Columns, Congress, Politics

From Packing to Sacking, Democrats Pledge Politics “By Any Means Necessary”

In the Age of Rage, no institution or process appears inviolate.  When the majority of the Supreme Court shifted right, liberal academics and members demanded court packing — a practice long denounced as anathema to the rule of law. When the Supreme Court commission voiced concerns over court packing, it was denounced by liberal groups and two of the few conservative members resigned during the outcry. Academics have been called to “redo” the First Amendment after it became an impediment to social justice efforts. It is not surprising, therefore, that some of the same activists are now calling for the sacking of Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough. Her offense? She rendered a non-partisan judgment that Democrats could not push through the sweeping immigration reform package as part of the budget reconciliation process. Like the Supreme Court, the Parliamentarian was now an impediment to politics so she or her authority (or both) will have to go. Democratic members and staff are repeating the same menacing mantra that is now familiar in Washington of politics “by any means necessary.“

Democrats previously called for firing MacDonough when she ruled against them on a legislative issue. Rep. Ilhan Omar (D., Minn.) called for the the Senate to “replace the parliamentarian. What’s a Democratic majority if we can’t pass our priority bills? This is unacceptable.” Similar calls followed this decision. After all, what is the value of having a majority if you cannot do whatever you want in the way you want to do it?

That was the same question asked when the filibuster rule became an impediment rather than a benefit for members. For years, Democrats defended the rule as essential for the Senate in protecting minority rights. “God save us from that fate … [it] would change this fundamental understanding and unbroken practice of what the Senate is all about.” That included then Sen. Joe Biden and his colleagues, including then-Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) and now-Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.). To their credit, the Republicans refused to kill the rule despite calls to do so from President Donald Trump when they had the majority. However, once the majority shifted, the filibuster rule became one more casualty of convenience.

In the latest controversy, MacDonough was conducting what is referred to as the “Byrd bath” — a non-partisan function named after the late Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., during which the Senate parliamentarian ensures that every provision inside a reconciliation bill is tied to the budget. The immigration reform is clearly not a budget item, but the Democrats want to use reconciliation to bypass the filibuster rule and to use Vice President Kamala Harris to cast the deciding vote in a 50-50 tie.

The Byrd Bath process is meant to protect the Senate’s traditions of compromise and deliberation by preventing such efforts at end running the filibuster or the legislative process. The ruling of the Parliamentarian is not binding but comes with the force of a non-partisan professional applying these rules evenly and fairly. MacDonough did that.

There is little tolerance today, however, for jurists or clerks who reach their own conclusions on the merits of such questions. It is the wrong conclusion so MacDonough or her ruling would have to be removed.

Even if MacDonough keeps her job, various members are calling for a rare override of the ruling while others want the Democrats to simply pick a Senator for the chair who is willing to ignore the Parliamentarian and just follow pure muscle politics. Democratic members and staff are repeating the same menacing mantra that is now familiar in Washington “by any means necessary.”

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.) who came out for court packing the same week, declared simply that MacDonough was “wrong” and, like her colleagues, emphasized that “we’re keeping all options on the table.” Likewise, Majority Leader Charles Schumer (D., N.Y.), and Sens.  Dick Durbin (D., Ill.), Bob Menendez (D., N.J.), Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.) and Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) all indicated a willingness to override or ignore the ruling.

For her part,  Sen. Mazie Hirono (D., Hawaii) made it personal by not only saying “all options” are on the table but “the protection of millions of undocumented immigrants cannot be halted due to the advice of 1 person.”

Of course, it is not the decision of one person. The rule itself was adopted by the Senate as a whole as a matter of principle before that principle came with a cost. The rule was then implemented by not just the Parliamentarian but her entire apolitical staff.

Hirono’s response captured the ends-over-means mentality of modern American politics. Rather than address the purpose of the rule or the nonpartisan judgment on its meaning, Hirono just cited the value of making millions of undocumented immigrants citizens and then juxtaposed their fate against the decision of one person. MacDonough was not enforcing a rule, she was putting millions into harm’s way.

It was reminiscent of Rep. Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez justifying court packing by questioning “just, functionally, the idea that nine people, that a nine person court, can overturn laws that thousand– hundreds and thousands of legislators, advocates and policymakers drew consensus on.” She then added “How much does the current structure benefit us? And I don’t think it does.”

When the Byrd rule no longer benefited the Senate Democrats, it likewise became as expendable as the person who enforced it.

Thus, one plan would have Harris simply ignore the Parliamentarian and the rules. The implications of that move has a few Democrats uneasy over, what Sen. Ben Cardin (D., Md.) acknowledged would be “a pretty dramatic change” and a “direct attack with the parliamentarian.”

Sen. Joe Manchin (D, W.Va.) has also insisted that you have to “stick with the parliamentarian … on every issue. You can’t pick and choose.” (Manchin later also said that he would vote no on the Build Back Better bill). Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.) also insisted that “there is no instance in which I would overrule a parliamentarian’s decision.”

That is not a lot of members but it would be enough to halt the effort to bulldoze the parliamentarian on immigration. However, the immediate response of Democratic members and groups captured how principle has little place in politics today. No institution or individual is a barrier when members have embraced politics “by any means necessary.”

86 thoughts on “From Packing to Sacking, Democrats Pledge Politics “By Any Means Necessary””

  1. Jonathan: You say Democrats have abandoned parliamentarianism: “No institution or individual is a barrier when members [Dems] have embraced politics by any means necessary”. What you choose to intentionally ignore is that Trump and the GOP are the ones who have employed the tactic of trying to hold onto power “by any means necessary”. We saw this on Jan. 6 when Trump supporters stormed the Capitol to keep Trump in power. We have learned through the House select committee investigation that Trump, his chief of staff Mark Meadows, other members of the administration, members of the GOP and other Trump supporters planned and executed the insurrection. It was the big “lie” about a “stolen” election. Even today 78% of the GOP and Trump supporters don’t believe Biden won. Today the GOP is hard at work trying to suppress the vote so that Trump can win in 2024 and passing laws that will permit the selection of alternative electors in case Trump, or whoever the GOP nominee is, actually losses. The real question you have to ask your self is this. Had Biden lost to Trump would the Dems have tried to overturn the election via an insurrection? I think you know the answer.

    1. insurrection is utter hyperbolic nonsense. It is pure Reichstag fire following the St. Floyd Kristallnacht looting festival. The next act massive rioting and looting over Roe v Wade.I would take all the Ukrainians here and give them priority over anyone who came here along with any white South Africans. Then you would hear a scream .

  3. People working on Wall Street refer to Joe Mancini as “a WOP”. What does that mean? One broker said With Out Papers. Another said: Sicilian

    Is he a democrat?

  4. There should be political movement that is dedicated to the destruction of the human race.

  5. It is bad enough that leftists want to punish you for speaking the wrong way, but they also
    want to punish you for voting the wrong way.

  6. So what? The Rs have been playing hard ball politics for a long time. Why is it wrong for the Ds to do the same?

    1. A Dictatorship of Relativism is what has gotten our country into the mess atheists have orchestrated. Thank Earl Warren for that.

      Today, having a clear faith based on the Creed of the Church is often labeled as fundamentalism. Whereas relativism, that is, letting oneself be “tossed here and there, carried about by every wind of doctrine”, seems the only attitude that can cope with modern times. We are building a dictatorship of relativism that does not recognize anything as definitive and whose ultimate goal consists solely of one’s own ego and desires.

      MASS: PRO ELIGENDO ROMANO PONTIFICE

      HOMILY OF HIS EMINENCE CARD. JOSEPH RATZINGER
      DEAN OF THE COLLEGE OF CARDINALS

      Vatican Basilica
      Monday 18 April 2005

      https://www.vatican.va/gpII/documents/homily-pro-eligendo-pontifice_20050418_en.html

      1. “Relativism is what has gotten our country into [a] mess . . .”

        That is true. And the “solution” religionists propose — moral dogmatism — is just as destructive. Relativism or dogmatism is a false alternative, as old as ancient Greece. For a third, correct alternative, try: moral absolutes based on this-worldly facts and reason.

    1. “The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. … What country before ever existed a century and half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.”
      ~Thos. Jefferson

    2. The beauty of Democracy is that the people can self correct past wrongs. ie, the 13,14, and 15th amendments.
      Since Biden has taken office, democrats have been working overtime trying to covince voters unless all the democrat wish list is passed, by Christmas, democracy is dead. No mention that Congress is exactly the same for an entire year yet. There is no crisis of time. AND in twelve months, a new Congress can right what ever wrongs have happened.

    2. “From Packing to Sacking, Democrats Pledge Politics “By Any Means Necessary”

      – Professor Turley
      ______________

      Packing and sacking by any means necessary with the extreme prejudice of personal bias is what the New York Attorney General Letitia James proposes.

      It is what she should be impeached, convicted and criminally prosecuted for – abuse of power as a “hate crime” and aggravated, blatant malicious prosecution against President Donald J. Trump.

  10. However, the immediate response of Democratic members and groups captured how principle has little place in politics today. No institution or individual is a barrier when members have embraced politics “by any means necessary.”

    Yet Biden’s handlers and MSM acolytes are mystified Brandon’s polling numbers suck. Recall this gem:

    Look, we know what we need to do to beat this virus: Tell the truth. Follow the scientists and the science. Work together. Put trust and faith in our government to fulfill its most important function, which is protecting the American people — no function more important.
    – Remarks by President Biden on the Anniversary of the COVID-⁠19 Shutdown
    MARCH 11, 2021

    Such hubris, and this from a man with early dementia, and a dirty rotten scoundrel son who has proven his father was a eunuch when it came to leading at home. Spineless and detached from his own offspring.

    Gerard Baker was on fire today:

    When the president made those remarks, 527,726 Covid-19 deaths had been reported in America. We know the number precisely because he told us, citing the card he said he carried with him every day. If he still has that card in his pocket, it will now register a number above 800,000. How can this be? Didn’t he say he knew what to do? Didn’t we just have to follow the science and trust the government?

    Those liberal geniuses who told us they could manage the economy like a well-honed machine have managed to create the highest inflation in nearly 40 years, eroding real wages and imperiling economic stability. The brilliant ideologues who run our cities have presided over a surge in violent crime that has reduced life for many residents to a real-life dystopia. Those omniscient technocrats who know how to devise and implement a humane and functioning immigration policy have left us with a border in name only and chaos and lawlessness to accompany it. The strategic geniuses who told us “America is back” produced a debacle in Afghanistan whose full ramifications for U.S. security we haven’t even begun to see.

    And just this past weekend we saw how those masters of Washington’s legislative process couldn’t craft a bill that would bring along their own party to support it. It took the moderate Sen. Joe Manchin to save the progressives from the consequences of their ideological arrogance and governing ineptitude.

    In short, the party that constantly seeks control over our lives is now governing—or failing to govern—a nation that is spinning wildly out of control.

    It’s not too harsh a judgment to say that this is a man who has risen to the top of American public life without a trace of accomplishment. When you’ve been in national politics for almost 50 years, you ought to have achieved something, if only by accident. But this journeyman politician, when he wasn’t getting almost all the big issues wrong, was largely a bystander. He is now a husk of a leader, a dangerously debilitated figure, who oscillates between displays of vacuous incoherence and weird, angry outbursts, like a confused old man at the wrong bus stop.

    Meanwhile, a heartbeat and a spine-chilling cackle away from the presidency, is another living rebuke to the idea that government is virtuous and wise. Vice President Kamala Harris has demonstrated, evidently to the alarm of much of her own staff, that she is simply another of Mr. Biden’s many mistakes—perhaps the biggest one yet. It is a dismaying state of affairs that we must all pray nightly for the continued health of an inept president to avert the calamity of a worse one.

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/biden-progressive-example-covid-omicron-inflation-wages-afghanistan-border-crime-harris-11640011955

    By any means necessary could prove to be the final salvo that pushes Americans to oust the bluecoats

  11. The willingness of some Democrats to consider all options and any means necessary with respect to the parliamentarian and the Supreme Court is a valuable lesson they learned from Republicans. In May 2001, Republicans removed the Senate parliamentarian because of a disagreement with recent rulings. In 2016, Republicans refused to even consider (no hearings or votes) the Supreme Court nomination of Garland.

    2. “Republicans refused to even consider (no hearings or votes) the Supreme Court nomination of Garland.”

      Acting on “advice and consent” is *not* an example of “by any means necessary.” It’s just the opposite. It’s action based on a principle — a Constitutional principle some two centuries old, practiced by both parties countless times.

      “In May 2001, Republicans removed the Senate parliamentarian . . .”

      That does seem to be an example of “by any means necessary.” Which goes to prove that pragmatism infects both parties. But what you failed to mention is that Dove (the then-parliamentarian) was first dismissed by the D’s in 1997.

      When you’re criticizing some for employing “by any means necessary,” it’s not a good idea to use “by any means necessary.”

  12. If the Constitution stands in their way, they’ll ignore it.

    Remember that.

    This is why the Founding Fathers limited government. To protect against tyranny. Power is a temptation.

    1. This is why the Founding Fathers tried to limit government.

      Karen,
      They were a skosh, overly idealistic. Their fatal flaw was in trying to restrict the vote by anything other than citizenship and civics literacy.

  13. “From Packing to Sacking, Democrats Pledge Politics “By Any Means Necessary”

    – Professor Turley
    ______________

    Packing and sacking by any means necessary with the extreme prejudice of personal bias is what the New York Attorney General Letitia James proposes.

    It is what she should be impeached, convicted and criminally prosecuted for – abuse of power as a “hate crime” and aggravated, blatant malicious prosecution against President Donald J. Trump.

  14. Using the clear English language of the U.S. Constitution, 0n May 28, 1861, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, Roger B. Taney, informed the President of the United States, Abraham Lincoln, that his actions to suspend habeas corpus were illicit and unconstitutional. Abuse of power and usurpation of power are certainly grounds for impeachment and conviction.

    The current Chief Justice must similarly act to vigorously support the Constitution as the oath he swore requires and communicate to the President and Congress that what they have done and continue to do through their support and maintenance of the welfare state is clearly illicit and unconstitutional. The entire American welfare state has been unconstitutional since its inception in the early 20th century. Violations of fundamental law must be forcefully communicated to the offenders and high criminals.
    _____________________________________________________________________

    “On May 28, Taney issued an oral opinion, which was followed by a written opinion a few days later. He stated that the Constitution clearly intended for Congress, and not the President, to have to power to suspend the writ during emergencies.

    “’The clause in the Constitution which authorizes the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is in the ninth section of the first article. This article is devoted to the Legislative Department of the United States, and has not the slightest reference to the Executive Department,’ Taney argued. ‘I can see no ground whatever for supposing that the President in any emergency or in any state of things can authorize the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, or arrest a citizen except in aid of the judicial power,’ Taney concluded.

    “However, Taney noted that he didn’t have the physical power to enforce the writ in this case because of the nature of the conflict at hand. “I have exercised all the power which the Constitution and laws confer on me, but that power has been resisted by a force too strong for me to overcome,” he said. But Taney did order that a copy of his opinion be sent directly to President Lincoln.”

    – National Constitution Center

  15. Pelosi recently said regarding the crime wave afflicting this country: It’s absolutely outrageous. Obviously, it cannot continue. But the fact [is] that there is an attitude of lawlessness in our country that springs from I don’t know where … and we cannot have that lawlessness become the norm. It must be stopped, and it’s not just San Francisco. It’s in our entire country.

    Now where would violators of the law get the idea that the law does not apply to them? The root cause of lawlessness in a city might be easily identified and corrected. But what if there is a culture of lawlessness infecting the entire country? What could possible be the root cause of such a national crisis? Where would a culture ever get the idea that living under the rule of law applies to some people, but not everyone?

    I’d say we don’t need to look any further than the very people that swear an oath to our rule of law, the constitution.

    “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.”

    How many people understand that those elected to serve in government, that take an oath, are not gifted with special powers to defy human nature. How many people truly understand why we need a government in the first place and then why we have a constitution? The best thing that could happen to the citizens of this country would be to view every person, Republican, Democrat, Independent, etc., serving in government, as a threat to their life, liberty and property. Patrick Henry had it right: Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who comes near that precious jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. When you give up that force, you are ruined.”

    How many of our current oath-takers are actually wolves in sheep clothing, and subscribe to an entirely different legal theory that is hostile to our constitution?

    Critical legal studies (CLS) is a sometimes revolutionary movement that challenges and seeks to overturn accepted norms and standards in legal theory and practice. CLS seeks to fundamentally alter Jurisprudence, exposing it as not a rational system of accumulated wisdom but an ideology that supports and makes possible an unjust political system. CLS scholars attempt to debunk the law’s pretensions to determinacy, neutrality, and objectivity. The law, in CLS scholarship, is a tool used by the establishment to maintain its power and domination over an unequal status quo. Openly a movement of leftist politics, CLS seeks to subvert the philosophical and political authority of what it sees as an unjust social system. CLS advances a theoretical and practical project of reconstruction of the law and of society itself. CLS is also a membership organization that seeks to advance its own cause and that of its members.
    https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Critical+legal+theory

    1. Nancy Pelosi didn’t care when there were so many thefts that Walgreens closed locations in San Francisco. She didn’t care when small businesses suffered so much shoplifting that some had to close.

      Remember when Democrats were still denying that massive shoplifting was a problem, since most were not reported? Once they raised the felony threshold to $950, people shoplifted with near impunity. Cops wouldn’t make arrests, and their DA wouldn’t prosecute. Since there was no paper trail, Democrats used to pretend that the massive increase in shoplifting wasn’t happening, though retailers had the loss receipts to prove it.

      That all changed when Louis Vuitton got hit by organized theft rings.

      1. One would think these politicians are listening to their investment portfolio advisors, instead of their constituents.

  16. Old guy says: “these are the people you are dealing with — they are not amenable to rational argumentation, nor do they acknowledge tradition or respect fundamental laws. For them, the rule of law is what they say it is. ”

    These words describe Trump and Republicans perfectly, Losing in the polls? Get Russian pals to spread lies about your opponent, and tip them off as to the districts where the lies will be most-effective, based on insider polling information. When you are investigated for doing this, refuse to cooperate, refuse to produce documents, and then when they can’t gather enough facts for a criminal indictment because of your refusal to cooperate, claim you won on the merits. Losing in the polls a second time? Accuse Democrats, the Chinese, the Venezuelans and anyone else you can think of of fixing the election. Start lying even before Election Day, accuse every Secretary of State of cheating to help your opponent, make up lies about false ballots and manipulated ballot counting, fire the heat of Cybersecurity when he says the election was secure, fire the AG when he says there was no fraud, refuse to concede, take a victory lap at 2:00 a.m. even though you know you lost, try to get swing state Secretaries of State to “find” votes, file dozens of lawsuits filled with lies (that even got your attorney’s law license suspended), hold rallies to tell your fans that the election was “stolen” from them, try to bully the VP into refusing valid election results, and, when all else fails, induce your supporters to storm the Capitol and take it by force to prevent the certified election results from being accepted and your opponent being declared the winner.

    Never, ever, stop lying. Never, ever, concede. As long as the cameras are rolling, keep on lying, keep pretending you are in power. Do everything possible to scuttle the success of the actual election winner and keep power, so that you can “primary” any member of your party who won’t go along with the Big Lie. Never shut up and never go away, so long as you can keep the faithful coming back. Get your crazier disciples to make all sorts of false predictions that you will be “restored” to your “rightful” office of President. Yeah, these are the people Americans are dealing with, who are not amenable to rational arguments, who do not acknowledge nor respect tradition or rightful laws, and for whom the rule of law is whatever their fat hero says it is.

    2. “Never, ever, stop lying. Never, ever, concede.” Sounds like the mantra of not only both major political parties, but the media, corporations and too many special interest groups to name. And our society simply allows it to be the norm. Shame on us.

    3. I knew that somebody would sputter “But…but…Trump…Mean tweets…” Thanks for ignoring the topic. Thanks for not disappointing us. We’ve learned that policy discussions that make the Democrats look like the unprincipled scheming grifters they are will inevitable bring out the crybullies who have nothing more intelligent to say than whining “Orange Man Bad.” I’m sure if you had something intelligent and thoughtful to say… Oh never mind. Why speculate over something less likely than unicorns eating the dandelions?
      Peace, my friend. And again, my thanks for your predictability.

      1. Juliet Bravo: the claim that Trump’s endless lies are nothing more than just “mean tweets” is an alt-right talking point. He has put out mean-spirited tweets, but that’s not what i was talking about. I was talking about lies, especially the Big Lie, all to hang onto power he cheated to get in the first place, and the power that he continues to try to wield despite the wishes of the majority of Americans. As a true disciple, you have been conditioned to divert to non-substantive responses to valid points about facts that cannot be disputed.

        1. I was talking about lies, especially the Big Lie, all to hang onto power he cheated to get in the first place, and the power that he continues to try to wield despite the wishes of the majority of Americans.

          You’re lying about lies, especially the Biggest Lie of them all; the Russia/Trump collusion hoax. Trump wields no power over a minority, let alone majority of the American people. What he did was awaken a majority of American people who now know they were better off under his administration than the current one.

          1. OK, Ollie. If the Mueller investigation was just a hoax, then why didn’t your hero cooperate, produce documents, and why did Dan Coats, head of all US intelligence, make clear that Russians DID interfere in 2016 to help Trump win? Why did a Republican committee agree that Russians helped him cheat?

            Trump nauseates the majority of the American people, who didn’t vote for him in 2016 or 2020, who never approved of him in 4 years’ time, and who wanted him gone. The problems America is facing now are the direct and proximate result of Trump’s incompetence: his lies about the severity of the pandemic cost at least 130,000 unnecessary deaths and allowed the virus to spread and replicate, which encouraged the development of the Omicron and Delta variants, because if COVID had been gotten under control sooner by encouraging masks, sanitation and social distancing, instead of lying–i.e., “Fifteen cases will soon be zero cases”–we wouldn’t have these endless surges. The more COVID cases, the more chances for the virus to replicate into variants that are easier to catch and spread. We are still recovering form his mishandling of the economy, which created the worst recession since the Great Depression. And, he inherited a succesful economy, unlike Biden, who inherited a mess: an economy in the toilet, a pandemic out of control, and a crummy contract with the Taliban that made the Afghanistan withdrawal difficult, and left us without an air base or ongoing presence. All thanks to Trump. No, “we” weren’t better off at all. More of us would be dead now if “we” Americans hadn’t voted him out.

            1. I can’t believe all you people have forgotten about covid. That should “Trump” anything else that’s going on. After all keeping the people focused on the virus is essential to taking the focus on how the dims have screwed up the country from top to bottom. Never fail to take advantage of a crisis.

            2. Is this the same Mueller who let 2 innocent men rot in jail? One of them died there. Is this the same Mueller who gave protection to whitey Bulger so they could go after the Italian mafia. While under Muellers protection whitey continued to run his criminal enterprise which included murder. Yeah, Mueller is a real stand up guy.

      2. I knew that somebody would sputter “But…but…Trump…Mean tweets…” Thanks for ignoring the topic. Thanks for not disappointing us. We’ve learned that policy discussions that make the Democrats look like the unprincipled scheming grifters they are will inevitable bring out the crybullies who have nothing more intelligent to say than whining “Orange Man Bad.” I’m sure if you had something intelligent and thoughtful to say… Oh never mind. Why speculate over something less likely than unicorns eating the dandelions?
        Peace, my friend. And again, my thanks for your predictability.

        Best comment on this forum in months. Many thanks

    4. I think your comments need to be reviewed in a new light as both political parties are not the standard barrier for truth, honesty and the American Way.

      Your never “Trump till death do us part” attitude only enables your brain to be one sided; I am no fan of Trump but at least we did not have runaway inflation, military buildup at the Ukraine boarder, a majestic defeat in Afghanistan, a crime scene called America, a record number of homicides in US cities, Covid-Covid- Covid just to name a few issues that face Americans everyday.

      I remember Watergate well as I was in and around government at the time. Watergate was about a second rate burglary on a Democratic candidate by some bad actors in the oval office and the Committee to Elect the President. The coverup is what got Nixon. Criminal Yes. Bad Yes. However, Russia Gate was a conspiracy of several agencies i.e. FBI, CIA, DOJ, against a SITTING, DULY Elected President of these United States. This is worse than Watergate and there is NO comparison. This is the “BIGGEST LIE.”

      Let’s go down memory lane…….

      The Russia Collusion story has been debunked, have you been a cave for the last year?;
      Stacy Abrams has refused to concede an election;
      Donald Trump followed Stacy Abrams lead and refused to acknowledge defeat;
      #Resistance;
      Celebrating criminals;
      Hillary Clinton reads a “I should’ve won speech” that is fawned over by the media;
      Hillary Clinton “cleans” her hard drive before an investigation, was Jeffrey Epstein emails on that hard drive?;
      Hunter Biden sells “art” for a more than a Picasso brings, and that’s OK,
      Joe “Big Guy” Biden gets a piece of the Hunter Biden action, and nobody says a thing;
      January 6th happens, a riot occurs and some call it an insurrection i.e. a revolution with out guns”
      Where is Roy Epps?;
      Nancy Pelosi says its OK for Congressman and Senators to invest in stocks and bonds and they have insider trading;
      51 Senators is not a majority; and
      Pack the court.

      Taking down statutes you don’t like is no better than the Taliban taking down 1,000 year old Buddhist carvings in the Khmer Rouge;
      ISIS destroying centuries old Jewish shrines; and
      Anarchists and Antifa destroying anything in their path.

      I do not want Donald Trump as President. However, after this Biden disaster, I think I would take anyone that can put two coherent sentences together that stands for law and order.

      2. “I think I would take anyone that can put two coherent sentences together that stands for law and order.” Unfortunately, good luck finding those two qualities in the same politician, on either side. What a freakin’ mess we have for a government. Flush them all.

Comments are closed.