Bizarre, Congress, Constitutional Law, Politics

Pelosi Accuses Trump and Colleagues Of Defining Domestic Enemies

220px-nancy_pelosiI have previously condemned both sides in our raging politics for labeling their opponents as “traitors,” “terrorists,” and “enemies.”  That overheated rhetoric is continuing this week with Speaker Nancy Pelosi calling not just President Trump but her own congressional colleagues “enemies of the state.” I have been highly critical of President Trump in his use of such language. I also have long been critical of Pelosi’s conduct as Speaker, including her ripping up the State of the Union. This attack is particularly egregious from a sitting Speaker who represents the body as a whole. If we cannot agree on condemning even this language, we have lost any sense of decorum or decency in our public debate.

In a Monday interview with MSNBC host Ayman Mohyeldin, Pelosi was asked about the controversy over the postal service and mail-in voting. She responded:

“Thank you for the opportunity to say. One thing I’ll say to the American people: Do not pay any attention to Donald Trump. It is his goal to scare people from voting, to intimidate them by saying he’s going to have law enforcement people at the polls, to welcome, in fact, Russian intervention into our election . . . We take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic. And sadly, the domestic enemies to our voting system and our honoring our Constitution are right at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., with their allies in the Congress of the United States.”

Pelosi clearly states that her colleagues are included among the domestic enemies that the House oath that is required as a qualification for office under Article VI, clause 3.

It is a further denigration of our political debate.  However, this is directly calling those who support Trump in Congress to be domestic enemies. Pelosi has previously caused controversies over comments on the floor that were viewed as violating House rules.

Pelosi herself has led efforts to condemnTrump for his “low standards using disgraceful language about Members of Congress.”

This is not a statement on the floor and is not a clear violation of House rules. However, it is a violation, again, of the traditional role of the Speaker. No one expects a Speaker to be a non-partisan, particularly off the floor. However, she is the highest ranking member of the House of Representatives and leads by example. This has been the continuing example of raw and reckless partisanship from the Speaker. I happen to agree with Speaker Pelosi on some of these policy fights. Yet, calling your own members enemies of the state is a reprehensible moment that would be widely condemned in the media if the party affiliation were reversed.

I admit that I may be hopelessly out of touch with the brawling, insulting character of modern politics. I still believe that our leaders should be examples, particularly presidents and Speakers, in their language and conduct. This is a sitting Speaker saying that members who disagree with her are enemies of the State and the very dangers that members are sworn to resist as threatening the nation as a whole.

It is easy to take this free-fall plunge into such damaging and demagogic language. We can yield to the moment and label opposing voices as traitors or we can insist that our leaders meet minimal standards of civility and responsibility. This is neither. If we become accustomed to labeling opposing views as effective treason, it will not be long before people begin to treat such labels literally and demand treating dissent as treason.

Speaker Pelosi should apologize for this attack and reaffirm that there remains some degree of decency and civility that remains in our public debate.

 

298 thoughts on “Pelosi Accuses Trump and Colleagues Of Defining Domestic Enemies”

  1. Pelosi is no “Tip” O’Neil.

    Enemies of the State. Where have I heard that expression before? Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, Communist China, and other totalitarian states.

    Both sides of the aisle are engaging in rhetoric and actions that are dividing the country. Lincoln put it this way “A house divided cannot stand.” Leadership does not mean divide it means to unite. We’ve created a divisive political class over the last few decades that have created or failed to solve the problems we face. This caste is not what the Founders envisioned.

    1. Obama was the last President that spoke about pulling together, working together, acting in unison. Regardless of how he performed, and the vast majority of Americans feel that he performed well, the idea of uniting hasn’t come up since. Is there an elephant in the room?

      1. Yes, there is most definately an Elephant in the room. Obama’s actions did not live up to his words. His team obstructed our new President in every way humanly possible. They are still doing so.

  2. You will neve see a socialist regressive apoogize much less engage in honest open debate. Facts are facts. They rejected thei US Citizenship to take allegiance to a foreign ideology violate their oath of office in the process and cannot be treated as nor considered as real USA whole citizens and that’s a view from the real center which is the Constitution and not from the far left. and their phony center.

  3. Nothing difficult about that. The Constitution of our Constitutional Republic REQUIRES the oath of office which requires allegiance to our Constitution. those who refuse to take it are illegals and those who arrange for them to give it a pass such as the Squat are equally guilty and that would be Pelosi in this case. Ergo Sum Pelosi is an Enemy Domestic. It’s not rocket science it’s plain Objectivism after checking historical antecedents a applying moral values and ethics. Pelosi is more guilty than the Squat and the others who take the oath and then refuse to honor it. Normally they are of two varieties . What we commonly refer to as criminals and now political criminals.

  4. Oh, they aren’t shrinking, quite the opposite. I’m a lifelong Independent, and I won’t he voting for a single Democrat in November for the first time in my life. I’ve noticed that particular talking point making the rounds lately, verbatim. It’s just the latest addition to the morning DNC memo, methinks. Pelosi has got to go. Classical liberals would do well to abandon ship and try something else, regardless.

  5. The object of the political parties is to divide. It is not to unite. Creating the division is good for the party, it is good for the career politician and it is good for the politicians “sponsors” (lobbyist) they receive millions from years. Low on the level of importance is the outcome for the country and last is the outcome for the voters.

  6. As soon as they take complete power they are ready to make mass arrests and establish the concentration camps.

  7. Why does no one reflect on the USPS cuts in service during the Obama administration 2011-2012? USPS was close to default because Obama considered USPS as a business. Now the witch of the left coast considers it a “service”. NW Ohio’s mail has been slowed since 2012 as the distribution center in Toledo was axed. Now mail must travel to Pontiac, Michigan.

  9. I’m pretty sure that this was my first comment on this website, after the State of the Union:

    MLK Jr., Letter from a Birmingham Jail:
    “I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the N3gro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice …”

    The presence of justice requires honesty. Trump is a compulsive narcissistic liar, and that was on ample display last night. The presence of justice requires that bigots like Limbaugh not be awarded the National Medal of Freedom. These are just two examples of what it would mean to focus on justice rather than “order” in the context of the SOTU.

    Your choice to focus on whether Pelosi was sufficiently decorous rather than on the cause of justice is sad.
    ————————————end————————————

    It still applies.

    Mr. Turley, if you’re going to condemn Pelosi, focus on the cause of justice.

    She condemned “the domestic enemies to our voting system and our honoring our Constitution … at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., with their allies in the Congress.” Trump and allies in Congress are indeed domestic enemies to our voting system (from the attempts to undermine voting by mail during a pandemic, to McConnell refusing to hold a vote on the House’s 2019 voting rights bill, to Blackburn blocking a bill requiring campaigns to notify the FBI of foreign offers of election help). Trump and allies in Congress have indeed refused to honor their fiduciary duty to take care that all laws are faithfully executed.

    The cause of justice demands that you deal honestly with their many actions harming the country.

      1. Yet you don’t provide evidence of anything I said being false.

        Perhaps you’re projecting.

    2. Trump is one of the most honest people in Washington. One can virtually hear him thinking on twitter or in his ad lib speaches.

      Needs to be Committed doesn’t know what honesty is and supports criminality.

      1. Allan sez:

        “One can virtually hear him thinking on twitter or in his ad lib speaches.”

        Trump’s honesty shines like a Scottish penny! Thinking on twitter is an oxymoron.

    3. Commit — MLK Jr., Letter from a Birmingham Jail:

      You are aware, are you not, that some of this was among the many things King plagiarized during his life.

      1. No, I’m not aware of that MLK Jr.’s Letter from a Birmingham Jail was plagiarized from someone. If you have evidence that it was plagiarized (i.e., quotes from an original source, with the date that was written), present it, and you can convince me.

        1. I have a book on it that I can’t find at the moment so I googled the subject and came up with multiple links including one to a Wa Po article. I assumed you knew; everyone does.

          1. So present the link that has quotes from the original source..

            1. I thought you might pursue it on your own out of academic interest. If you are not interested then you are not. Why should I convince you of anything? Have I mentioned that the earth is not flat? No? Oh well, I won’t convince you of that either.

              1. Your claim, your burden of proof.

                There are things that interest me more than doing your work for you.

                I already know that the earth isn’t flat, and if someone asked me for evidence of it, I’d have no problem providing it. In fact, I’d be happy to provide evidence here, right after you provide evidence for *your* claim that “Letter from a Birmingham Jail … was among the many things King plagiarized during his life.” I’m happy to learn, just not happy to take your word for it, and not willing to do your work for you.

                1. Commit- “I already know that the earth isn’t flat, ”

                  You should. It is common knowledge. Same with King’s plagiarism. Now common knowledge. It is hardly arcane.

                  I have no duty to educate you on such ordinary matters. Acquiring common knowledge is your responsibility to yourself.

                  1. You have a burden of proof for your own claims, as do we all.

                    And your original claim — the one I asked you for evidence of — was specifically about Letter From a Birmingham Jail (“Letter from a Birmingham Jail … was among the many things King plagiarized during his life”), so don’t try to move the goalposts to talking about “King’s plagiarism” in general.

                    If you believe “Acquiring common knowledge is your responsibility to yourself,” then it’s truly strange that you persist in your belief that races are subspecies of H. sapiens. Why haven’t you acquired the common knowledge that there’s only one extant human subspecies? Or do you have double standards, where you argue “Acquiring common knowledge is your responsibility to yourself” only when it’s convenient for you, while ignoring it when you find it inconvenient?

  10. She’s a mess, a drunk, a washed out rich hag who can not fathom not being the center of attention.
    She’s a sick mess

    1. Nancy Pelosi labels McConnell a Roque leader….

      She nailed it to the cross. McConnell, “I don’t care if it’s good for Americans or bad for Americans, if it comes from the Obama White House, we’ll block it.” OK, with a straight face explain how that is not a rogue leader’s statement, in fact a form of sedition, perhaps treason. McConnell, “Screw Americans, Republicans want our way.”

  11. Ideally, the speaker of each chamber would be elected from outside the membership from the ranks of volunteers among DC’s population of elderly and retired judges. Judges are usually practiced at holding their tongue and not being blatantly biased. Why we have a partisan speaker in one chamber and allocate that function in the other chamber to the member of the body most likely to have clinical dementia (and put both in the order of succession to the presidency) is a mystery. Except, of course, that the U.S. Congress damages everything that it touches. It’s what they do.

    Our politics are unpleasant, but lets put the blame where it belongs: (1) the judiciary, (2) the media, (3) higher education, (4) George Soros et al, (5) the Democratic Party. This isn’t a case of both-sides-are-responsible.

  12. The US Postal Service “crisis” is so much BS. The USPS has been a miserable failure for decades and all one needs to do to see why is visit their local post office. I’ve had mail frequently show up months after it was posted, and in many cases never received it at all. In one incident, the post office claimed an expensive item had been delivered but I never saw it. The USPS is and has been political for a long, long time – since the mid-sixties.

    1. That’s BS sem. I am in business and until recently, billings and checks were all through the mail – bills now via email – and I could count on their delivery and even how long (1 day in my town to or from another address). The Congress put a financial hurt on the PO with the 75 year funded pension law – no one else does that – and cherry picking by delivery services and then email competition have all hurt it.

    2. I do a lot of business by mail like most lawyers who earn their bread that way. US Post is a favorite federal institution of mine. Not that I like many of them very much. But I like them., They are very effective at delivering properly addressed mail. They almost never lose an item properly sent, in my experience. Very low error rate. They have various restrictions and difficulties which are a result of the political process which has been going on for a long long time. Nothing special recently far as I know, just talk. The employees are a mixed bag but they always are in big outfits. My postman is a champ.

      The current posturing over Orange Man says this that and trying to do something bad, etc., all is nonsense. The Postal boss is trying to manage the usual problems they have. They have a rush at Xmas and they will have a lot come November. It will be ok. The mail will get delivered, there is no crisis.

      1. Kurtz, Mango Mussolini has said it all himself. He’s selling “can’t do” and by refusing funding ensuring it.

      2. The Democrats and their Allies in the Deep State are seeding the groundwork for a contested race with this mail “Push”. It is becoming obvious that Pelosi is spearheading a dive in January 2020 headfirst into the 20th Amendment.

  13. “I admit that I may be hopelessly out of touch with the brawling, insulting character of modern politics.” There in lies the main problem with your columns, you are a resident of an idealized past and refuse to see that the left, far more than the right, have become gutter dwelling street fighters – to just reference obama and his bringing a gun to a knife fight – that is exactly where the left lives with regard to political tactics. If you would stop covering for snarky agenda driven pols such as Pelosi you would gain credibility.

  14. I don’t disagree with one word of what Pelosi said.

    Turley, you may not like that she adopted the words that Trump so freely has used during his term, I get that. She’s holding people’s feet to the fire. You’ve backed a marginal political specimen, Jon. And when it gets pointed out, one path is to make some acknowledgements, the other is to blame the messenger.

    It’d be best to save the self righteous indignation for things like Trump welcoming foreign interference in domestic elections and not saying a thing to reports of Russians paying bounties on dead American soldiers.

  15. Pres. Trump and the Republicans have been called every rotten name in the book continually. It started off years ago with the favorite racist. Then it elevated to Nazi and Hilter. They ran out of horrible names and so it elevates up to violence and we have it now. This bates action.

        2. That’s really racist to be using Mangos as a swipe against another person knowing people of color love mangos as their favorite fruit

          1. “people of color love mangos as their favorite fruit”

            Spoken like a true racist.

            I eat mangoes and watermelon every day.

            So what color does that make me in your bigoted book?

  16. NanPo has gone insane. Literally insane. The things she says are preposterous.

  17. Professor, does it hurt that much when a politician speaks the truth? It is what it is and they are what they are.

    “I have taken an oath “to defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic.”. What do I do when my government becomes the greatest enemy of the Constitution?” John Kniffin USMC Sgt-Vietnam Purple Heart Bronze Star

    My best friend and like a brother to the end never broke his oath and neither have I. The fascist, his crime family, and all his enablers are without doubt the greatest enemy of our Constitution.

    1. Uh, the Purple Heart and Bronze Star are the two lowest decorations awarded. All the former requires is a scratch and the latter is basically a commendation medal.

      1. A scratch is what got Kerry a Purple Heart. Those around him were disgusted he would lobby for it under the circumstances.

        1. Those on Kerry’s boat were fully in support of him. How does a supporter of someone like Trump have the nerve to begin questioning any medal – hey, participation in VN deserves one – won by anyone who showed up, did Apocalypse Now boat trips through the swamp, and chased down and killed a Viet Cong combatant?

    2. In light of the fact that LBJ was the reason that John Kniffin was in Vietnam, your definition of fascist obviously needs a lot of work.

    3. I’ll tell you some real enemies we got in our midst. Not political rivals, but anarchist and savages in the cities who will loot and commit arson for any reason at all.

      They are enemies and if they keep at it, they’re gonna be treated accordingly

      Then the enablers of them, like Pelosi, will be considered enemies in turn

      https://www.fox6now.com/news/multiple-buildings-set-on-fire-during-2nd-night-of-unrest-in-kenosha

      So sad, i remember when Pelosi seemed like a legit rival and not a lying snake and servant of the Devil himself

    1. Your fear is palpable, BTB.

      Prepare your safe space, Buttercup. You’re gonna need it.

      And you can thank Nancy “People will do what people do” Pelosi, and her DNC, for that reality.

      1. Rhodes — Good call. Book’s realization that the DNC show was a flop and that Biden is senile and that Kamala is a lying chameleon has him largely persuaded that Trump will win again and that is making his posts a bit more unhinged than usual. Maybe he will feel better if he goes to Kenosha and burns down a gas station to promote black lives. That’s what Democrats do these days.

    2. If you dislike Turley so much why come here every day. hard for me to understand the allure of riling oneself up over a moderate voice such as Turley.

      especially when Nancy Pelosi is using such awful and vitriolic hate speech against Republicans.

      We know she hates us too. You think she loves you? She doesnt know you and she despises us all
      anyone who dares vote against the Democrat machine will be treated ever more like so many Italians in the old neighborhoods, quavering in fear of moustache Petes coming around collecting their street tax. its a sad place for the party to be, but, I know a lot of folks smell dung and think they are whiffing roses

      1. I like to argue Kurtz. So do you. I didn’t expect JT to be a hack and am unpleasantly surprised by that fact, but it doesn’t make me unwilling to argue the facts and issues.

        1. I didn’t expect JT to be a hack and am unpleasantly surprised by that fact,

          Not that you’d notice, but your unpleasant surprise is discovering JT doesn’t share your feelings. You’re just too narcissistic to admit your feelings are rarely supported by facts. JT doesn’t have such a conflict.

        2. ok except he isn’t even close to a hack. so you’re just tossing insults at the guy who hosts this web page we use for free nearly every.

          i think pelosi is signalling to her cheerleaders that they should be mean and vitriolic and over the top too. This is a bad example on her part, and how sad that people here so far down the ladder are imitating her grave misuse of language.

          Now, i always like to turn away my ire from regular citizens like myself. Where do I want to focus my anger? Where it counts.

          So here’s my scheiss list

          A. Billionaire advocates of globalism, like Soros but plenty others including Mikey Bloomberg, Bezos, etc.,, who want free trade not fair trade so they can have the slave labor in the PRC working for them, and import cheap junk with no tariffs, and more cheap labor onshore via mass migrations.

          B. Mercenaries among hte American people, engaged in bad acts, who are under control of A. Who are they? BLM for sure, maybe others. Maybe Pelosi. Soros has given her plenty. But they are just mercs. We invite them to come off the bad guy payroll and rejoin the American people and work for our best interests against the global financial plutocracy.

          I am going to leave off my list foreigners whether they are rich and powerful like the PRC capos, or whether they are poor and hungry like the average migrant. These people have understandable motivations for things that would come at our expense. We need to focus our attention on billionaire manipulators, and their tools who come at us as the tip of the billionaire spear. The foreigners are beyond our control and reach anyways. But Americans– they are not. That’s why for me, it’s all about a and b now. Forget about the foreigners for now, we need to focus on who is acting in America, inside our walls, for the good of society, and who is not. That should be our focus.

          1. I’m sorry Kurtz, but someone who repeats falsehoods over and over in the obvious interest of selling something is a hack. JT does that.

  19. Pelosi is a frustrated octogenarian railing against the tide like King Canute but without his insight: “Let all men know how empty and worthless is the power of kings, for there is none worthy of the name, but He whom heaven, earth, and sea obey by eternal laws.”

    1. Jack, GFY, now, please. This is America and we practice democracy, imperfect enough to give the presidency to the guy with the least votes twice in the last 5 elections, but still the rule of law, If you can’t handle it GTF out. You’re not an American.

      1. Hillary Clinton has already told Biden-Harris to never concede the election. How should Trump react to that?

        1. What a surprise that an anonymous commenter claims “Hillary Clinton has already told Biden-Harris to never concede the election” and provides no evidence for it, but expects us to believe it. /s

        2. Hillary Clinton has already told Biden-Harris to never concede the election. How should Trump react to that?

          Flood internet forums with catchy avatar names while using Sock Puppets and VPN to create jobs, make George Soros richer and foment Civil War? IDK..ask CommitToHonestDiscussion for his strategy

        3. So I’ve now found what you were referring to — https://thehill.com/homenews/media/513527-hillary-clinton-biden-should-not-concede-under-any-circumstances — and they entire discussion is talking about counting ballots prior to the Electoral College vote. If you actually listen to what she’s saying, she’s talking about not conceding efforts to undermine the count of valid ballots. Was it poorly worded? Yup, she should have been clearer that she wasn’t talking about the EC vote. Unsurprising that Democrat-haters will mischaracterize though.

          1. Following that true statement Clinton listed all the things democrats have done or she would like to do to foul up the election. We have proof that is how democrats act. Just follow the Russia hoax and take note how Clinton, the DOJ and Russia were all related at one point or another.

            It is appropriate for Needs to be Committed to lie alongside Clinton. Both of them have similar ethical and moral behavior.

      2. Uh, since when is there a national election? Presidents are chosen by electoral votes awarded in STATE elections. It doesn’t matter who gets the “most” votes, but who wins the electoral college. It’s been that way since Day One of the United States of America.

        1. And it’s still unAmerican to say “We will never accept a Democratic win or rule.”

          A patriotic American will accept the EC results, including if a Democrat wins.

          1. “And it’s still unAmerican to say “We will never accept a Democratic win or rule.”

            Needs to be Committed complained about another’s quote not being documented which I later documented in a twitter video. Now she provides a quote that has not been documented and doesn’t seem to exist. She is a hypocrite.

          2. “A patriotic American will accept the EC results”

            Says one of the TDS’ers who still hasn’t accepted the results of the last election.

            Did you actually keep a straight face when you wrote that?

            1. Rhodes, if CTHD were one of the typical Trump supporters here, she’d be advocating violence now, not the legal recourse available in a democracy. If you don’t know the difference, you’re a failure as a citizen and should probably move to someplace you’d be more comfortable. Try the Phillipines or Brazil.

            2. “Says one of the TDS’ers who still hasn’t accepted the results of the last election.”

              What total bulls*t, Rhodes. Of course I accepted the results. Trump is President and Pence is V.P., and they have been since Jan. 2017.

              Lying about people is generally counterproductive, but lying in such a blatant way is nothing but trolling on your part.

              And frankly, the Trump defenders are the ones with TDS. You’ll overlook anything: criminal acts (like lying to Mueller under penalty of perjury, as documented by the bipartisan SSCI report), pathological lying (such as Trump claiming over 150 times that no one had been able to get VA Choice passed and claiming that he’d signed it, even though Obama signed it into law in 2014), …, you don’t care, anything to “own the libs,” right?

              1. “Of course I accepted the results.”

                So, constantly calling for his impeachment and removal from office for 4 years, is your definition of “accepted”?!

                What a non-surprise. If you aren’t in psychological counseling already, you should seek it out ASAP.

                As any good Psychologist or Psychiatrist will tell you, true acceptance means that you have faced up to the full reality of an unpleasant event, and stopped trying to resist it in a rigid, adversarial way.

                You haven’t accepted anything, especially the “results” of the last election. If you had, you wouldn’t have severe TDS.

                BTW, once again, I didn’t vote for Trump, or the psychopathic war criminal, named Hillary. But I realize that is difficult for you to get your head around. Since all you are capable of is the simplistic “us versus them” binary thinking that enables our thoroughly dysfunctional and corrupt two party system to stay in place.

                Which is why you are part of the core problem, and not the solution.

                1. Rhodes, your false accusations against CTHD and other Trump haters like me and most Americans aside, our elections are binary choices and will continue to be so until such time as things get really bad – like revolutionary bad (and no, we’re not even close to that) or there are reforms to our political system.

                2. “constantly calling for his impeachment and removal from office for 4 years”

                  You’re an out-and-out liar, Rhodes.
                  Which is why you cannot quote me calling for his impeachment for anything close to 4 years.

                  Take your own advice re: psychological counseling.

                  “I didn’t vote for Trump,”

                  I didn’t say you had. I said “Trump defenders are the ones with TDS.”

                  1. Rhodes wrote, “constantly calling for his impeachment and removal from office for 4 years”

                    CommitToHonestDiscussion wrote, “You’re an out-and-out liar, Rhodes.”

                    Maybe CommitToHonestDiscussion is completely ignorant or just blinded by partisan bias. CommitToHonestDiscussion might seriously consider learning something from this quote “It’s better to remain silent at the risk of being thought a fool, than to talk and remove all doubt of it.”

                    The Complete Presidential Impeachment or Removal Plans A-S

                    Plan A: Reverse the election by hijacking the Electoral College. Theory: The elected President is unfit for office and the Founders would have hated him

                    Plan B: Pre-emptive impeachment. Theory: The elected President had already committed impeachable crimes before he even ran for office, and also while he was running for office.

                    Plan C: The Emoluments Clause. Theory: An obscure constitutional provision that had never been used, never been understood to apply to businesses owned by the Chief Executive, and which should have been raised, if at all, during the campaign, now disqualified Trump from the Presidency.

                    Plan D: “Collusion with Russia” Theory: The Trump campaign, with his knowledge, had a deal with Russia to sabotage Hillay Clinton in exchange for policy rewards after Trump’s election.

                    Plan E: ”Trump is mentally ill so this should trigger the 25th Amendment.” Theory: The old Soviet theory that anyone who disagrees with the authority, in this case, progressives, must be crazy.

                    Plan F: The Maxine Waters Plan, which is to just impeach the President because Democrats want to, because they can. Theory: “Orange Man Bad!”

                    Plan G: “The President obstructed justice by firing incompetent subordinates, and that’s impeachable.” Theory: An intentionally distorted version of “obstruction of justice.”

                    Plan H: “Tweeting stupid stuff is impeachable.” Theory: “Orange Man Bad!”

                    Plan I: “Let’s relentlessly harass him and insult him and obstruct his efforts to do his job so he snaps and does something really impeachable.” Theory: Self-explanatory.

                    Plan J: Force Trump’s resignation based on alleged sexual misconduct that predated his candidacy. Theory: Orange Man Bad!”

                    Plan K: Election law violations in pay-offs to old sex-partners. Theory: A creative and unprecedented interpretation of election laws,

                    Plan L: The perjury trap: get Trump to testify under oath, then prove something he said was a lie. Theory: It worked with Clinton!

                    Plan M: Guilt by association. Prove close associates or family members violated laws. Theory: Orange Man Bad!”.

                    Plan N: Claim that Trump’s comments at his press conference with Putin were “treasonous.” Theory: Presidents can be impeached for what they say in a diplomatic context.

                    Plan O: The Mueller Report proves the Trump is unfit for office even if it did not conclude that he committed any impeachable offenses. Theory: Orange Man Bad!”

                    Plan P: “We have to impeach him because he’s daring us to and if we don’t, we let him win!” Theory: Orange Man is SO bad, that any reason to impeach him is good enough.

                    Plan Q: Impeach Trump to justify getting his taxes, and then use the presumed evidence in his taxes to impeach him. Theory: Salem, Massachusetts Bay colony, 17th Century.

                    Plan R: Rep. Adam Schiff announced on July 24 that President Trump should be impeached because he is “disloyal” to the country. Theory: “Orange Man Bad, and we’re getting desperate!”

                    Plan S: Trump should be impeached because his call to Ukrainian President Zelensky was really an effort to shake down the Ukraine and force it to “find dirt” on Joe Biden, thus “interfering” in the 2020 election even though Biden hasn’t been nominated (and won’t be), even though a President has every justification to seek evidence of a prior administration’s wrongdoing in foreign relations, and even though there isn’t a whiff of a threat of quid pro quo in the only transcript of the call, and though such implied Presidential pressure for favors large and trivial are standard practice. Theory: What other Presidents have done for over two-hundred years are impeachable when Trump uses his power similarly.

                    That list came from The Coup In Progress: Presidential Impeachment/Removal Plans

                    I’m guessing that there will be more added to that list.

                    CommitToHonestDiscussion might also consider taking the Test for Acute Propaganda-Induced Anti-Trump Hysteria Syndrome.

                    Have a nice day.

                    1. Steve, finding somewhere someplace proposing various views does not qualify as the plan of anyone who opposes Trump, and especially Congressional Democrats under the leadership of Pelosi. The facts are that in the midterms, very few Democrats ran on an impeach Trump platform, and once the Democrats took over the House, Pelosi decided – I’m sure with input from other leaders and even straw votes – to not move for impeachment. The appearance of the whistleblower evidence in late August or Sept 2019 changed that plan/strategy for reasons any principled follower of politics would understand. That you find that event not impeachable – and without explanation – is arguable, but quit the BS about Democrats planning for it from 2017 on. That did not happen.

                    2. BtB,
                      It’s become very clear that you aren’t comprehending what you’re reading or you’re not actually reading what is written. Debating you is a bit like debating with a 7th grader.

                      For God’s sake please read the following in its entirety: History In The Making

                    3. Gee Steve, thanks for not resorting to ad hominem arguments instead of responding to my clear and concise statements regarding the relative outrageousness of Pelosi’s comments vs Trump’s corrupting use of the powers of his office.

                      If you develop any guts, be sure to check back in.

                    4. PS And the facts as opposed to the talking points surrounding congressional Democrat’s plans and efforts concerning impeaching Trump.

                    5. Excellent Witherspoon. My only complaint is that you didn’t make it to Z, but I am sure you will be able to do so before the year is out.

                    6. Allan wrote, “Excellent Witherspoon. My only complaint is that you didn’t make it to Z, but I am sure you will be able to do so before the year is out.”

                      Isn’t anyone capable of reading and comprehending what I write?

                      It’s not “my” list Allan! I provided a link to the source of the list.

                    7. “Isn’t anyone capable of reading and comprehending what I write?”

                      More than able to, but the list was long so when quickly scanning to S didn’t notice much of the rest. I couldn’t care whose list it was. I knew everything on it but I liked it compiled together A-S. You have a blog and in the scanning thought you referred to your blog. You did that before.

                      If it bothers you place the link on the top of such a long list.

                    9. Steve, no one said the information wasn’t there. Learn, long posts frequently aren’t completely read especially when one recognizes all the facts. The cute thing was A to S. Take a Prilosec if your stomach can’t handle the problem and then a Xanax because it sounds like you need some sleep..

                    11. Steve,

                      I’m neither “completely ignorant” NOR “blinded by partisan bias.”

                      Pay attention to the actual exchange:
                      Rhodes: “Says one of the TDS’ers who still hasn’t accepted the results of the last election.”
                      Me: “What total bulls*t, Rhodes. Of course I accepted the results. Trump is President and Pence is V.P., and they have been since Jan. 2017.”
                      Rhodes: “So, constantly calling for his impeachment and removal from office for 4 years, is your definition of ‘accepted’?”
                      Me: “You’re an out-and-out liar, Rhodes. Which is why you cannot quote me calling for his impeachment for anything close to 4 years.”

                      I wouldn’t think that I’d need to explain this, but apparently I do: when I make a claim about myself (e.g., “I …” “you [Rhodes] cannot quote me…”), that’s not a claim about anyone else.

                      Your list and link are totally irrelevant, as they aren’t evidence of what *I* have said. If you have evidence that *I* have been “constantly calling for his impeachment and removal from office for 4 years,” present it.

                      I’m not at all hysterical, thanks for the insult though. You might take your own advice re: “seriously consider[ing] learning something from this quote …”

                    12. CommitToHonestDiscussion,
                      Your argument seems reasonable considering how you are interpreting the sentence “So, constantly calling for his impeachment and removal from office for 4 years, is your definition of ‘accepted’?” You took it as a personal attack where I interpreted that single sentence as a general statement about the political left and not specifically about you. That is why I responded as I did.

                      My link is not irrelevant when the sentence I addressed above is taken in a generalizes context. Maybe you shouldn’t immediately take everything so personally like a snowflake when there are alternate interpretations possible. Just sayin.

                    13. Steve,

                      I interpreted it as a claim about me because it was written in response to a claim I made about myself and quoted a word (“accepted”) that I used in my response. That’s not me being a “snowflake.” That’s me interpreting statements in context.

                      Again:
                      I said: “What total bulls*t, Rhodes. Of course I accepted the results. Trump is President and Pence is V.P., and they have been since Jan. 2017.”
                      And Rhodes responded: “So, constantly calling for his impeachment and removal from office for 4 years, is your definition of ‘accepted’?”

                      If Rhodes had intended “So, constantly calling for his impeachment and removal from office for 4 years, is your definition of ‘accepted’?” to be about someone *other than* me, the onus was on him/her to make that clear.

                      Your attempted insult, “Maybe you shouldn’t immediately take everything so personally like a snowflake when there are alternate interpretations possible” is counterproductive. Maybe you shouldn’t assume that I was “tak[ing] everything so personally like a snowflake” when there’s a literate reason for me to interpret Rhodes’ response as a claim about me.

                    14. CTHD, for the record I corrected Steve on the list he posted – one assumes he therefore endorses it – as it implies this was the Democrat’s plan, when it was not. I provided the facts on that which he can look up or challenge me on and I’ll do it. Instead he butted out with an insult and nothing else. Whatever his purpose, the list is nothing but talking points which no doubt some one some where said someplace, but can’t be attributed to you, the Democrats, or “the Left”, whatever that is.

                    15. BtB, agreed that the list is hyperbole, not a sincere attempt to discuss the quite varied views of Democrats throughout the country, much less an accurate discussion of either arguments or actions taken by Democrats in Congress. Someone could probably cherrypick quotes, pretending to have evidence for that list, but it wouldn’t be honest.

              2. “Trump claiming over 150 times that no one had been able to get VA Choice passed and claiming that he’d signed it, ” …… ( a bit of word twisting by this liar)

                Under Obama’s VA reform people like Needs to be Committed looked at style instead of effectiveness. Yes Obama’s Bill was passed with Obama’s usual fanfare and calming words satisfying those that virtue signal but don’t concern themselves with whether or not the bill worked.

                The bill didn’t work. Part of it was found unconstitutional so that bad employees still couldn’t be fired. The other major part permitting VA to use private care if care wasn’t being adequately implemented was faulty making it so that veterans in too many cases would end up being better off with appointments at VA facilities.

                Trump’s bills corrected those major problems so in essence Trump was responsible for twhat you praise the bill for but didn’t do. Without Trump’s bill the Obama bill never did the important jobs intended.

                In the end the 2014 Obama bill was ineffective and failed. Trumps new bill effectuated those two important needs plus some others. Obama failed where Trump succeeded with bipartisan actions. Trump is taking credit for his success and Obama should be credited for his failure.

      3. “You’re not an American.”

        We are not a democracy. We are a Constitutional Repbulic. Read your history. If you don’t like the electoral college pass an amendment getting rid of it.

        Trump won. Get over it. It’s anti-American to keep up a facade that Trump didn’t win. He did and he will win in 2020.

        Right now the democrat party supports rioting, looting, killing, the destruction of neighborhoods and loss of jobs mostly in the minority community all in order to move our Republic in a Marxist direction. We don’t hear you bellyaching about young blacks being killed in the inner citiesbut watch you promote the destruction of whatever neighborhoods exist. Who is a racist? Who is not an American? Look in a mirror.

          1. We are a Constitutional Republic. That makes a very big difference I don’t expect you to understand. Take note you couldn’t summarize your belief even using that paper (discussing the electoral college) to help you.

            Pure democracy meaning majority rule doesn’t work. 51% can vote the other 49% into slavery. It’s the Constitution you forget, but then perhaps you never understood it.

            1. 11/03/2017

              Ryan McMaken wrote:

              The claim that the United States political system is “a republic, not a democracy” is often heard in libertarian and conservative circles, and is typically invoked whenever the term “democracy” is used in any favorable context. This claim is generally invoked when the user believes one of the following:

              “I don’t like your idea, and since it involves aspects that are democratic or majoritarian, I’ll invoke the republic-not-a-democracy claim to discredit your idea.”

              “A majority of the population appears to support this idea, so I will invoke the republic-not-a-democracy claim to illustrate that the majority should be ignored.”

              Also key to these claims is to invoke the authority of “the Founding Fathers” — by which is meant the pro-centralization nationalists and not the Anti-Federalists — for the usual reasons that anyone appeals to authority rather than offer a real argument.

              _______

              Allan might want to take the time to digest the article.

              1. “The claim that the United States political system is “a republic, not a democracy” …Allan might want to take the time to digest the article.”

                You might need to take the time to read and digest the response. The comparison is not between democracy and republic. It is between democracy and constitutional republic which is a big difference. You better be careful before you are confused with Anonymous the Stupid

                  1. Anonymous the Stupid is back in his full glory. Dumber than a pile of bricks can’t see the difference between ” democracy and constitutional republic ” I wonder if the government issues him stupidity grants?

                    1. There’s a reason that Allan hangs out on this blog. Who else would want to spend time with him, when he’s running his mouth.

                    2. Allan still doesn’t get it.

                      One more time…

                      Something substantial from Eugene Volokh:

                      https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/05/13/is-the-united-states-of-america-a-republic-or-a-democracy/

                      ‘And Chief Justice John Marshall — who helped lead the fight in the 1788 Virginia Convention for ratifying the U.S. Constitution — likewise defended the Constitution in that convention by describing it as implementing “democracy” (as opposed to “despotism”), and without the need to even add the qualifier “representative.”

                      ‘To be sure, in addition to being a representative democracy, the United States is also a constitutional democracy, in which courts restrain in some measure the democratic will. And the United States is therefore also a constitutional republic. Indeed, the United States might be labeled a constitutional federal representative democracy. But where one word is used, with all the oversimplification that this necessary entails, “democracy” and “republic” both work. Indeed, since direct democracy — again, a government in which all or most laws are made by direct popular vote — would be impractical given the number and complexity of laws that pretty much any state or national government is expected to enact, it’s unsurprising that the qualifier “representative” would often be omitted. Practically speaking, representative democracy is the only democracy that’s around at any state or national level.’

                    3. Anonymous the Stupid I get what Chief Justice John Marshall says but that assumes one has a minimum of intelligence. In your case that is lacking so when the word democracy is used the best understanding is that 51% can enslave the other 49%. The reason they can’t at least in part is because the Constitution prevents it from happening in the future. When the Constitution was written slavery was accepted and a democratic vote permitted slavery to remain.

                      A representative democracy describes us better as does a constitutional republic. You have been stupid all your life so don’t stop now just because the facts keep getting in your way.

          2. Anonymous, unfortunately, a lot of ignorant (or dishonest) people say “We’re a republic, not a democracy.” We’re both a republic AND a democracy. Specifically, we’re a representative democracy in the form of a constitutional federal republic. But don’t hold your breath waiting for any of the “We’re a republic, not a democracy” claimers to accept that we’re both.

            1. There is a reason people dislike the statement we are a democracy. I’ll repeat it for those that lack the intuitive skills to understand why. Repeating it again, in a democracy 51% can enslave the other 49%. Of course I understand democrat inclination to slavery and the fact that democrats continuously wish to enslave other people so it is understandable for those same people to run away from the Constitution.

              1. Something substantial from Eugene Volokh:

                https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/05/13/is-the-united-states-of-america-a-republic-or-a-democracy/

                ‘And Chief Justice John Marshall — who helped lead the fight in the 1788 Virginia Convention for ratifying the U.S. Constitution — likewise defended the Constitution in that convention by describing it as implementing “democracy” (as opposed to “despotism”), and without the need to even add the qualifier “representative.”

                ‘To be sure, in addition to being a representative democracy, the United States is also a constitutional democracy, in which courts restrain in some measure the democratic will. And the United States is therefore also a constitutional republic. Indeed, the United States might be labeled a constitutional federal representative democracy. But where one word is used, with all the oversimplification that this necessary entails, “democracy” and “republic” both work. Indeed, since direct democracy — again, a government in which all or most laws are made by direct popular vote — would be impractical given the number and complexity of laws that pretty much any state or national government is expected to enact, it’s unsurprising that the qualifier “representative” would often be omitted. Practically speaking, representative democracy is the only democracy that’s around at any state or national level.’

        2. We are a democracy. A republic is a subset of the larger set,. democracies.

          Winner take all state EC delegations are not in the constitution, nor were the first ones of this type.

          It’s “Democratic” not “democrat”

          You did spell neighborhood correctly.

          1. Thank you for giving Americans Trump. We thank you also in advance for giving him a second term because
            crazies are gonna crazy

            “Who gave us Trump?”

            Who gave us President Trump? Largely the people who complain most about him and seem most disturbed by his rise.

            President Barack Obama helped give us Trump when he failed to tend to and build up his party. Sworn in with healthy majorities in both houses of Congress, he sacrificed them over four successive elections to his policy obsessions, especially healthcare, which played a massive role in both 2010 and 2014. The rout two years later, when he was not on the ballot, completed the damage. No, Obama never lost an election, but he did so much damage to his own party that he left it at its lowest ebb in a great many years.

            Gone with the wind was a generation of rising young Democrats, House members, and members of state legislators who never got to be senators or sit in state houses, senators and governors who some years later might have run against Trump and won.

            Though he always retained his own personal following, Obama never quite put his own stamp on his party. He never named or tried to build up a successor. He never offered resistance to the Clintons, who stepped with great gusto and determination into the void he had created. How many Democrats who might have stopped Trump fell in the healthcare-fueled losses of all those elections? It’s something we’ll never know now.

            And let’s not forget our good friends the Clintons, who from their twenties had planned his-and-hers presidencies, and who, after their first attempt fizzled because of Obama, were ready to try it again. They spent the years in between clearing the field of potential opponents with their money and power, so that no one dared run except the eccentric Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, who still gave her a real fight.

            Would any of those whom former President Bill Clinton had scared off have managed to win the 77,000 plus votes in the Midwest, which turned out to make the difference? It took talent to scare off more people than Trump, but she managed to do it. It was her race to lose, and she did.

            Others who made Trump include the Bushes, who decided two presidents just wasn’t enough for their favorite family. They went for the trifecta in Jeb Bush. But the third time wasn’t the charm for this loyal contingent, which found out the hard way and at just the wrong moment that its talent and luck had run out. Whatever Bush had in his two terms as governor, when he was rightly described as the best in the country, was already long gone by the time he entered the race in 2015 and was running on empty, the perfect foil for Trump to mock and beat up on, part of the case that he made that the establishment forces were depleted and past their prime.

            Bush hung in just long enough to draw votes away from many more viable candidates and left only after the damage he’d done had become irreparable.

            Who gave us Trump? The Obamas, the Clintons, and the Bushes. They put their own forms of self-interest over the good of the country and still may not realize what they did.

          2. Btb, that you also don’t recognize that we are a Constitutional Republic is not surprising. You have little understanding of the world you were born into and your ability to incorporate new knowledge has always been severely limited.

            1. Something substantial from Eugene Volokh:

              https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/05/13/is-the-united-states-of-america-a-republic-or-a-democracy/

              ‘And Chief Justice John Marshall — who helped lead the fight in the 1788 Virginia Convention for ratifying the U.S. Constitution — likewise defended the Constitution in that convention by describing it as implementing “democracy” (as opposed to “despotism”), and without the need to even add the qualifier “representative.”

              ‘To be sure, in addition to being a representative democracy, the United States is also a constitutional democracy, in which courts restrain in some measure the democratic will. And the United States is therefore also a constitutional republic. Indeed, the United States might be labeled a constitutional federal representative democracy. But where one word is used, with all the oversimplification that this necessary entails, “democracy” and “republic” both work. Indeed, since direct democracy — again, a government in which all or most laws are made by direct popular vote — would be impractical given the number and complexity of laws that pretty much any state or national government is expected to enact, it’s unsurprising that the qualifier “representative” would often be omitted. Practically speaking, representative democracy is the only democracy that’s around at any state or national level.’

      4. Good Lord, you are acting, incorrectly, like all votes for Hillary were legal. Big cities and their suburbs delivered millions of illegal vites. Trump probable won by 2 million votes.

    2. ‘Scorched Earth’. Come November, start by scorching your traitorous attitude. Americans are Americans because they rely upon the freedom, right, and responsibility to vote and then accept it. Every American has had to accept this shame, this disgrace, this tragedy of an imbecile in the White House for the past four years. Every American will have to accept deliverance from this travesty of a President that is Trump, along with his litter.

      3. We’re neither no longer a functioning republic nor a democracy. We’re a bloated, largely unaccountable, administrative welfare state that pretends to be a “democracy”.

        If we were a democracy, then we’d expect the loser to readily concede and respect the election results. Something Hillary Clinton and most Democrats have refused to do.

        Rather than concede on election night, which is the norm and what someone who respects democracy and the results of the election would do, Hillary Clinton sat in her hotel room with strategists and devised a scheme to de-legitmize Trump’s win. They settled on pushing a narrative to their compatriots in the media that her loss was the result of Russian interference. Her campaign spent almost $2 billion and outspent Trump by a factor of almost 2:1, yet Democrats want people to believe that less than $100,000 in ineffective Russian Facebook ads caused her to lose. Everybody on your side pretends to believe this horsesh!t.

        Democrat Stacey Abrams still refuses to concede she lost in Georgia. Andrew Gilliam refused to concede in Florida for days. He later found himself in a hotel room full of drugs and a homosexual prostitute. Stuart Smalley refused to concede in a close election in Minnesota. Amazingly, a few hundred ballots were later found in a car trunk to put him over the top.

        Your side has jumped from one bullsh!t conspiracy theory to the next to de-legitimize Trump: That he colluded with Russia; that his suggestion to a foreign leader to look into possible Hunter Biden corruption is an impeachable offense; now to this newest bullsh!t about a post office conspiracy.

        Your party refuses to change its messaging to try to appeal to the people in more states which would enable it to win the electoral college. Rather than change its messaging so it can win based on the current rules, your party wants to wreck the constitutional order: it declares it wants to stack the Supreme Court (likely with far left activists); end the legislative filibuster in the Senate; do away with the electoral college; give citizenship and voting rights to several millions of illegal invaders who Democrats have good reason to believe will overwhelmingly vote Democrat. All because your side does not respect the constitutional order. Or accept Clinton’s defeat.

        A Democrat operative tried to massacre a baseball field full of elected Republicans because your side lost an election. On inauguration day, many elected Democrats refused to attend the inauguration to recognize the election and the peaceful transfer of power. Democrat voters, instead, chose to engage in property damage in DC. They next day they dressed up like vaginas and invited celebrities such as Madonna to attend where she openly opined she’d like to blow up the White House. All because Democrats refused to accept the results of the election.

        Now the Speaker openly calls Trump and the Republicans enemies.

        But you lecture Jack about how losers have to accept defeat in “democracy”.

        Seriously, why don’t you and By the Book GF each other?

        2. Scott, are you moving soon? You know you and Jack aren’t doing “scorched earth” and clearly you can’t handle democracy without threatening other people. If you stay under the bridge and yell at traffic, the cops will probably leave you alone. Just a tip.

      4. “Every American has had to accept this”

        You haven’t accepted his election, and you never will, Isaac.

        That’s because you received far too many participation trophies while you were a youth.

        And thanks to Pelosi and her fellow unhinged wingnuts in your Party condoning violence, looting,destruction of property, and most importantly, defunding the police, he will win again.

        Which is when you, and your fellow TDS ilk, will go completely off the rails.

        1. Bug, as long as you keep killing black babies (bad) and hispanics see family and religion being targetted by democrats (bad) the left will continue to lose votes from the minorities.

          BLM is typically Marxist revolution type talk of the Stalinist persuasion. If they ever get firmly established the killings will become almost normal and after the enemies are dead or silenced your group follows. Why? You supported them but believe you have a right to your own particular ideas. To them you are more dangerous than the enemy.

          1. What does anything you just said have *anything* to do with what I said?

            You get an A for creativity and running right into the bitter nightmare world between your ears, an F- for staying within the constraints of reality.

            1. I didn’t realize that my comment would provoke you into revealing how dense you are.

              1. Your comment was only a comment in the loosest sense. And there isn’t a day on this blog where I’m not impressed with the depths to where you take your own stupidity, Allan. It’s sort of a perverse talent that you sharpen and polish on a daily basis. Honored to come across someone so creative with dumb f&*ckery they have no idea what they’re talking about on every single issue.

                1. Bug, I see your fog is dissipating slightly…, but not enough for you to advance into the submoron group.

        2. Hey bug who is “you.” you write like a white cracker liberal. ergo that “you” which is shrinking is actually a “we”

          do you favor your own diminution?

          here’s a little secret, the native born black population is not growing much either.

          the hispanic and asian and african migrant populations are growing

          but however many come across the bow, almost every group backs down its fertility once they’ve been onshore for 20 years.

          I would not be so fast to count out native born white people as a relevant demographic.
          if we didn’t matter then why would BLM be so aggressively tring to intimidate us?
          it’s gonna take more than they threw at the task so far. so far that’s just pissing people off.

          anyhow think carefully about who is “we”

          like that business in kenosha that said “black lives matter” and a car is on fire right below it. some appreciation they have for their “supporters”

          https://www.lawofficer.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/CAR-DEALERSHIP-1094×570.png

          1. Funny thing Kurtz is that nowhere in what I wrote did I count out a native born white population as a relevant demographic. That’s all you and what’s between your ears on that one.

            Look I went to high school in Denver during forced busing. I’m totally familiar with what the races gravitate toward in the lunch room. Sitting amongst people from their own neighborhoods and such. Best thing was when a food fight broke out, all racial separatism disappeared. And I was a basketball player spending the majority of my time with black kids — it brought all kinds of hell from racist whites in my own neighborhood. I appreciate the Klan pep talk you’re giving and all but you’re lecturing the thoughts going through your own head.

            i leave you to your nightmares.

            1. I dont have nightmares. I sleep well every night, secure in the fact that I am both law abiding, and prepared for the most likely contingencies.

              I have no association with KKK whatsoever. Not that it exists much past a few bozos swilling beers in a basement somewhere or a grifter selling “memberships” to lonely and atomized naifs. I do associate with normal human beings who look down and see their own white skin and realize they are being demonized and targeted for intimidation by BLM racketeers. For them my message is that we have a legal constitutional and human right to freely associate for our own legitimate social interests and that most certainly includes political organizing too. and now is a good time to begin exercising that right, lest we be marginalized, by whatever emergent circumstances.

              Anyhow, our partner in dialogue Enigma was a college baller. You and he could get together for “hoops” I will mail you a ten spot for beers if you do

Comments are closed.