gut not only the impeachment standard but free speech, all in a mad rush to remove Trump just days before the end of his term,” Turley wrote in an opinion piece for The Hill.

Although the law professor took issue with Trump’s speech before supporters, as well as Republicans objections to certifying the electoral votes in Joe Biden’s favor, Turley said the president’s speech doesn’t “meet the definition of incitement under the U.S. criminal code.” In fact, Trump’s speech is deemed “protected speech” under the First Amendment, the professor noted.

Turley also pinpointed one thing Democrats fail to recognize: the President Trump never called for violence. He simply urged his supporters to march towards the Capitol, something that’s common place in Washington, D.C.

“Despite widespread, justified condemnation of his words, Trump never actually called for violence or a riot. Rather, he urged his supporters to march on the Capitol to express opposition to the certification of electoral votes and to support the challenges being made by some members of Congress. He expressly told his followers ‘to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.'”

The concern Turley has with Democrats’ impeachment push: the precedent it could set for future generations.

There was no call for lawless action by Trump. Instead, there was a call for a protest at the Capitol. Moreover, violence was not imminent; the vast majority of the tens of thousands of protesters present were not violent before the march, and most did not riot inside the Capitol. Like many violent protests we have witnessed over the last four years, including Trump’s 2017 inauguration, the criminal conduct was carried out by a smaller group of instigators. Capitol police knew of the planned march but declined an offer of National Guard personnel because they did not view violence as likely.

Thus, Congress is about to seek the impeachment of a president for a speech that is protected under the First Amendment. It would create precedent for the impeachment of any president who can be blamed for the violent acts of others after the use of reckless or inflammatory language.
…
… Democrats are now arguing something even more extreme as the basis for impeachment. Under their theory, any president could be removed for rhetoric deemed to have the “natural tendency” to encourage others to act in a riotous fashion. Even a call for supporters to protest peacefully would not be a defense. This standard would allow for a type of vicarious impeachment — attributing conduct of third parties to a president for the purposes of removal.

The professor noted that various Democrats, including Reps. Maxine Waters (D-CA) and Ayanna Pressley (D-MA) and then-Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) have all made remarks in the past that contradict their current position. In fact, things they said in the past, like Pressley saying “there needs to be unrest in the streets,” could be construed as meaning violence should take place.

“They can all legitimately argue that their rhetoric was not meant to be a call for violence, but this is a standard fraught with subjectivity,” Turley explained.
He ends his piece by warning about the long-term structural damage this second impeachment push could have on our nation.

The damage caused by this week’s rioting was enormous, but it will pale in comparison to the damage from a new precedent of a “snap impeachment” for speech protected under the First Amendment. It is the very danger that the Framers sought to avoid in crafting the impeachment standard. In a process meant to require deliberative, not impulsive, judgments, the very reference to a “snap impeachment” is a contradiction in constitutional terms. In this new system, guilt is not to be doubted and innocence is not to be deliberated. It would do to the Constitution what the rioters did to the Capitol: Leave it in tatters.

The ball’s in your court, Democrats. How will you proceed

0

0

I no longer live in Scott County so I am reluctant to comment on the strengths or shortcomings of various personalities of prominence in the community.

I will make an exception in this case.

I don’t know Mr. Millage, but the previous post indicates he is a lawyer.

Depending how one might feel about the legal profession, Mr. Millage appears to be either a typical specimen of a ‘trade’ which ranks near the bottom in terms of public esteem, or he is a disgrace to a profession of high calling.

Whichever, I don’t see his position as Chairman of Scott County’s Republican Party as anything more than an affirmation of the proposition that when people of average to above average judgement, commitment, and intelligence are not available to lead a volunteer organization, this is what you get.

It is true that some good people, respected conservatives, active in their party and sincere in their political beliefs, and some journalists, firm in their convictions, sincerely attempting to be objective in their analyses, are troubled by their interpretation of events in Washington and President Trump’s ‘role’ in it

They may honestly, if erroneously, believe President Trump’s concerns about the legality of the recent election and his words to those who share his concerns somehow ‘incited’ those criminal elements of the massive crowd which gathered to support Mr.Trump.

There are others, however, who have resented the politically inexperienced Donald Trump’s entry into politics, his successful bid for the highest office in the land, and even the many positive accomplishments he has achieved during his presidency. They have sought to remove Mr. Trump from office since the day of his inauguration, and they’ve employed every legal, and illegal, ploy and dirty tactic available to them.

Even some ‘nominally’ of his own Party have attempted to undermine him, and seemed to even resent Trump’s sincere efforts to restore America’s greatness and promote the interests and benefit of all Americans.

They are the people who have perceived the events of this week at the nation’s Capitol as an opportunity to one last time attempt to discredit President Trump and his many accomplishments on America’s behalf during a single term.

They are the people who are calling for President Trump’s removal from Office on the most baseless of charges.

One’s motives are virtually impossible to determine but it is possible to make some valid assumptions based on their actions. In President Trump’s case, with less than 2 weeks remaining in his presidency, impeachment is not only wildly inappropriate, completely baseless (that word the media likes to use, in gross malice and error, regarding evidence of fraud in the recent election) , and treacherous in the extreme.

And that brings me to Mr. Millage. Whatever his sincerity, his motives, his level of understanding of events, not yet even known…and the treachery of his actions warrant his immediate removal as a spokesperson for his Party. As to the latter, Mr. Millage has not been prominent in the media for any comments he has made in the past on behalf of his party’s values, or its officeholders or candidates.          dlh

0

0

• Prompt emergency action by Executive Committee and or Central Committee called for
• Chastisement by other county organizations and state central committee called for

Scott County GOP Chair calls for impeachment of Trump; Rock Island County Chair disagrees

0

0

Joy Reid Says BLM Protesters Would Be ‘Shackled, Arrested or Dead’ in Viral Speech on Race

Joy Reid speech has gone viral after the MSNBC anchor eviscerated law enforcement’s double standards in policing rioters at the Capitol yesterday versus the Black Lives Matter protests of 2020.

“I guarantee you if that was a Black Lives Matter protest in D.C., there would already be people shackled, arrested or dead,” said Reid. “Shackled, arrested en masse or dead.”

The political commentator was speaking on Wednesday’s installment of The Reid Out where she made the point that “white Americans aren’t afraid of the cops.”
—————————————————————–

Don’t watch Joy Reid but this story seems typical of anything I’ve ever read or heard about her.

Based on what I have read and heard, however, one can only conclude that Joy Reid is a nasty racist, certainly not very bright or even informed. She is both adept and very willing to incite violence by other people as long as she is unharmed by it.

According to this report, Ms. Reid exhibits all of those traits and inclinations. She clearly intends to incite racial violence. From her quoted comments, she is of obviously sub-par intelligence, and she makes it clear that she is either abjectly uninformed or wildly mis-informed.

She could be reminded that with the Black Lives Matter rioting no participants were fatally injured by law enforcement and were never confronted with lethal force.

At the nation’s Capitol Wednesday, Capitol police and Secret Service personnel threatened protestors with guns and one female protestor was fatally shot.

Had that happened to a BLM rioter, Joy Reid would have gone nuts (or maybe nut-tier) and media and race baiters would have labeled it the worst atrocity since Kent State.

No one, as far as we know, has uttered a word or expressed a question about this tragic incident.    Other delightful memes referencing Ms Reid below  dlh

+2

0

For one thing some GOP retirements need to be encouraged, with prejudice.  Only meat-eaters at the helm.  If we can’t take the House and or the Senate back in the midterm election then there is probably no coming back from the damage.  We remember the wilderness of 2009 2010 when Democrats controlled the House substantially 257 to 178 and the Senate 57 (59 with Lieberman and Sanders) to 41.  A bit short of filibuster proof but that rule had been loosing its efficacy.  It will be at least as bad there with the Democrats intent on ending the filibuster and moving quickly on everything. The House margin will be difficult to herd for Pelosi the next two years.

This Schlichter article at TownHall is consistent with our thoughts

Welcome to a Wilderness of Lies 

Third party will extend the wilderness, better to seize control of the mechanism that are to a great extent there for the taking.  Let the RINOs go 3rd party and they will be just as likely to hurt Democrats in the process. That said the window is short.  More rational to follow.

By the way, pay no attention to TownHalll resident twits Ann Coulter and Mark Davis.

0

0

I just caught a quick segment of Martha McCallum on Fox.

Sometimes it takes the form of “The Law of Convenient Doctrine”

Marc Theissen was saying how there was the claim that the election in November was stolen. He deplored the “fact’ that the press has no credibility and thus was not believed that there was “no evidence” that the election was stolen!

And this, to me seems that the Marc Theissen may be a big part of the problem.

“No evidence”!!!???

If a law enforcement authority produced a dozen “eye witnesses” who claimed they saw ‘Jonathon Doe’ shoot ‘William Moe’, would a prosecutor or a court dismiss the claims of all 12 without investigating to determine the accuracy of their sworn statements? Would they dismiss with remarks like, “but there’s no evidence”…it’s a “baseless charge”… just because Mr. Moe is in a hospital with a gunshot wound and there are photos of Mr. Doe practice- shooting the identical type of weapon used on Moe?

Would we hear, “well that is merely circumstantial, doesn’t actually prove anything. . . not real evidence” In the meantime after perhaps a perfunctory investigation but lots of  stonewalling Doe destroys all he can with impunity  and any subsequent investigation of course comes up “no evidence”.

Would the 12 be dismissed because they have no standing  — because they were not the one shot?   Would the 12 be told to pound sand because “lack of subject matter jurisdiction” the discretion shown by Doe’s friendlies on the court who have no such reticence when they want to do a number on others.

Welcome to the US Supreme Court and adjudication in America!

0

0

“Decency” Tell it to your BLM, Antifa and Hollywood messengers

Simple decency indeed

Where were such comments when Minneapolis and Portland and Kenosha, and… were burning, and when people leaving the White House lawn after a speech by the president were assaulted:

Biden on Wednesday evening called for the restoration of ‘simple decency’ after the mob delayed Congress from certifying the results of November’s election.
‘At this hour, our democracy is under unprecedented assault unlike anything we’ve seen in modern times,’ Biden said. He called it ‘an assault on the rule of law like few times we have ever seen it.’
‘I call on this mob to pull back and allow democracy to go forward. ‘
—————————————
And, there was This !:

Chaotic scenes broke out as dozens of Trump supporters stormed the Capitol on Wednesday afternoon

A female Trump supporter was shot in the chest and later died !!!
There was no Antifa or BLM “supporter” fatally shot in all of their ‘uprisings’ that I heard of. Where was the pepper spray?, the stun gun?, the ‘rubber bullets’? the ‘chemical agents (like tear gas)?

It appears that only lethal weapons were available to the law enforcement people at the Capitol.       dlh

0

0