Showing posts with label partisan politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label partisan politics. Show all posts

Wednesday, March 22, 2023

Eric Greitens: Soros’ Scheme Against Trump is More than a Political Attack. Here’s what it means for you, and for America

The very idea of “a law” that had merit and meaning beyond the mere wishes of those in power was one of the great gifts of Israel, embodied in the Old Testament. It was a new idea, never before practiced in human history.

 

The very idea that such a law could be embodied in a Constitution, and that every individual citizen in a Republic could be equal before the law was also a new invention in human history, first practiced in the United States of America.

Eric Greitens: Soros’ Scheme Against Trump is More than a Political Attack. Here’s what it means for you, and for America.


Friday, March 13, 2020

TIMELINE: Democrats Pushed Impeachment While Coronavirus Spread

"The timeline of the two developments — impeachment and coronavirus — is shocking, and reveals the true cost of hyper-partisanship."

THE TIMELINE:

  • January 11: Chinese state media report the first known death from an illness originating in the Wuhan market.
  • January 15: Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) holds a vote to send articles of impeachment to the Senate. Pelosi and House Democrats celebrate the “solemn” occasion with a signing ceremony, using commemorative pens.
  • January 21: The first person with coronavirus arrives in the United States from China, where he had been in Wuhan.
  • January 23: The House impeachment managers make their opening arguments for removing President Trump.
  • January 23: China closes off the city of Wuhan completely to slow the spread of coronavirus to the rest of China.
  • January 30: Senators begin asking two days of questions of both sides in the president’s impeachment trial.
  • January 30: The World Health Organization declares a global health emergency as coronavirus continues to spread.
  • January 31: The Senate holds a vote on whether to allow further witnesses and documents in the impeachment trial.
  • January 31: President Trump declares a national health emergency and imposes a ban on travel to and from China. Former Vice President Joe Biden calls Trump’s decision “hysterical xenophobia … and fear-mongering.”
  • February 2: The first death from coronavirus outside China is reported in the Philippines.
  • February 3: House impeachment managers begin closing arguments, calling Trump a threat to national security.
  • February 4: President Trump talks about coronavirus in his State of the Union address; Pelosi rips up every page.
  • February 5: The Senate votes to acquit President Trump on both articles of impeachment, 52-48 and 53-47.
  • February 5: House Democrats finally take up coronavirus in the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Asia.
For twenty days, from the day the first death from coronavirus was known, Democrats did nothing about it. They were too busy with the president’s impeachment trial — a trial Pelosi had delayed unnecessarily for several weeks.
To the extent that they commented on coronavirus at all, it was only to tear up the president’s remarks or to call him a racist. They told the nation that he, not coronavirus, was a threat to the national security of the United States.
READ MORE:


Sunday, May 12, 2013

MSM covers Obama administration's newest scandal - UPDATE

Thanks to a post over at Legal Insurrection, I'm posting two -- get this -- MSM (MAIN STREAM MEDIA) articles about the newest Obama administration scandal:

Washington Post [Editorial Board]
The agency said that it now has rules in place to make sure this sort of thing never happens again. How could such basic safeguards not have existed in the first place? And what are the new rules? In response to our questions, officials did not say.

Thankfully, it’s a safe bet that the decision on whether to answer such questions won’t rest solely with the agency for much longer.
and the New York Times
The historical term for this kind of anxiety is “Brown Scare” — an inordinate fear of a vast far-right conspiracy, which resembles the anti-Communist panics of our past.
UPDATE:
The New York Times obtained a 12-page timeline from the inspector general’s audit on Sunday. It suggests that the effort to single out Tea Party groups goes back to March 2010. . .
READ MORE

HAT TIP: Hugh Hewitt

Sunday, January 16, 2011

I do not want civil discourse

by Don Surber
For a decade, from the election of Bush 43 forward, the Left has lied and cheated as it tried to return to power. Al Gore made a mockery out of the American electoral system by being a spoilsport over Florida, which Bush indeed won by 537 votes. Dan Rather forged a document to try to derail Bush’s re-election. Twice Democrats stole U.S. senators from the Republicans. After voting to support the war to get by the 2002 election, many Democrats quickly soured on the war. The profane protests were cheered by liberals who misattributed “dissent is the highest form of patriotism”to Thomas Jefferson; the words belong to the late historian Howard Zinn.

Once in power, liberals were the opposite of gracious.

For two years now, I have been called ignorant, racist, angry and violent by the left. The very foul-mouthed protesters of Bush dare to now label my words as “hate speech.”

Last week, the left quickly blamed the right for the national tragedy of a shooting spree by a madman who never watched Fox News, never listened to Rush Limbaugh and likely did not know who Sarah Palin is.

Fortunately, the American public rejected out of hand that idiotic notion that the right was responsible.

Rather than apologize, the left wants to change the tone of the political debate.

The left suddenly wants civil discourse.

Bite me.

The left wants to play games of semantics.

Bite me.

The left wants us to be civil — after being so uncivil for a decade.

Bite me.

There is grown-up work to do now. Liberals ran up the federal credit card, destroyed the American medical system and undermined the rule of law — which is the foundation of capitalism — with a bunch of unconstitutional fiats from the president and his bureaucracy.

The economy is a mess. The president “inherited” a 7.6% unemployment rate. It’s now 9.4% — after we spent a record $787 billion on a stimulus.

I was not consulted on that stimulus. I had a very good argument against it. I said the money supply was too large and printing more money would fail. I said let the economic downturn run its course.

Lefties were too busy celebrating the 2008 election to listen.

When people protested lefties made vulgar remarks about tea-bagging and giggled.

So screw you and your civil discourse.

I don’t want to hear it.

I have been screamed at for 10 years.

It’s my turn now. I am not going to scream back. But I refuse to allow anyone to dictate what I say or how I say it. I refuse to allow the same foul-mouthed, foul-spirited foul people who dumped on me to now try to tell me what I may or may not say.

My free speech matters more than the feelings of anyone on the left. You don’t like what I say? Tough.

I will not allow people to label my words Hate Speech or try to lecture me on civility. I saw the lefty signs. The left’s definition of civil discourse is surreal.

We have a terribly unfit president who has expanded government control beyond not only what is constitutional but what is healthy for our freedom.

Indeed, this call for civil discourse is itself a direct threat to my free speech.

So screw you.

You don’t like my words? You don’t like my tone? You feel threatened?

Too bad.

No.

Actually, that is what I want. I want the lefties to feel bad. I want them to feel hurt. I want them to cry to their mommies.

That way the field will be cleared so we grown-ups can fix the nation and the economy. If you can’t put up with a little excrement, get the hell out of the barn.

UPDATE: Linked by Ann Althouse. Thanks.

Wednesday, July 28, 2010

Democrats Pat Caddell and Doug Schoen lament

WSJ: OUR DIVISIVE PRESIDENT

Wednesday, February 17, 2010

The real reason Evan Bayh wants out of Washington

The political retirement of Evan Bayh, at age 54, is being portrayed by various sages as a result of too much partisanship, or the Senate's dysfunction, or even the systemic breakdown of American governance. Most of this is rationalization. The real story, of which Mr. Bayh's frustration is merely the latest sign, is the failure once again of liberal governance.
Read more