We recently discussed how Democratic members and staffers are now repeating the same phrase that they will push through immigration reform, spending bills, and other items “by any means necessary.” That includes packing the Supreme Court and sacking nonpartisan staffers like the Senate Parliamentarian. President Joe Biden has now joined the movement by casting aside prior principles that he long defended to achieve his own agenda. He told ABC anchor David Muir that he is reversing his position on the filibuster and would support its curtailment in order to federalize election rules. It is part of what the President now says is a strategy to muscle through the legislation by “whatever it takes.”
President Biden has never been a prisoner to principle. As discussed in an earlier column, he has spent his career as a largely opportunistic actor who tends to go where the polls rather than principles take him. However, one principle that he has not been willing to jettison (until now) was the filibuster.
As a senator, Biden was vehement in his opposition to those who wanted to curtail the filibuster. He called such efforts “disastrous” and proclaimed: “God save us from that fate … [it] would change this fundamental understanding and unbroken practice of what the Senate is all about.” His colleagues, including then-Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) and now-Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), gave equally full-throated endorsements of the rule being denounced today as a thoroughly racist relic.
Despite remaining silent for much of the year as groups denounced the filibuster as a “racist relic,” Biden finally summoned up the courage to again reaffirm his opposition to curtailing the filibuster rule. Rather than risk the ire of his party, he explained it as a purely strategic decision while stating that he still supports the filibuster.
With the Build Back Better legislation blocked in the Senate, pressure was building on Biden to drop his opposition. Democrats are particularly adamant that they need to take over election rules and force states to adopt new rules before the midterm elections. To make the case, many in the media have been hyping the argument that the rule is a “relic of the Jim Crow period.” Putting aside the factual and historical errors, Biden was facing a test between principle and politics. His choice was, if nothing else, predictable.
In pushing to preempt state election laws, Muir asked Biden “are you prepared to support fundamental changes in the Senate rules to get this done?” Biden responded “yes.” Muir then asked “what does that mean?” Biden responded “that means whatever it takes.”
There is nothing more chilling than a president declaring that he will do “whatever it takes” to achieve his goals, including changing what he called the “fundamental understanding and unbroken practice of what the Senate is all about.”
While President Biden may have found his natural resting place in a conflict between politics and principle, the move against the filibuster rule will only aggravate our deep divisions. The Democrats would force through a sweeping federalization of state election laws for the first time in our history. It would federally preempt the laws in dozens of states and declare that Congress, not state legislatures, will now dictate how people vote in states from New Hampshire to Idaho to Oregon.
I previously wrote why the filibuster rule was designed for times like this:
Pushing through such controversial measures with bare majorities and on straight party lines will only deepen the divisions and increase the rage in this country. So this is precisely a time when the filibuster can play a positive role, by forcing legislation to pass with a modest level of bipartisan support. It requires consensus and compromise at a time of growing, violent division.
…
The filibuster has gone through historic controversies through the centuries, from opposing Caesar to opposing civil rights. But as a consensus-forcing rule, its time may have arrived, to the chagrin of many.
The following WSJ piece seems more pertinent today than in years past.
Merry Christmas everyone. Feliz Noche Buena
🎄
https://www.wsj.com/articles/in-hoc-anno-domini-vermont-royster-editorial-11640296509
In Hoc Anno Domini
This editorial was written in 1949 by the late Vermont Royster and has been published annually since.
Dec. 23, 2021
When Saul of Tarsus set out on his journey to Damascus the whole of the known world lay in bondage. There was one state, and it was Rome. There was one master for it all, and he was Tiberius Caesar.
Everywhere there was civil order, for the arm of the Roman law was long. Everywhere there was stability, in government and in society, for the centurions saw that it was so.
But everywhere there was something else, too. There was oppression—for those who were not the friends of Tiberius Caesar. There was the tax gatherer to take the grain from the fields and the flax from the spindle to feed the legions or to fill the hungry treasury from which divine Caesar gave largess to the people. There was the impressor to find recruits for the circuses. There were executioners to quiet those whom the Emperor proscribed. What was a man for but to serve Caesar?
There was the persecution of men who dared think differently, who heard strange voices or read strange manuscripts. There was enslavement of men whose tribes came not from Rome, disdain for those who did not have the familiar visage. And most of all, there was everywhere a contempt for human life. What, to the strong, was one man more or less in a crowded world?
Then, of a sudden, there was a light in the world, and a man from Galilee saying, Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s and unto God the things that are God’s.
And the voice from Galilee, which would defy Caesar, offered a new Kingdom in which each man could walk upright and bow to none but his God. Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me. And he sent this gospel of the Kingdom of Man into the uttermost ends of the earth.
So the light came into the world and the men who lived in darkness were afraid, and they tried to lower a curtain so that man would still believe salvation lay with the leaders.
But it came to pass for a while in divers places that the truth did set man free, although the men of darkness were offended and they tried to put out the light. The voice said, Haste ye. Walk while you have the light, lest darkness come upon you, for he that walketh in darkness knoweth not whither he goeth.
Along the road to Damascus the light shone brightly. But afterward Paul of Tarsus, too, was sore afraid. He feared that other Caesars, other prophets, might one day persuade men that man was nothing save a servant unto them, that men might yield up their birthright from God for pottage and walk no more in freedom.
Then might it come to pass that darkness would settle again over the lands and there would be a burning of books and men would think only of what they should eat and what they should wear, and would give heed only to new Caesars and to false prophets. Then might it come to pass that men would not look upward to see even a winter’s star in the East, and once more, there would be no light at all in the darkness.
And so Paul, the apostle of the Son of Man, spoke to his brethren, the Galatians, the words he would have us remember afterward in each of the years of his Lord:
Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ has made us free and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.
“. . . offered a new Kingdom in which” individuals were enslaved to a combined power of church and state.
“bow to none but his God.”
Galileo could not be reached for comment.
“Galileo could not be reached for comment.”
Sam, it seems as if you believe that faith and reason have an infinite bridge (equates to no bridge at all) between them. Perhaps that bridge is shorter than you think?
They’re irreconcilable. It’s either-or. The Galileo clash is a dramatic illustration of that fact.
(What’s with the lower-case “s”?)
“(What’s with the lower-case “s”?)”
Typo.
“They’re irreconcilable. ”
The two are not irreconcilable.
That is a state of mind, and both sides exist. Faith and reason exist side by side. I cannot prove either, but I believe them to be inseparable.
Machiavellian quest for power.
Fascists created an all powerful government, and suspended individual rights for the “common good”, as defined by that ruling government.
Conservatives believe in limited government with strong individual rights.
Now, think really hard. Which political ideology strives for a strong government, at the expense of individual rights, for the common good, such as to combat anthropogenic climate change, systemic racism, etc? Which group opposes one Constitutional right after another – free speech, freedom of religion, right to bear arms, the Electoral College? Which one seeks to increase the number of seats on the Supreme Court in order to stuff it with political activists, in order to legislate from the bench? Which one will target you for destruction, seeking to impoverish you if you oppose the party line? Which movement seeks to compel your speech, such as forcing loyalty oaths to BLM, or claiming that being a woman is just a state of mind? Which movement forces women to step aside so that biological males can dominate them in sports, breaking all their records?
Tough one, I know.
Well said Karen+S,
I am glad to see you and other liked mind posters.
You and others bring logic, facts to the conversation.
I appreciate that.
Thank you.
Thanks, Upstate Farmer.
Why would God give you a right to live only to kill you by a tornado?
Why would God be your servant and your genie, granting your every wish? The world is beset with natural disasters and the ill will of man. It’s not heaven.
God didn’t set a tornado to deliberately target anyone. Or an earthquake.
The Bible tells you so.
God is not a puppet master. Your problem is you have shoe horned yourself into an extremely narrow definition of life.
But the larger point. There is no divining of Gods intentions. Do the simple things as outlined in the Bible, and you will have rewards.
Politicians should have to pass minimum qualifications and credentials just like lawyers and doctors.
Why do people believe their rights come from God?
Anonymous, you asked why anyone would believe that rights come from God.
Forgive me, as I’m no theologian, but I’ll give it a shot.
If rights are not derived from not only God, but a Judeo/Christian moral one, then they derive from other humans. This means that if humans decree that you can kill someone to take his land and his wife, then this is good. Because “good” is defined by mankind, not by a moral Judeo/Christian God.
This is why, throughout history, what is considered “good” or “bad” has varied wildly, depending upon whether it was during pagan times, when people believed gods loved bloody, gruesome, agonizing human sacrifices, or even more ancient times, in the law of the club. If you could take it, it’s “good.” If you could kill it, then it’s “good.” If someone did something to anger you enough for you, the stronger man, to kill him, then he was “bad.” Even if that meant that Grog crafted a well balanced spear that he refused to surrender to you. Bad Grog.
Judeo/Christianity defined a morality that was very, very different than in ancient times, when burning people alive in the belly of a bronze bull statue was considered “good” and pleasing. This faith decreed that due to the innate dignity and value of the human soul, every one has certain basic human rights. This truth has not been lived up to, unfortunately, over the centuries. Yet it formed the basis of the Constitution, in which what was “good” and “right” was based off of Judeo/Christian values, and not, say, the morality of ancient Aztecs.
If you believe that all rights come from people, then there is no right that is sacred. You can have no argument when any right is taken from you. You can’t say “that’s not fair” because if there are no rights intrinsic to humanity, set by God, then there are no rights that you should not lose.
The idea of “basic human rights” comes from the intrinsic worth of the human soul. Otherwise, if you can physically do something, and get away with it, it’s “good.”
Western values of right and wrong descend from Judeo/Christian values. If you had grown up 2,000 years ago, in the Aztec Empire, or with the Maori, your ideas of what’s right, wrong, fair, and unfair, would be different.
“. . . then they derive from other humans.”
No. That’s another false alternative — a mystical or a social source for individual rights.
The third, correct, alternative is that rights are based on certain facts of reality, viz., that man must use reason to survive and that the individual’s happiness is an end-in-itself. The concept of individual rights acknowledges and protects those two facts.
(That, obviously, is a highly condensed summary.)
“Western values of right and wrong descend from Judeo/Christian values.”
No. They descend from ancient Greece. That is a well-documented historical fact. (Your reference to the Aztecs is a silly straw man.)
If an “individual’s happiness is an end-in-itself”, then robbing a neighbor or stealing women is “good” because it would make someone happy.
While happiness is great, I don’t think it’s the benchmark for right or wrong, unless I misunderstand you.
The Aztecs reference is not a straw man. It is an example of a culture that is not compatible with modern Western values. There are myriad examples.
The Greco Romans were the root of jurisprudence, the senate, philosophy, the Olympics, warfare techniques, and the inspiration for Classic education, literature, plays, art, and mathematics, not modern Western morality. The Greco Roman gods tormented mankind for pleasure. Raped women for fun. Emperor Nero, for example, was not a progenitor of Western values.
The Greco Romans did indeed greatly influence Europe and the United States government, but not its morality.
The ancient Romans burned people alive in massive bronze bull statues. They buried Temple Virgins alive who broke their vows. They had no concept of a poor person having the same rights as an Emperor or a wealthy person, because they did not believe in the intrinsic worth of a human soul. Their gods had a magnifying glass and people were the ants, to torment in between fights amongst themselves. They were particularly triggered by hubris.
A toddler reasons that he can pull a chair up to the counter, climb up, and steal the cookies he’s been forbidden from eating before dinner. He’d already eaten his own cookies after lunch. These were for his sister, who’s not yet home from band practice. He’s full and happy, albeit no longer hungry for dinner.
He used reason to achieve happiness by stealing cookies. Was he “good”?
“Was he “good”?”
No. His action is pragmatism, the ends justifies the means — “whatever it takes.” Egoism is a principles-based code of morality, with a full set of virtues and corresponding vices. As I noted, what I provided was merely a highly abbreviated summary.
“While happiness is great, I don’t think it’s the benchmark for right or wrong, unless I misunderstand you.”
Happiness is the ultimate purpose, not the “benchmark” or standard. Reason is the standard. If happiness were the standard, then you are right — egoism degenerates into hedonism and anything goes.
“. . . but not its morality.”
The key values/rights mentioned in the DoI (life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness) and our individualism come come from ancient Greece (not Rome), especially from Aristotle via Locke.
It has been noted that every individual and every culture is, at root, either Platonic or Aristotelian. America is (or at least was) Aristotelian.
Thanks for raising important issues — and for not being hostile.
Anonymous, God said that Caesar could have what is his but the people belonged to God. Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and render unto God what is God’s. Without this declaration your slavery would be accepted to be justifiably continued forever. This is foundational to a nation of free men in justification of their right to freedom. Unfortunately there are still many nations where men are the property of modern day Caesars.
If not God, what is the origin of rights? man?
So you do not believe that there is a scientific, this-worldly, logical argument for the origin of rights? Rather, that origin is mystical, based on faith, unprovable?
I certainly would not want that as my foundation, for anything — let alone for rights.
So you do not believe that there is a scientific, this-worldly, logical argument for the origin of rights?
I love how self proclaimed experts are quick to dodge a direct question. Or rather have never given the requisite thought to the subject to form a cogent opinion.
This might help:
The Misery Of Man Without God
Of Self-love.—The nature of self-love and of this human ‘I’ is to love self only, and consider self only. But what can it do? It cannot prevent the object it loves from being full of faults and miseries; man would fain be great and sees that he is little, would fain be happy, and sees that he is miserable, would fain be perfect, and sees that he is full of imperfections, would fain be the object of the love and esteem of men, and sees that his faults merit only their aversion and contempt. The embarrassment wherein he finds himself produces in him the most unjust and criminal passion imaginable, for he conceives a mortal hatred against that truth which blames him and convinces him of his faults. Desiring to annihilate it, yet unable to destroy it in its essence, he destroys it as much as he can in his own knowledge, and in that of others; that is to say, he devotes all his care to the concealment of his faults, both from others and from himself, and he can neither bear that others should show them to him, nor that they should see them.
Pensées
by Blaise Pascal
Mathematician, Physicist, Catholic Thinker
https://ccel.org/ccel/pascal/pensees/pensees.iii.html?queryID=13871011&resultID=150276
“The nature of self-love and of this human ‘I’ is to love self *only*, and consider self *only*.” (Emphasis added.)
The word “only” is a straw man caricature of egoism.
It is only the one who first loves himself, who is capable of loving others. When you regard yourself as “crooked and defiled, bespotted and ulcerous,” it is impossible to love others. (Augustine)
“I love how *self proclaimed* experts . . .” (Emphasis added.)
You’re funny. 17 years at a T1 university, which included teaching political philosophy. And your credentials are . . .?
“. . . to dodge a direct question.”
I summarized the correct answer, above.
I summarized the correct answer, above.
No. You do not “sumerize” the origin of rights, or counter the Founders foundational tenets
Would you prefer if your rights came from your neighbor?
SM
Becasue it makes the people that take them away, tyrants. You have the right and the duty to usurp tyrants and bestow power with people that respect your rights. The first two paragraphs of the Declaration of Independance explains this concept perfectly.
OT
“Jan. 6” was a false flag operation perpetrated to incite to riot; its goal was to create a “fake” “insurrection” and implicate President Donald J. Trump.
The operators employed agitators such as RAY “RED HAT” EPPS and TIM “BAKED ALASKA” GIONET.
“Jan. 6” was an extension of the Obama Coup D’etat in America.
John “Dudley-Will-He-Do-Right” Durham is authorized to investigate, including but not limited to, persons who violated the law with respect to the 2016 election of President Trump and the Trump administration.
John “Dudley-Will-He-Do-Right” Durham must extend his Special Counsel investigation into “Jan 6” as a false flag operation to falsely incriminate President Donald J. Trump.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
ORDER NO. 4878-2020
APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL COUNSEL TO INVESTIGATE MATTERS RELATED TO
INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES AND INVESTIGATIONS ARJSING OUT OF THE 2016
PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGNS
On May 13, 2019, I directed United States Attorney John Durham to conduct a
preliminary review into certain matters related to the 2016 presidential election campaigns, and
Mr. Durham ‘ s review subsequently developed into a criminal investigation, which remains
ongoing. Following consultation with Mr. Durham, I have determined that, in light of the
extraordinary circumstances relating to these matters, the public interest warrants Mr. Durham
continuing this investigation pursuant to the powers and independence afforded by the Special
Counsel regulations. Accordingly, by virtue of the authority vested in the Attorney General,
including 28 U.S .C. §§ 509,5 10, and 515, in order to discharge my responsibility to provide
supervision and management of the Department of Justice, and to ensure a full and thorough
investigation of these matters, I hereby order as follows:
(a) John Durham, United States Attorney for the District of Connecticut, is appointed to
serve as Special Counsel for the Department of Justice.
(b) The Special Counsel is authorized to investigate whether any federal official,
employee, or any other person or entity violated the law in connection with the intelligence,
counter-intelligence, or law-enforcement activities directed at the 2016 presidential campaigns,
individuals associated with those campaigns, and individuals associated with the administration
of President Donald J. Trump, including but not limited to Crossfire Hurricane and the
investigation of Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller, Ill.
(c) If the Special Counsel believes it is necessary and appropriate, the Special Counsel is
authorized to prosecute federal crimes arising from his investigation of these matters.
(d) 28 C.F.R . §§ 600.4 to 600.l Oare applicable to the Special Counsel.
(e) Pursuant to 28 C.F.R. § 600.9(b), I have determined that the notification requirement
in 28 C.F.R. § 600.9(a)(l) should be tolled until at least after the November 3, 2020 election
because legitimate investigative and privacy concerns warrant confidentiality.
(f) In addition to the confidential report required by 28 C.F.R. § 600.8(c), the Special
Counsel, to the maximum extent possible and consistent with the law and the policies and
practices of the Department of Justice, shall submit to the Attorney General a final report, and
such interim reports as he deems appropriate, in a form that will permit public dissemination.
William P. Barr
J6, the lids off the Piglosi Treasonous Crap.
And we can see many posters across the internet are paid Anti-American Trash, even some coming through CIA/ONI/etc., internal Intel groups:
About 8 minutes long:
Pentagon Illegally Targeting Americans With Secret Weapon Warns High Level Whistleblower
135,643 views
Oct 25, 2021
91
Share
Download
Most Banned Videos
Most Banned Videos
OAN’s Scott Wheeler interviews Pentagon whistleblower Dr. Jay Michael Waller. Waller warns that the Democrats are using psychological warfare weapons he developed, to illegally target the American people.
https://www.banned.video/watch?id=617705f8b873e813dbe04683
Communists can’t lose.
Any rule or law that opposes or defeats communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs) is, quite simply, wrong.
Once you grasp that, you will be able to interact and collaborate efficiently with the communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs).
The entire communist American welfare state is unconstitutional, yet it exists.
RINOs exist to lose and to demonstrate how to be a good losers.
RINOs are ostensible republicans who understand, acquiesce and agree that they must always lose to the communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs).
Being a RINO is a lucrative enterprise; the communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs) well-compensate loyal RINOs.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
“The end justifies the means.”
– Leon Trotsky
Liberals call Trump fascist, but they ignore the clear authoritarian tendencies of the Biden administration. From its attacks on the legitimacy of the Supreme Court to these attempts to jettison rules so “progressives” can shove their agenda down the throats of all Americans, this administration is in desperate and dangerous territory. If it proceeds with this misguided plan, it will sabotage its own legitimacy. Just as it saw a rebellion against its vaccine mandates, it will see an even bigger response to this kind of totalitarianism.
Sometimes the people are wrong. We know this by all of the wrong-doing they do. Political power is important. It shouldn’t be handed-out willy-nilly to all and sundry.
In other news: Perfectly preserved baby dinosaur discovered
How does Putin know that his nukes would even work? They could all be duds.
Whatever it takes is just another way to say the end justifies the means. Why should we be surprised when the end justifies the means has been the watch word of every want to be dictator in history. Joe Biden keeps his copy of Machiavelli’s treatise on his nightstand. He can and does often quote it word for word.
This past summer, we had a good friend over for dinner.
He said he fears this (sic: Biden admin) government more than white supremacists.
He is a black Jew.
Thinking people know that biden is just the monkey and wonder who the organ grinder(s) is/are. More recent than likening all of them to the puppet and his puppeteer(s).
The Ds want to restore free and fair elections to this country, so those who get the most votes win, and all citizens have an opportunity to vote without barriers or suppression. This should be so basic that there no need for a law. But the Rs have shown themselves to be against the concept of meaningful elections.
Let’s also point out that those who are opposed to this are the same who supported an attack on the capital and were just peachy with the idea of the VP ignoring the results of the election. So your credentials on reasonableness are quite low.
This country’s system of representative democracy is on the verge of collapsing, and the Rs are the ones trying to topple it. They must be stopped and the last chance is now.
Sammy, here is your fair and free election. A Russian citizen crosses our southern border illegally and should be allowed to vote in our elections without presenting an ID. This is really what you are calling for. Listen to what you are saying!
I never said anything about Russians or voter ID. The Ds should put into the bill voter ID, but make the states provide them for free, and in a variety of easy ways. That would force the Rs to admit that they don’t really care about voter ID and really want the rest of the voter suppression.
The Democrats won’t do what you suggest because they don’t want what you claim they want.
Sammy, the Democrats don’t want voter ID. If you think that voter ID should be required you are going against the position of the left. The left is not calling for any ID wether it’s free or not. In turn, due to your statement you should be voting Republican. You must find it so confusing.
Republican? Did you miss the part about how I support free and fair elections? Also the Ds have expressed willingness to put voter ID in the bill.
Sammy: If you think this is about “free and fair” eletions, you haven’t been paying attention. This is about federalizing all state functions so a single party can rule from the center. The Democrats would like eventually to see the central government control education content, voting laws, policing and health care. These are all functions delegated to the states by the Constitution. What the Democrats are proposing is nothing less than the destruction of local government and its replacement with a centrally ruled junta.
Few points: The Ds can’t do anything unless people vote for them. So all your horribles would be the will of the people. Second, education, policing, and health care are not mentioned in the constitution at all. Congress does have the power to regulate interstate commerce and protect rights that are mentioned in the Constitution. But no matter what, the notion that it is ok to destroy our system of government to enact (or prevent) policies you don’t like, is the true enemy.
So all your horribles would be the will of the people.
You’re not paying attention. The subject of the post is Democrats demanding the President take unilateral actions. By deffinition, bypassing “the will of the people”
Democrats always fail to advance their agenda through legislative process. Always fail to attain “the will of the people”
So you think the President has the ability to break the filibuster? And you think that is unilateral action? Do you even understand how the senate works in the slightest?
Sammy, pay attention.
Democrat house members are telling Biden to proceed with executive orders. Democrats won’t, or can’t legislate. Democrat legislators advocate bypassing “the will of the People.
Samski ‘ You have it completely wrong. The “kind” of voting the left and the demz want is so fraught with the ability to supplant with fraud . It’s beyond comprehension how your jaded partisan POV misses the power grab by one party…the ends justify the means authoritarian crowd. America is still a representitive republik. The lefto fascist party wants mobocracy . And somehow you relish this sickness ?.
Let me look at my notes. I’ve got it somewhere. Just a minute. Hang on. No, that’s not it. Oh, yes here it is, they told me to say, “Whatever it takes.”
JT’s attack on Biden’s principles (or lack of them) today is interesting coming from someone who only yesterday complained about the insulting language used by Larry Tribe in some of his comments.
Insulting language? how about lying!
Professor Turley simply used the actual words spoken by Biden. Whatever means necessary has been used in history to justify violence against the populace. How could using the actual words spoken by Joe Biden be considered an insult by the good Professor. The correlation between stating Biden’s words and the insults of Tribe against Turley are not comparable unless your of a silly nature.
To clarify in response to comments, I find the second paragraph of JT’s blog insulting and my comparison was only to JT’s complaints about Tribe insults not his misrepresentation of JT’s position in the article.
Well then, the left shouldn’t be surprised, meeting some VERY INTENSE RESISTANCE by Whatever it takes from the Right . . !!
Interesting is it not?
2016, her would be highness, Hillary Clinton proclaimed the election was stolen from her by Trump and the Kremlin! Stolen by white suburban women who were told by their misogynist husbands to vote for Trump! She and others in MSM piled on the Russiagate, the Biggest Lie, for 4 years. She could declare to “Resist!” and not expect any kind of backlash, that she is dividing the country! Her calls to “Resist!” are not the division that is undermining our democracy!
But anyone not on her side who could say the same, to “Resist!” her, the Dems, the Biden Admin, then they are threats to democracy.
Interesting is it not?
As an Independent, I see those who say, “Whatever it takes!” or ” By any means necessary!” a greater threat to America than anything Trump.
Disclaimer, leading up to the 2020 election, I donated monies to the Tulsi Gabbard campaign twice and would of a third time if she did not drop out. If she runs as an Independent in 2024, I will, again, contribute to her campaign and vote for her.
I might even volunteer for her.
Resistance to dictatorial rule? Count me in.
Holodomor
https://youtube.com/watch?v=3sB3g8K7n7I
If I was Ukranian, I wouldn’t trust the Russians, either. Not after this.
Putin the Devil seems to have a problem with the angels of NATO encroaching on his hellish domain, just as Hitler had a problem with Patton approaching Germany.
And referring to Lenin as the creator of Ukraine doesn’t help Putin’s case, because 1) Lenin would have supported Ukraine’s independence, as evidenced by this document, the Declaration of the Rights of the Peoples of Russia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_the_Rights_of_the_Peoples_of_Russia
and 2) Lenin initiated policies that would lead to the Holodomor:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/He_who_does_not_work,_neither_shall_he_eat