Amendments by Acclamation: Democrats Move to Simply Declare the Equal Rights Amendment as Ratified

Below is my column in the Hill on the Democratic campaign to simply declare the Equal Rights Amendment ratified as the 28th Amendment to the Constitution. The question is whether raw politics is enough to shock the unratified and undead into life.

Here is the column:

Madison, Jefferson, Adams, Franklin: The names of great constitutional figures are etched in the minds of every schoolchild. But soon, if Democrats in Congress have their way, they will add one more: David Ferriero.

Who is David Ferriero, you ask? He is 10th Archivist of the United States. He also may be the man who unilaterally declares the long-dead Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) not just alive but now part of our Constitution as the 28th Amendment.

Democratic leaders like Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.), chair of the House Committee on Oversight and Reform, want Ferriero to simply publish the ERA in the Federal Register as a ratified amendment. It isn’t, of course. However, these Democrats insist that a unilateral decision from Ferriero declaring it ratified would mean it is ratified … at least until some courts say otherwise. And they are calling on President Biden to support this dubious move toward amendments by archival acclamation.

Such muscle plays have become common in the last two years. Democratic members and advocacy groups have pushed to pack the Supreme Court with an instant liberal majority. They have sought to negate state election laws and impose their own federal election standards on states.

These efforts have one thing in common: They avoid having the issues addressed by the voters directly or by the states.

This one makes the other efforts look restrained by comparison, however. Rather than submit a new ERA to the states, Democratic leaders want Ferriero to just declare it a done deal.

The reason is that Democrats have good reason to doubt whether an ERA would be ratified today. Before and after the ERA was passed by Congress in 1972, a variety of state and federal laws have been passed to enforce prohibitions on discrimination on the basis for gender and enforce equality rules in pay, promotions and programs. Moreover, many people today may see the equal or greater need for the protection of other groups viewed as discriminated against under current laws, calling for the inclusion of transgender individuals, atheists, undocumented persons, and others.

Yet, before Ferriero has his Colin Clive moment of declaring “It’s moving … IT’S ALIVE,” he may have to check the vitals again. The ERA is neither alive nor moving.

The deadline for ratification of the act was set for March 22, 1979 — an ample seven years to secure the required approval by three-quarters of the states, or 38 states. But it fell short of that constitutional threshold. Not only that, but four states — Nebraska, Tennessee, Idaho, Kentucky — rescinded their prior ratifications; a fifth, South Dakota, set its ratification to expire if the ERA was not adopted by the 1979 deadline.

Kentucky adds a different wrinkle because its Democratic lieutenant governor vetoed the resolution rescinding the ratification when the governor was out of town. However, Article V speaks of ratifications by state legislatures.

Democrats argued that states could not rescind their votes, even before the threshold number of states is reached. Yet, they still fell short. So, Democrats and then-President Carter simply extended the deadline to June 30, 1982. In 1981, a federal district court ruled in Idaho v. Freeman that Congress could not extend the ERA’s ratification deadline. (The Supreme Court later stayed that order but then declared the matter moot.)

While the extension continued to be questioned constitutionally, it did not matter: Not a single new state was added during that extended period. Even assuming that the five states could be counted despite the votes to rescind their ratifications, the ERA was still three states short when it missed the second deadline.

Democrats again insisted that deadlines and the state rescissions could be ignored. In 2017, Nevada went ahead and ratified the dead amendment while Illinois did so in 2018. Then, in 2020, Virginia passed a ratification resolution for the ERA. And then — poof! Democrats declared the ERA passed, 41 years after the original deadline and 38 years after the second deadline.

Yet, in the end, the Office of the Federal Register must confirm the “facial legal sufficiency and an authenticating signature” of the state documents and confirm that they are “in good order.” Now, the ERA ratification may be many things, but “in good order” is not one of them. Indeed, the record looks like an interstate pileup.

To find this all “in good order,” Ferriero would have to accept that the first deadline is immaterial. Then he would have to ignore the second deadline. Then he would have to ignore five states that negated their ratification votes long before Virginia voted.

In demanding that Ferriero act, the Democrats often sound like the Nike slogan — “Just Do It.” Rep. Maloney explained that Ferriero “told us how much he believed in the ERA, that he wanted to be the archivist that would make it happen, to deliver it and do his ceremonial job and ratify it.”

Rep. Jackie Speier (D-Calif.) insists that “many scholars” believe there is no deadline that can apply to an amendment. It can literally take hundreds of years, and it does not matter if states later rescind their votes — it literally never dies. Speier added that Ferriero should act to fulfill the wishes of the late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in declaring the ERA ratified.

The problem is that Ginsburg herself dismissed these claims and declared that Virginia’s vote came “long after the deadline passed.”

Ginsburg was not the only one dismissive of these theories. The Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) issued an opinion on Jan. 6, 2020, that the ERA was as dead as John Dillinger.

Democrats then pushed the Biden administration to change that legal opinion. On Jan. 26, 2022, OLC issued a second opinion that did not withdraw the earlier opinion but added obscure language on how Congress may disagree and “the federal courts may soon determine or shed light upon several unsettled matters.” All the opinion stated was the obvious: OLC opinions are not binding on Congress or the courts.

That was enough to demand certification from Ferriero. Eleanor Smeal, head of The Feminist Majority, declared: “The fact that we have declared, because it is true, that the ERA has met all requirements, it is law. The certification is a symbol but we deserve that symbol.”

So, an amendment that died decades ago, arguably eight states short of ratification, simply would be published as law by fiat of the archivist.

Democrats are particularly eager to get Ferriero to do so before he retires in April, or to guarantee that his replacement is ready to make that declaration. At the same time, Democrats — with the support of Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Susan Collins (R-Maine) — are pushing to lift the deadline for a third time.

For those who commonly invoke the need to support democracy, the refusal to concede defeat over decades of contrary state votes is a rather curious position. Yet Democratic members just want the declaration of life: It is alive because Ferriero will declare it alive.

It may be a tad early to add the name of David Ferriero to our pantheon of great constitutional figures. The Federal Register is no work of fiction. As Justice Ginsburg said not long before her death, you neither improvise nor despair as advocates for equal rights. You “start over.”

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. Follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.

237 thoughts on “Amendments by Acclamation: Democrats Move to Simply Declare the Equal Rights Amendment as Ratified”

  1. Virginia, Illinois, and Nevada refused to ratify ERA. Then, years later (after the deadlines), those state legislatures voted “yes.’

    So according to the Left, it is permissible for a state to change its vote to “yes,” but not to “no.”

    That is neither a principled nor a consistent position. It is yet another example of the Left’s mindset: The ends justifies the means.

    1. “the Left” doesn’t have a “mindset: The ends justifies the means.” Some people on the left may believe that, but others on the left do not, and some who are not on the left think the ends justifies the means, while others not on the left do not.

      I’m on the left, and I argued earlier that any state that wishes to can rescind its ratification vote prior to the amendment being ratified by 3/4s off the states.

      I’d say that it’s also not principled that you’re unwilling to admit your mistakes: https://jonathanturley.org/2022/03/09/should-universities-take-a-stand-on-ukraine-uchicago-is-facing-that-question/comment-page-2/#comment-2165093

        1. Wake us when you decide to admit that you sometimes make wild overgeneralizations and then move the goalposts when called out on them.

          1. Saying the left has the mindset of “the ends justify the means” is not a wild overgeneralization. It´s quite accurate…you should wake up to the toxic rot around you. It is precisely why I left the left and you should too.

            The modern left doesn’t give a damn about principle, the law, or the Constitution. They are a dangerous lot and are already well down the road of destroying our nation.

            1. You’re lying about the diverse beliefs of the tens of millions of people who self-identify with the left in the US.

              Yesterday, you told me that my response to Svelaz about rescission votes “is a slam dunk. Well done…you settled the matter.” Today you tell me that I’m part of a group that “doesn’t give a damn about principle, the law, or the Constitution.” Got it.

              1. The modern left is characterized by the statement that the ends justify the means…a complete lack of principle. That doesn’t mean everyone who identifies with the modern left suffers from that defect. This shouldn’t be difficult to understand. There are people on the left that I respect: Jimmy Dore, Aaron Mate, Glenn Greenwald. They would agree with my sentiment that the modern left is bonkers. If you cannot understand that then I cannot help you. Got it.

                1. and if you want me to know that I’m speaking to the same person I spoke to yesterday, then don’t use “anonymous” as your handle. Good lord. Got it?

                2. No, you believe that “The modern left is characterized by the statement that the ends justify the means,” but your belief is false. That some people are similarly deluding themselves doesn’t make the delusion true.

              2. “. . . diverse beliefs of the tens of millions of people . . .”

                A movement (e.g., the Left) is *not* defined by the diverse beliefs of its followers. It is defined by its ideological leadership.

                1. I don’t agree, and plenty of the ideological leadership on the right think that the ends justify the means (the origin and response to SB 8 is one of many examples).

                  1. “I don’t agree . . .”

                    You’re conflating a concept (the “Left”) with its definition (of the “Left”). A concept does include all of the traits and characteristics, including the countless exceptions you mentioned. A definition, though, is formed in terms of essentials. In this case, that means the method practiced by the Left’s leadership.

                    “. . . plenty of the ideological leadership on the right . . .”

                    True, though irrelevant to my point about the Left. The entire culture is infected with pragmatism.

                    1. Yeah, let’s look at the definition. Here are a couple of relevant ones from the Oxford English Dictionary:

                      left, adj.
                      ” Of, relating to, or characteristic of a person, group, or political party which favours progressive or reformist policies intended to achieve greater social and economic equality; belonging to that part of the political spectrum identified as the left (see sense B. 6); (also) of, relating to, or characteristic of the more liberal or reformist section of any religious, philosophical, social, etc., group. Cf. left wing adj.”

                      left, n.
                      ” Frequently with the and capital initial. … (b) any political party or group which advocates greater social and economic equality and adopts progressive or reformist policies designed to achieve this; those who hold such views considered collectively, esp. as a part of the political spectrum (frequently modified as centre left, extreme left, etc.); (also) the more liberal or reformist section of any religious, philosophical, social, etc., group.”

                      No doubt you’re relying on your personal definition instead.

                    2. “No doubt you’re relying on your personal definition instead.”

                      I wrote: “*In this case*, that means the *method* practiced by the Left’s leadership.” (Emphases added)

                      Try reading more carefully.

                    3. Yes, Sam, that’s your personal definition in this case. I am not going to use your personal definition.

  2. People look at constitutional articles all wrong. They are not super laws. They are how laws get decided and by whom.

  3. If you ask them, many older Americans can remember what the Democrats said when they first tried, and failed, to foist the “Equal Rights Amendment” on the American people. It is just about equality, they said. Those crazy right wing rumors that men and women would be forced to share the same bathrooms? That’s just silly backward talk by people who are afraid of progress, they said. Looking back, it has turned out to be many times more dangerous than anyone back then could have possibly imagined.

    Exhibit A: a transgender boy exercising his ‘right’ to lurk in the girl’s bathroom of a public school in Loudon County sexually assaulted a young girl. What happened? The leftist school board did what leftists drunk with power can be counted on to do. They covered up the crime. They quietly transferred the boy to another school, where he found another victim. They brought the full force of law to bear on the local father who did what any reasonable father would do to protect his daughter. Their allies in the leftist media demonized that father. It was a gambit that warmed hearts in the deep blue bubbles of the progressive elites. A small price for progress, they told themselves.

    The overwhelming majority of Americans will tell you that this isn’t exactly what they have in mind when they talk about equality.

  4. They mean nothing but the shyster cheats are back in town. No agreement with Senate means and President means they don’t get sent to the States and no approval by the States means it’s just campaign ploy by the criminals enemies domestic. Nothing more nnothing less. It’s just more socialist meaning in this case commie/fasscist BS

  5. Even Bill Mahre wants to know why Putin attacked when Biden was in office and not Trump. Bill better be carefull, or he’s gonna get canceled.

  6. This is all too simple.
    First the courts have no jurisdiction
    The People are Sovereign. The People are the final arbiter of this conflict.
    States, not population hold the power. 2/3 of the states have to approve.
    Ignore the deadline. 2/3 of the States are required to certify. Only the states, by the determination of the their legislature, can determine if they have voted to approve an amendment.

  7. Forced into a state of panic by a series of cataclysmic polls, the Democratic Party has entered a new phase in its attempt to turn around its waning fortunes: lying directly — and unashamedly — to your face. To paraphrase Elena Gorokhova, “You know they are lying, they know they are lying, they know you know they are lying, you know they know you know they are lying, but they are still lying.”

    About what? About everything, that’s what

    Which is all to say that, while Joe Biden may not be responsible for everything that is wrong with America, he has certainly been responsible for delivering mendacious and self-serving malarkey at the exact moment the public wanted modesty, clarity, and candor, and that he has thereby been responsible for his own ruin. Voters may tolerate a flimflam artist when times are good, but, as the recent election showed, they sour swiftly when trouble rears its head. Per a new poll commissioned by the Wall Street Journal, “46% of voters said they would back a Republican candidate for Congress if the election were today, compared with 41% who favored a Democrat.” In and of itself, this would be remarkable — typically, Democrats lead on the generic ballot, even in the GOP’s good years — but the breakdown is eye-popping. “By 9 percentage points,” the Journal notes, “Hispanic voters in the new poll said they would back a Republican candidate for Congress over a Democrat.” Meanwhile, “support for a Republican candidate rose to 27% among Black voters, up from 12% in November.” If these numbers hold, we’ll see results in this year’s midterms that will reverberate for a decade to come.

    And there’ll be no way for the Democrats to lie their way out of that.

  8. Never forget that Rep. Jackie Speiers survived Jonestown. That is how long she has been in office.

    1. She went to Jonestown as a staffer for Leo Ryan. She’s only been a Rep. in the House since 2008 and is nowhere near the longest serving person currently in Congress, some of whom have been there in excess of 40 years. Before 2008, she served in the CA State Assembly and CA Senate.

      1. Anoinymous – according to her “official” bio she has never had a legitimate job and was an aide at Jonestown, but old enough and healthy enough to run in the special election. She has been sucking at the public teat since she became an aide.

        1. I find it truly sad that you believe that being an elected representative or working as an aide to an elected representative in a representative democracy is not “a legitimate job.”

          I do not share your opinion. There are people who do these jobs well and others who do these jobs poorly, but the jobs themselves are essential to our country.

          1. Anonymous – I come from MT where the legislature meets every other year and then for 6 weeks. At the end of six weeks their pay stops.

            1. And do you consider that work not “legitimate,” or does your judgment about legitimacy vary inversely with the length of the work year?

    2. Paul Schulte is NOT the longtime commenter known as ‘Paul C. Schulte’. Instead that name has been taken over by the Blog Stooge. The stooge is also James, Feldman, Giocon, Ralph, Hullbobby, Margot Ballhere and Mistress Addams.

      1. Or Paul is the same person, and he’s simply using a different email address and so has a different avatar. David Benson recognized him as the same person.

        You seem obsessed with claiming that the majority of the comments from the right here come from a single person. You’re almost as obsessed as Allan S. Meyer is, though his obsession focuses on those on the left. I have no doubt that there are some sock puppets on the right and the left, but I highly doubt that Paul is one of them.

        1. “You’re almost as obsessed as Allan S. Meyer is”

          You seem obsessed with Allan. He focus’s mostly on you and your other names (plus Svelez). You have to admit, he is correct about the numbers of emails you involve yourself with and the various names you have including the ones he and others have for you. You certainly do complain much about him. One does have to wonder over you and your complaints.

          1. No, I don’t “have to admit” a false claim. He isn’t correct at all. He regularly confuses multiple different people. And the main reason that I call him out is because he posts so many lies and insults. Perhaps you’d rather that I let him spew his garbage without any pushback, but I think we’re better off when we push back against lies and insults.

            1. You have your opinion. I believe most people will disagree. I read what he has to say under his own name. I have read anonymous comments in part and believe in the interactions between you and him, he prevails, though I can’t be sure who the respondents are.

        2. Youre replying to a person who has spammed this blog with countless walls of text from online liberal rags with nary an original thought of their own accord, save ad hominem childish quips. With any luck Putin will drop a nuke on that poor baby and rid the world of such girly talk

          😀

      2. I hope you are right. I’d like to believe that the majority of these contributions are the product of one lying Trumpist instead of a multitude of them. Is there no way to police this kind of abuse? I’m sure Turley would not want his forum to be so manipulated by one voice.

        On another note, Turley’s Fox colleague, Tucker Carlson, is spinning another bogus conspiracy theory:

        “How U.S. Bioweapons in Ukraine Became Russia’s New Big Lie”

        https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/03/10/bioweapons-ukraine-russia-disinformation/

        At what point will Turley condemn his colleague for promoting Russian disinformation? It’s not a good faith “dissenting opinion.” It’s a flat-out lie just like the lie that the election was stolen which is finally being acknowledged by Bill Barr.

        Yet, Turley will blissfully appear on Carlson’s program to voice his opinion on some unrelated topic. In so doing, he is treating Carlson as if he were a respectable opinion host when, in fact, he is a liar even by his own admission:

        “I lie’: Oops. Fox News host Tucker Carlson says the quiet part loud”

        https://www.azcentral.com/story/entertainment/media/2021/09/15/tucker-carlson-lies/8336612002/

        People will be judged by what they do; what they DON’T do, however, will haunt them for the rest of their lives. To his credit, Turley forthrightly characterized Trump as a liar when he called him a “carnival snake charmer” long ago. However, Turley will regret not condemning Carlson’s, Hannity’s and Ingraham’s lies. Just like Bill Barr who is now attempting to distance himself from Trumpism on his book tour, Turley too will have to answer for his hypocrisy during his tenure at Trump TV. His family, friends and colleagues will want to know why he did not depart the network when others did so on principle.

        1. Hi Jeff, I thought this might interest you:

          Tonight, Republican Rep. Adam Kinzinger tweeted
          “Thread (and admission): 1) I want to be honest, in congress I have only a few votes that in hindset, I regret. My biggest regret was voting against the first impeachment of Donald Trump.
          “2) It’s important for political leaders to be transparent and admit regret when needed. The bottom line, Donald Trump withheld lethal aid to Ukraine so he could use it as leverage for his campaign. This is a shameful and illegal act, directly hurting the Ukraine defense today…
          “3) I wish i could go back in time and Vote for it, but I cannot. What we can do now is to ensure that this NEVER happens again, and that we all put the interests of our nation above our party. @AVindman and others deserve our appreciation.”

          I wonder whether any other Republicans who voted against the first Trump impeachment regret their votes and will ever become willing to admit it.

          1. “I wonder whether any other Republicans who voted against the first Trump impeachment regret their votes and will ever become willing to admit it.”
            *****************************
            Query: Was Kinsinger boo-hooing like the little beeaatch he is when he typed his mea culpa?

            1. What a childish response.

              Zelensky: “We are ready to continue to cooperate for the next steps, specifically we are almost ready to buy more Javelins from the United States for defense purposes.”
              Trump: “I would like you to do us a favor though…”

              Trump: “The server, they say Ukraine has it. … they say a lot of it started with Ukraine,” trying to blame Ukraine for Russian hacking and simultaneously demonstrating that he’s technologically illiterate.

              1. Nothing was withheld by Trump. Everything came in within the timeline that was authorized.

                However, Obama/Biden provided blankets rather than useful weapons to help the Ukrainians. Biden dealt with Burisma largely a Russian operation. Biden destroyed American prestige with his financial schemes that lined his pockets while hurting America.

                Trump demonstrated American hard and soft power. There was peace with Trump. Biden demonstrated weakness, causing deaths in Afghanistan, a war in the Mideast, instability elsewhere, and setting up Taiwan for a Chinese invasion.

                TDS runs wild as those with the disease blame Trump for our present problems when Biden has created instability in the world, war, inflation, supply chain mishaps, rampant illegal immigration etc.

          2. Thanks for the information. I had not seen this. If Trumpist officials ever admit their mistakes, they will write a mea culpa in a book and market it as they appear in the media as Bill Barr is now doing.

          3. The bottom line, Donald Trump withheld lethal aid to Ukraine so he could use it as leverage for his campaign. This is a shameful and illegal act, directly hurting the Ukraine defense today…

            The left just keeps repeating the same lies, over, and over. over, and over. over, and over. over, and over. over, and over.

            First, you have to remember Obama considered MRE’s and blanket sall the aide Ukraine needed. Very easy to align that with the feckless response by Biden’s marionettists. with Obama’s, big talk and no action. So President Trump,exercising his plenary power to suspend the aid package, is constitutional and wise. Considering the amount Ukraine graft finding its way back to DC fat cats of all stripes and positions. So, delaying the aide is the lie Democrats used. It has been thoroughly debunked but still useful for trolls cutting an pasting talking points.

            Kinzinger is a useful idiot.

            1. Kinzinger is not on the left, so his statement cannot possibly represent the left repeating anything.

              Kinzinger is a conservative and a Republican, and I think that anyone calling him “a useful idiot” is projecting.

              1. The only way Kinzinger ever runs for office would have to be as a Democrat. He is to the left of Manchin. and Murchowski. Maybe you can find some conservative principle he has ever fought for. In the Jeff Flake, school of fake, what ever, I don’t think they have any particular ideology that guides them

            2. Interesting you dont challenge the fact, of the oft repeated lie about the President withholding aide.

                  1. a) You’re moving the goalposts. You made a false claim, I provided evidence that it’s false, but you’re not honest enough to correct your mistake.

                    b) Your new claim is false too. It is illegal to solicit a thing of value from a foreign national in connection with a US election, and “thing of value” is interpreted broadly, so it would include Trump’s effort to extort Zelenskyy into publicly investigating Biden, a political opponent: https://twitter.com/EllenLWeintraub/status/1139309394968096768 and twitter.com/EllenLWeintraub/status/1177335224662921226 (she is an FEC Commissioner and former Chair).
                    Not only did Trump solicit it (itself illegal), he attempted to extort it (illegal quid pro quo).

                  2. Yes, despite Democrats speaking truth through projection and approving two fraudulent impeachments (attempted coups), and normalizing multi-trimester nationwide insurrections, to sustain a transnational cover-up and suppress civil rights, the administration performed due diligence to assess known conflicts of interest and transnational corruption, before aiding and abetting a Spring-regime (e.g. Arab, Slavic) to acquire modern weapon systems a la Taliban, is not only not a crime, but an affirmative action to mitigate progressive corruption, [catastrophic] [anthropogenic] immigration reform, and diversity (i.e. color judgment, class-based bigotry), inequity, and exclusion. A civil war in Ukraine, was, unfortunately, waged by Kiev for 32 trimesters, but it did not progress.

        2. “At what point will Turley condemn his colleague for promoting Russian disinformation?”

          Huh?

          The State Department’s Victoria Nuland just acknowledged, during her congressional testimony, that there are such labs in Ukraine. She further noted that the administration is worried about the disposition of those labs after the Russian invasion.

          Further, it is well known that in 2010 the U.S. helped to fund the construction of a *level-3* biolab in Odessa, Ukraine.

          In fact, the U.S. helped to fund and create *11* biolabs in Ukraine. Among other sources, that fact is acknowledged by documentation from the website of the U.S. embassy in Ukraine — documentation that the Biden administration just scrubbed from that website. Fortunately, the documentation has been preserved elsewhere.

          One obvious question: Why didn’t the Biden administration destroy those biolabs, at the first indication of a Russian invasion?

          Rather than aping your Leftist sources, try looking at the facts.

          1. Sam says:

            “Rather than aping your Leftist sources, try looking at the facts”

            Facts? You mean facts like the election was stolen?

          2. Rather than aping your Rightist sources, try looking at the facts yourself:

            Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines, in testimony under oath to the Senate Intelligence Committee: “We do not assess that Ukraine is pursuing either biological weapons or nuclear weapons.”

            The State Dept. to Fox News: “The US Department of Defense does not own or operate biological laboratories in Ukraine. Under Secretary Nuland was referring to Ukrainian diagnostic and biodefense laboratories during her testimony, which are not biological weapons facilities. These institutions counter biological threats throughout the country.”

            Contemporaneous reporting about that level-3 lab from 2010: “U.S. Sen. Dick Lugar applauded the opening of the Interim Central Reference Laboratory in Odessa, Ukraine, this week, announcing that it will be instrumental in researching dangerous pathogens used by bioterrorists. The level-3 bio-safety lab, which is the first built under the expanded authority of the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction program, will be used to study anthrax, tularemia and Q fever as well as other dangerous pathogens. ‘The continuing cooperation of Nunn-Lugar partners has improved safety for all people against weapons of mass destruction and potential terrorist use, in addition to advancements in the prevention of pandemics and public health consequences,’ Lugar said.”

            Russia is lying and claiming that the labs are developing bioweapons. THAT is the lie promulgated by Tucker Carlson that Jeff is referring to. Shame on you for being unwilling to call Carlson out for promoting Russian disinformation.

            Russia is even going further in its lies, with “the Kremlin’s latest claim is that the U.S. has trained an army of migratory birds to carry bioweapons developed by the Ukrainian army, and that said birds are preparing to fly into Russia and deploy those bioweapons. This message wasn’t seeded on some fringe message board by a conspiracy theory-addled extremist: It was boosted by Major General Igor Konashenkov, the chief spokesman for the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation, who was speaking on camera Thursday about this outrageous (and entirely fictional) plot.” (quoting a Vice News article).

            1. We have heard lies from the deep state before, over Russia, Ukraine and elsewhere.

              Honesty is not a characteristic we expect from those on the left whether in high places or on street level. The left is dishonest as shown by ATS.

            2. “The US Department of Defense does not own or operate biological laboratories in Ukraine.”

              Which in your deceptive mind means the DoD denied the existence of biolabs in Ukraine?!

              “Rather than aping your Rightist sources . . .”

              You’re lying, again. Neither of my stated sources were “Rightist.”

              A biolab is a biolab. Whether used for study or weapons is pure deflection.

              1. “Which in your deceptive mind means the DoD denied the existence of biolabs in Ukraine?!”

                Nope. I neither said nor implied that “the DoD denied the existence of biolabs in Ukraine.” The next two sentences that you omitted clearly acknowledge the existence of biolabs: “Under Secretary Nuland was referring to Ukrainian diagnostic and biodefense laboratories during her testimony, which are not biological weapons facilities. These institutions counter biological threats throughout the country.” I don’t think you’re stupid. I think you’re dishonest.

                “Neither of my stated sources were “Rightist.””

                LOL, did you really fail to understand that I was calling out the stupidity of your comment to Jeff? He isn’t aping anything. I don’t think you’re aping anything either. I assume that your errors are your own.

                “Whether used for study or weapons is pure deflection.”

                BS. Russia is claiming that Ukraine is deploying biological weapons developed at these labs. That is a lie, and Carlson is promulgating that lie, and whether or not they’re weapons labs is CENTRAL to the debate.

                1. “. . . Ukraine is deploying biological weapons developed at these labs. That is a lie, and Carlson is promulgating that lie . . .”

                  You are either Ill-informed or are lying about Carlson’s claim. He reported, accurately, that there are biolabs in Ukraine. Period.

                  If Putin gets his hands on them, they could become weapons labs — which is why the Biden administration should have disposed of them before Putin invaded. That they did not is unsurprising from an incompetent administration that cannot even manage a withdrawal.

                  After all, if you’re going to leave behind some $80 billion in military equipment for the Taliban, what’s a few biolabs left behind for Putin?

                  1. No, Sam, not “period.”

                    “Tucker Carlson: Someone needs to explain why there are dangerous biological weapons in Ukraine. The Pentagon is lying about this – why?”
                    Over and over, he implies that these labs are developing biological weapons.
                    Carlson says: “From your answer, Toria Nuland, we would assume because you all but said it, that there’s a military application to this research, that they were working on bioweapons. Again, your answer suggests that.”
                    He is lying. Her answer did NOT suggest that.
                    He later quotes the State Dept., “Continuing the quote, ‘Undersecretary Nuland was referring to Ukrainian diagnostic and biodefense laboratories during her testimony, which are not biological weapons facilities.’ What’s the difference exactly? Continuing the quote, ‘These institutions counter biological threats throughout the country.’
                    So that means nothing.” He calls the question of whether they’re bioweapons lab versus biodefense labs “a ridiculous semantic debate.” It is not a ridiculous semantic debate.
                    He says “Other world powers have come to the obvious conclusion. Again, we hate to do this, but under these circumstances, we asked our own spokespeople, they lied. We’re going to the Foreign Ministry of China, a country we despise. Here’s what they said today. They’re calling on weapons inspectors to take a look at these facilities in Ukraine right away.”
                    This isn’t even all of the times that he implied that they are weapons labs.
                    https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/tucker-we-have-right-know-this

                    You are the one who is “either Ill-informed or are lying about Carlson’s claims.”

                    The Biden Admin cannot “dispose” of them unless invited to do so, as the labs do not belong to the Biden Admin and we are not at war with Ukraine.

                    1. “The Biden Admin cannot “dispose” of them . . .”

                      That is recklessly irresponsible.

                      The U.S. funded and helped operate those labs. It has a moral responsibility to destroy them, so that a mass murder cannot get his hands on them.

                    2. Sam,

                      This is yet another example where you’ve made a demonstrably false claim — “You are either Ill-informed or are lying about Carlson’s claim. He reported, accurately, that there are biolabs in Ukraine. Period.” — and I gave you evidence that it’s false, and instead of acting like an adult and admitting that you were factually wrong, you simply ignore your mistake (or lie, if it’s a lie instead of a mistake). You did the same thing when you confused “FBI agents” with “FBI informants,” and you couldn’t bring yourself to admit it. You’ve said that you used to teach. It’s shameful that you were a teacher but demonstrate no integrity when it comes to correcting your factual mistakes. How did you teach your students to take responsibility for their mistakes when you won’t do that yourself?

                      Your new claim, “It has a moral responsibility to destroy them,” is an opinion, not a T/F claim. It is a fact (true) that the labs do not belong to the Biden Admin. It is a fact (true) that we are not at war with Ukraine. Just how do you propose that we destroy them unless they invite us to do so?

        3. I just saw an interview with a Russian television reporter, and she said that Tucker Carlson’s show is re-broadcast in Russia every night (with translations). Who would ever think that an American media outlet would broadcast someone so outrageously anti-American that his show is used by a foreign country as propaganda? And, Turley has hitched his wagon to the Fox star. Fallout will come from your alignment with these people, Turley, and you’ve brought it on yourself.

          1. Natacha,

            Turley cannot avoid being confronted one day over his willful blindness of Carlson’s pandering to Putin. Just like he would have been held accountable had he appeared with the likes of Alex Jones, Turley will be shamed by his association with the liar Carlson. It is disgraceful and an indelible black mark on his academic reputation.

            1. N & J: So reporting the truth (about biolabs in Ukraine) is “propaganda” and “pandering”?!

              So your solution is what — to bury the truth (as the Biden administration is doing)?

              1. Sam,

                Let’s just say that I don’t buy your “alternate facts” on the biolabs just like I don’t accept your “truth” that the election was stolen.

                1. More illegal harvesting. In Arizona, a half dozen people have already been indicted on charges of illegal harvesting in a probe by Attorney General Mark Brnovich that shows signs of expanding. It comes after the U.S. Supreme Court rejected Democrats’ arguments and concluded Arizona’s ban on harvesting was constitutional.

                  Voter fraud in Michigan. Michigan charged three women in connection with voter fraud schemes, including efforts to cast ballots on behalf of non-consenting nursing home residents.

  9. Svelaz, I want it known that though I agree with many of the comments about your “special” nature to be accurate, not all the words are mine. Sometimes you assume I am the one writing, but sometimes that assumption is false. From my perspective, it doesn’t matter because I could have said something similar, but I don’t want the credit. Occasionally some say minor things I disagree with, but that is OK because they are minor and open to opinion.

    1. S. Meyer, because you often post as an anonymous poster and criticize others for posting anonymously and being quite the hypocrite with such criticism. You can eliminate any confusion by simply sticking to your “S. Meyer” handle. I don’t change my handle and have no reason to. You can’t be trusted to be who you claim to be and use the “anonymous” handle to avoid accountability for your lying or personal attacks. You only have yourself to blame for any anonymous being assumed it is you.

      1. I post anonymously to relieve the burden on those upset with petty and stupid postings and the responses. That makes it easier for those not to read trash anonymous postings. If I believe there is value in something I post or require clarification, I use my name. With you, except for initial responses that are not as repetitive, I use anonymous. As others have said, your words are worthless, and I shouldn’t respond. They are entirely correct, so I frequently use anonymous, but not all replies are from me. Some are from others that seem to feel the same way I do. For the most part, they do not add to the confusion, and their remarks are consistent with mine, so there is no problem.

        I am signing so you can be assured this response is mine.

        1. S. Meyer, you post anonymously because you’re a coward and a shameless hypocrite. Your pithy excuses don’t validate your cowardly hypocrisy.

          1. I post anonymously because I am responding to a ‘special’ person who can’t think. Your responses belong in the trash, so any answers provided to you can go there as well. What can anyone else learn when one is responding to an idiot.

  10. Jonathan: As you say “raw politics” is on display–but on both sides re the dispute over whether the archivist David Ferriero should immediately certify the ERA. Democrats and the overwhelming majority of Americans want him to do it. The GOP opposes it. You oppose it. Article V of the Constitution states an Amendment “shall be valid to all intents and purposes” after being ratified by three-fourths of the states. Pretty straight forward. No mention of arbitrary deadlines. AG Barr bent to the will of the opponents of certification when he issued the OLC opinion. Barr was probably motivated by the fact that he is a conservative Catholic. The US Catholic bishop’s conference has opposed the ERA as a threat to “religious freedom”. The Catholic Church and other opponents see the ERA as a Trojan horse. If the ERA becomes the 28th Amendment it will be much more difficult to legally justify draconian anti-choice bills being passed in GOP controlled states. It is counter intuitive to believe that two decades into the 21st century, the US Constitution still does not formally recognize the full equality of more than half the country’s population. There are still many injustice issues–from wage disparities, parental leave laws, violence against women and other sex-based discrimination that could be cured by the ERA.

    It’s both funny and ironic you mention John Adams in connection with the ERA dispute. When Adams was busy helping draft the Declaration of Independence his wife, Abigail, wrote her husband a letter in March of 1776 saying: “By the way in the new code of laws which I suppose it will be necessary for you to make, I desire you would remember the ladies, and be more generous and favorable to them then your ancestors. Do not put such unlimited power into the hands of the husbands. If particular care and attention is not paid to the ladies, we are determined to foment a rebellion, and will not hold ourselves bound by any laws in which we have no voice or representation”. Whoa! But Adams and the other founders of the nation decided to ignore Abigail’s demands. While Adams opposed slavery he didn’t believe women had rights men should recognize. And I suppose you might be getting a similar letter from your wife in response to this post. Don’t say I didn’t warn you!

  11. This is absurd. Why don’t the democrats simply ask him to declare HR-1or anything else a constitutional amendment?
    Democrats are lawless & very dangerous.

  12. Democrats want to amend the Constitution by destroying the Constitution. Been that way since FDR

    1. Dims propose tax on oil companies to curb profiteering. Don’t you think they should do that to the Biden family?

    2. End P C and Tony are puppets of the Blog Stooge. They are also Ralph, Feldman, Giocon, Mistress Addams, Margot Ballhere, Hullbobby and many, many more.

    3. For Democrats the Constitution and the law only matter when it can be used against their opponents and it is to be ignored when it gets in their way. Their only principle is the lack of principle. It´s hierarchy, not hypocrisy.

      1. Your claim is false, and it’s odd that you keep putting inappropriate diacritical marks on some of your letters.

        1. Of course, his claim is correct and irrefutable, while your claim consists of mendacity and disinformation.

          Democrats are as far from the U.S. Constitution as Vladimir Putin, Karl Marx and Abraham Lincoln; democrats are the direct and mortal enemies of the Constitution and the United States of America.

          Incidentally, your “marks” is redundant of “diacritical.”

          1. You’re the one who demonstrates “mendacity and disinformation” daily, and you also need to work on your knowledge of English. The adjective “diacritical” correctly modifies the noun “marks.” I could have used the noun “diacritics” instead of the noun phrase “diacritical marks,” but both are correct.

    4. “Democrats want to amend the Constitution by destroying the Constitution.”

      Yep.

      It’s a “living document” that they want to kill.

  13. BY “INJURIOUS” AMENDMENT, “…THE RECONSTRUCTION OF A SOCIAL WORLD.”
    __________________________________________________________________

    The only valid and legitimate amendments are those that comprise the Bill of Rights. Amendments must not “injure” the Constitution as subsequent “amendments have. Amendments consist of “minor changes” to make fairer, more accurate, or more up to date, as per the Oxford dictionary. The Amendment process was never intended by the Founders to effect the complete overthrow of the American thesis, the U.S. Constitution and the American restricted-vote republic. As have the Ten Commandments, the Constitution of the United States of America was intended to stand in perpetuity – admitting of potential “minor” clarifications.

    Vladimir Putin is conducting the very same onerous repression through butcherly, total war, as Abraham Lincoln did when he illegally prosecuted a civil war and ordered Sherman’s March to the Sea. Putin, as did Lincoln, intends to impose communism. Lincoln was heavily influenced, if not comprehensively altered, by the ilk of Marx and Engels who had been driven out of Europe ending up in New York, Illinois and other states. Karl Marx wrote a letter of congratulation to his student, Lincoln, framing the phrase “social reconstruction” which was incorporated by Lincoln’s successors in their subversive and unconstitutional “Reconstruction Amendments.” As Putin’s barbarous savagery is to the reconstruction of the Soviet communist empire, Lincoln’s “Reign of Terror” was the inflection point for the incremental imposition of communism in America (i.e. Obama’s “fundamentally transforming”) leading to the current, communist, American, welfare state.

    https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/iwma/documents/1864/lincoln-letter.htm

    Lincoln chose Marx over Madison. Everything Lincoln and his successors did was unconstitutional and remains illegitimate to this day, with emphasis on the ‘injurious,” antithetical and deleterious “Reconstruction Amendments.”
    ____________

    ” And if there are amendments desired, of such a nature as will not injure the constitution, and they can be ingrafted so as to give satisfaction to the doubting part of our fellow citizens; the friends of the federal government will evince that spirit of deference and concession for which they have hitherto been distinguished.”

    – James Madison, Proposed Amendments to the Constitution, June 8, 1789
    ___________________________________________________________

    Oxford Dictionary

    amend verb
    /əˈmend/
    verb: amend; 3rd person present: amends; past tense: amended; past participle: amended; gerund or present participle: amending

    make minor changes in (a text) in order to make it fairer, more accurate, or more up-to-date.
    ________________________________________________________________________

    “These capitalists generally act harmoniously and in concert, to fleece the people.”

    – Abraham Lincoln, from his first speech as an Illinois state legislator, 1837
    __________________________________________________________

    “Everyone now is more or less a Socialist.”

    – Charles Dana, managing editor of the New York Tribune, and Lincoln’s assistant secretary of war, 1848
    __________________________________________________________________________________

    “The goal of Socialism is Communism.”

    – Vladimir Ilyich Lenin
    _________________

    “The workingmen of Europe feel sure that, as the American War of Independence initiated a new era of ascendancy for the middle class, so the American Antislavery War will do for the working classes. They consider it an earnest of the epoch to come that it fell to the lot of Abraham Lincoln, the single-minded son of the working class, to lead his country through the matchless struggle for the rescue of an enchained race and the reconstruction of a social world.”

    – Karl Marx and the First International Workingmen’s Association to Lincoln, 1864

  14. People let themselves think the worst of what could happen to weasel out of having to do anything. The worst of what you could imagine happening seldom actually happens.

  15. The gaslighting by Jen Psucki, Nancy Pelosi, Marxist Democrats and MSM (but I repeat myself), could replace Russian oil imports and fuel our nation for centuries.

    Lets go Brandon!!!

    …..

    “Biden halts oil and gas leases, permits on US land and water”
    Associated Press
    January 21, 2021

    BILLINGS, Mont. (AP) — The Biden administration announced Thursday a 60-day suspension of new oil and gas leasing and drilling permits for U.S. lands and waters, as officials moved quickly to reverse Trump administration policies on energy and the environment.

    “Biden halts oil, gas leases amid legal fight on climate cost”
    The Biden administration is delaying decisions on new federal oil and gas drilling and other energy-related actions
    – Associated Press
    February 22, 2022

    WASHINGTON — The Biden administration is delaying decisions on new oil and gas drilling on federal land and other energy-related actions after a federal court blocked the way officials were calculating the real-world costs of climate change.

  16. At some point, what is now called the Democrat Party, may be ruled illegal, or defunct. There may well be 3 major parties in America when that happens: the Socialist Party; the Democrat Party; and the Republican Party.

    1. I think so too. The Dem party is imploding, and there is no way they carry on like this. The others, when that finally happens in totality, is anybody’s guess. Funny to me that old school liberals still think the 21st century cares at all about their notions.

      1. I think the Republican Party is imploding. It is splitting into Trumpists and non-Trumpists.

        History will prove Lindsey Graham correct, though a bit slower than Graham anticipated: “If we nominate Trump, we will get destroyed…….and we will deserve it.”

        1. Well, Lindsey Graham is hardly an oracle. There are a number of Republicans who could prove superb Presidents, given they would have the solid foundation of the accomplishments of the Trump Administration upon which to build. 2024 is a long way off.

          1. Trump has already made clear that he wants to be the 2024 Republican nominee. Perhaps he’ll be prevented by a medical problem or being convicted of crimes. Perhaps the GOP will simply choose a different nominee. But if the GOP rejects Trump, I bet he will try to harm the GOP.

        2. ATS, after the election Lindsay Graham had to eat his words. You didn’t recognize that was said in 2016. One can never trust anything you say.

          1. You’re a liar Meyer. Of course I knew that Graham said it in 2016. That’s why I said that he’d be proved correct “a bit slower than Graham anticipated.” Graham was talking about the 2016 election, whereas I am talking about the future.

            You are a troll who’s so desperate to find excuses to criticize that you invent them.

            1. “You’re a liar Meyer. Of course I knew that Graham said it in 2016.”

              You knew the date, but you didn’t say it, and now you conflate it. What you tried to do was deceive people. That is your nature, along with being a liar.

              If you were honest, you would have stated the date. But when are you honest?
              In fact, your explanation is dishonest as well.

      2. Richard Lowe and James are both puppets of the Blog Stooge.

        They are also Ralph, Giocon, Mistress Addams, Margot Ballhere, Hullbobby and many, many more.

  17. Democrats are nothing but a party of criminals. Nothing is beneath them as long as it leads to power. Ever since Obama, the Democrats have engaged in criminal acts and they keep ramping up, from covert to extreme brazenness. Our only solution is for the GOP to retake Congress with a supermajority and drive a stake through all Dem policies.

  18. Watching the insanity/wokeism/fascist power lust of the Dems, I may have to go with Bill Barr in the upcoming 2024 elections,
    “Because I believe the greatest threat to the country is the progressive agenda being pushed by the Democratic Party, it’s inconceivable to me that I wouldn’t vote for the Republican nominee.”

    1. Upstate Farmer: so, according to you disciples, it’s the Democrats who are guilty of “power lust”? You could only think this if you are a disciple to alt-right media. To begin with, Republicans are busily gerrymandering and passing voter restrictive laws to prevent working class and people of color from voting and/or to make it as inconvenient as possible, and, if there was a scenario like 2020, to actually be able to change votes and award them to the losing candidate, like Trump demanded Raffensberger do in Georgia, based on no facts or evidence of voter fraud. Republicans are kicking Democrats and blacks off of local election boards to control how votes are counted, and so that they can invalidate as many Democratic votes as possible. As the loser you worship paraphrased, it’s not the number of votes that count, it’s who counts them that matters. Republicans know that their support is waning and has been for years, so they have to cheat and rig the system to stay in power.

      Joe Biden has been forced to contend with pressures and abuse that no other president in history has had to deal with, beginning with the candidate he beat refusing to go away, refusing to shut up, constantly appearing a rallies, on alt-right media, and endlessly lying about his record, criticizing Biden and the Democrats, and even praising a murderous dictator who invaded a peaceful nation because he wants to control it and to prevent NATO from coming near Russia’s borders so that he can take over more countries. Then, there’s the alt-right media that criticizes him and lies about him and his accomplishments 24 hours a day.
      Then, there’s members of Congress. Yesterday, Lindsay Graham actually attacked Biden over the Polish airplane deal, claiming that Biden messed it up somehow. Biden made it clear that the US was not going to get into a conflict with Russia over Ukraine’s air space, but that the US would support Ukraine as much as we could without getting directly involved. Poland should have just quietly delivered the aircraft to Ukraine, but they didn’t. It is the Poles who publicized their desire that the US fly the MiGs from Ramstein Air Base in Germany to Ukraine, which the US refused to do because this would start a war with Russia, which Putin would just love. VP Harris went to Poland to smooth things over. How was her visit to Poland handled by alt-right media? Eye-rolling and implying that she’s a worthless joke. What do Republicans do? Attack Biden because they use every opportunity to criticize everything he does and blame him for anything they can. Then, there’s Pence and that mutt he’s married to showing up at the Ukrainian border. What the hell was he doing there, anyway, other than playing politics? How does this divisive political posturing and constant undermining of Biden and Harris look to the rest of the world? Some things are political fair game, but others shouldn’t be. Constantly trying to divide America into the pro-ReTrumplicans and everyone else camps and playing politics with the death and destruction going on in Ukraine is outrageously un-patriotic. We are potentially on the cusp of another world war, and now is not the time to play politics.

      As a matter of political fact, the “progressive agenda” is NOT “being pushed by the Democratic Party” at this time. There are no pending bills right now that are part of the “progressive agenda”. And, BTW, what do you define as a “progressive agenda”, anyway? Biden’s infrastructure package has been passed and most Americans welcome the bridge and road repairs and other things it will bring. Most of the items of the “progressive agenda” are supported by the majority of Americans, so please explain to me how any “progressive agenda” constitutes ” not only a threat to this country, but the “greatest threat”, if you are able to do so.

      It is inconceivable to me that so many people want the strife and turmoil to continue, because if the Republicans get control of Congress, America would be in real trouble. And, you believe that it’s Democrats who are guilty of “insanity…[and] power lust”? The “greatest threat” we have right now is the ReTrumplican Party’s unpatriotic politicization of everything and their efforts to divide America.

      1. Joe Biden has been forced to contend with pressures and abuse that no other president in history has had to deal with…Then, there’s the alt-right media that criticizes him and lies about him and his accomplishments 24 hours a day.

        Bwahahahahahaha! 🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪 you are absolutely bat-$hit crazy.

        1. Olly: did Obama go on television every single day, on rallies, on radio and anywhere else that would have him and criticize Trump? Did Bush do this to Obama? Can you name any predecessor occupant of the White House who every single day goes on some sort of media and criticizes their successor, or who won’t stay out of politics? Name one, other than Trump. When Trump stunk up the White House, were there new networks that sprung up just to criticize him about everything he does or doesn’t do, like News Max, OAN, Breitbart and InfoWars? CNN, MSNBC, NBC, CBS, ABC and PBS all pre-dated Trump. How do you think America looks to the rest of the world with this going on? Did it ever occur to you that the reason White House predecessors stay out of politics and don’t criticize their successor is because of patriotism and respect for the will of the American people.

          Is name-calling the best you can do?

          1. Is name-calling the best you can do?

            Pot, meet kettle.

            Then, there’s Pence and that mutt he’s married to showing up at the Ukrainian border.

            1. My comment about Karen Pence following Mike Pence around like a puppy dog wasn’t substantive, and neither is your response. Can you respond to my points about previous Presidents having to deal with the steady drumbeat of criticism and efforts to undermine his credibility and authority by a previous president and media outlets created just for this purpose? How about the perception this gives to the rest of the world? In your alt-right world, Biden and his family are accused of all sorts of crimes and conflicts of interest (without any factual proof), he is accused of being weak and senile, and they criticize everything he does, all the while claiming that the rest of the world doesn’t respect him. For the most part, the ReTrumplicans will vote against anything and everything Biden and the Democrats propose, no matter the merits, and this is purely for political reasons. Do we look like a united country with this going on, and what other President has ever had to deal with such abuse?

          2. Speaking of Trump, what do you thank should be the punishment for people who went along with & pushed to shoot into people/kids arms all these illegal bio/chem weapons?

          3. Why, yes, Mr. Obama and his supporters never missed an opportunity to attack President Trump. Nor did such luminaries as former President Carter and Mrs. Clinton. CNN, et al. were at it 24/7/365 – no patriotism or respect for the will of the American people on their watch. As it happens, the criticisms of Mr. Biden and his Administration are well-deserved – as whole, they plumb new depths of fecklessness. As I was driving about today, I saw a bumper sticker reading, “AMBER ALERT – White male, 78, wandering in DC. Thinks he’s President.” Laughed so hard, I cried.

            1. Are you trying to claim that during Trump’s fake “presidency”, President Obama attacked Trump daily, like Trump does with Biden? I know you know better than that. Bear in mind that “the will of the American people” in 2016 was that Hillary Clinton should be President–she won the popular vote, and Trump cheated his way into office with the help of Russian hackers. You can laugh at Biden all you want, but if your hero had managed to cheat his way back into office, there would be a hot war right now in Ukraine because Trump is dumb and impulsive. He might have tried to pull the US out of NATO and would definitely have let Putin do whatever he wanted to do, so there would be war for certain because NATO would have to stop him and we’d have to get involved sooner or later. And, you can complain all you want about gas prices, but a full-blown war is a lot more expensive.

              1. Why, yes, and if not Mr. Obama, it was his surrogates, chiefly Hillary Clinton. Under the Constitution, the “will of the American people” in a presidential election is reflected through the Electoral College – the popular vote is not a “national” vote. Winning the popular vote in a given state determines who gets the electoral votes in that state. We are, after all, a federal republic – each state remains sovereign. The “Russia Collusion” was a hoax – as has been clearly demonstrated. Russians hack, or are trying to hack, into US systems all the time. There is no single election system anyone could have hacked in 2016, let alone the Russians, that would have affected the outcome of the election. There is no way of knowing whether there would have been a hot war in Ukraine had President Trump been re-elected; but, it would hardly have been a tragedy had we pulled out of NATO. There’s a reason why the acronym really stands for “No Action, Talk Only.” We have been carrying them for years, and it still took a war on their doorsteps for them to pull the finger out.

                1. “The “Russia Collusion” was a hoax”

                  No, it wasn’t. There’s clear evidence of people on Trump’s campaign colluding with Russian agents (Manafort with Kilimnik, Stone with Guccifer 2). Trump publicly asked Russia to break the law to help him, and Russia did commit crimes to help him.

      2. Natacha,
        I am not someones “disciple.”
        I did not vote for Trump in 2016 or 2020.
        I am registered Independent.
        I donated monies to Tulsi Gabbard, twice. Would of a third time too, but she then dropped out.

        Get some help for that TDS.
        You are the reason why I agree with what Bill Barr said.

        1. Do you also agree with Barr that Trump LOST in 2020, and that he is immature and impulsive and throws tantrums when he doesn’t get his way? If you can’t see the ReTrumplicans for what they are, you are a “disciple”. You still haven’t, and cannot, identify any “progressive agenda” item that is “the greatest threat to our country”. Universal child care? Family leave? What do you have a problem with?

          1. People with TDS clearly have a mental condition. They are likely a danger to themselves and those around them. They should be institutionalized, medicated and in therapy. They should not be allowed to operate heavy machinery, reproduce, own property or vote.
            This has been a Public Service Announcement brought to you by the “2020 Election is Over, Get on With Your Life” and The Doctors for TDS Council.”
            Thank you.

            1. Yes, the 2020 election is over, and Trump lost. But Trump continues to peddle his Big Lie that he won. We are in the midst of hundreds of criminal cases involving Trumpists who attacked the Capitol on Jan. 6 because they were taken in by Trump’s Big Lie; many people have chosen to plead guilty, but this week, the first case went to trial and the jury quickly returned a guilty verdict. The week before, there was the first seditious conspiracy guilty plea. The conspiracy investigation continues, and I wouldn’t be surprised if Giuliani is charged soon, with Roger Stone not far behind, and perhaps Trump eventually. Trump is inserting himself into lots of Republican primary contests, and he’s already talking about running again in 2024. I consider him a danger to the US and the world. He loves authoritarians, talks about Putin as a “friend” and a “genius” and called the invasion of Ukraine “savvy.” He betrayed his oath of office and pressured Pence to act unconstitutionally. You may want to ignore that Trump as an ongoing danger, but others of us will not join you in that willful ignorance.

      3. Natacha, you go from subject to subject always missing your target. Back to Israel and the Palestinians. Tell me what history you disagree with. I can provide links to the important documents. Are you all talk and unable to discuss facts?

        1. Anonymous I don’t know who you are, but how does the history of Israel and the Palestinians relate to this conversation about the endless pounding Biden gets from Trump and alt-right media, something that makes America look divided and which no other POTUS has ever had to contend with? I’m not the one who goes from subject to subject. The post above responded to Upstate’ Farmer’s agreement with Barr’s recent comments, which included his statements that Trump LOST in 2020, that there was no evidence of widespread voter fraud and that he is impulsive and throws temper tantrums.

          1. “Anonymous I don’t know who you are, but how does the history of Israel and the Palestinians relate to this conversation”

            It doesn’t, but it shows how you cannot finish a topic before you go onto another where you do nothing but repeat yourself over and over again. I provided you with a history of the law regarding the British mandate of Palestine. Yet, you continued with your meaningless word salads as if the truth was something that would make you dissolve and evaporate away.

            You have done this on other subjects as well. If you need a repeat of the history, I will provide it, but you should not be permitted to run away.

Leave a Reply