Two Racial Grievance Girls: Michelle and Meghan
How much do Meghan Markle, duchess of Sussex, and Michelle Obama, ex–first lady, have in common? It’s odd how much, yet how little of distinction or substance is in that muchness — given the strong hints of vacuity in both women, and in spite of the gushing excesses of “personality” in their public profiles. There are so many legitimately accomplished and courageous female heroines, past and present. It is an unfortunate characteristic of reportage that the likes of these two get the insistent “coverage” withheld from those far more deserving.
The two women share middle-class backgrounds and higher education (Michelle Ivy League, Meghan top-tier) degrees. Both women have been (Michelle) and are (Meghan) using their own mothers to “help” raise their children, in a sort of familial au pair capacity. Both have high-fashion tastes and use private jets for travel. Both are frequent commentators on their own racial victimization.
The serious press doesn’t run much on Meghan, yet just enough to legitimize the tabloids; social media; and bored, dissatisfied individuals across the world who opine that the duchess is something worth thinking about.
Michelle Obama, by contrast, is heavily reported, always, in the MSM. Michelle does revolving books (or someone does for her). Apparently, she has a heavy hand in the Obama Netflix MAGA attack theatre. She routinely fills up the Obama unearned privilege tank with loads of cash, to spend or invest, from wildly overpaid speeches and “cameo” appearances. Never has grifting been so easy. At last count, Michelle has four mansions to “live in” and enjoys her subsidized, international celebrity vacation tours annually.
We were told, shortly after Meghan’s ascent — via her heavily strategized betrothal and royal marriage to Prince Harry — that Michelle and Meghan were already “friends” (really?). There is no longer intel on that “friendship” through the MSM waves — which silence is, of itself, meant to carry a message to us. Is Michelle not happy with Meghan’s aggressive socio-political ambitions in the race market? Michelle O is, to any marginally perceptive voter, an argumentative, über-aggrieved individual who leaves no quarter for rivalry. (Ask Jill Biden.)
Meghan is small beer compared to Michelle — or the press really thinks so. So what is the commercial glue that holds these two aloft, at least in the progressive mind? Why, “racism,” of course. Just ask poor old Oprah, who filmed a long whine-in session after Duchess Meghan’s flight back to Canada (with her prince in tow), and then to California, where Hollywood is. The main topic was Meghan’s so-called privileged “sufferings” across the pond in Britain — as a “Black.” Goodness, who knew?
Michelle has those privileged sufferings, too, in her White House desert years, and perennially. Here Michelle Obama is, with ex–first lady Laura Bush, both commenting — from Tanzania — on life in the White House:
MRS. OBAMA: No, there are prison elements to it [The White House]. (Laughter.) But it's a really nice prison, so...
MRS. BUSH: But with a chef.
The nuances and cultivation of racism are brought to the American public through the services of our nearly fascistic government and MSM — which government/MSM is reinventing the common humanity (remember “the human race”?) of the American people — now in hyper-regulated P.C., separate parts of a slice-and-dice universe — with no human solidarity, and thus no shared moral core. “Racism” is further devolving around us into faux “feminism” and faux “gender-transitioning” and any other divisive, unproven absurdity, now almost overtaken by “climate change”–ism. We are being separated and estranged from one another — to give the brutish U.S. government and the world’s elite a power lock on our lives.
A handy barometer for the federal, monetized aggression via “isms” against the American people can be readily seen in the current documents of the U.S. Census, as it fails to justify its growing demands upon our privacy and insists on the priority of “race” in every evaluation:
The racial categories included in the census questionnaire generally reflect a social definition of race recognized in this country and not an attempt to define race biologically, anthropologically, or genetically. In addition, it is recognized that the categories of the race item include racial and national origin or sociocultural groups. People may choose to report more than one race to indicate their racial mixture, such as “American Indian” and “White.” People who identify their origin as Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish may be of any race.
OMB requires five minimum categories: White, Black, or African American, American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, and Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander.
Oh-kay. The U.S. Census does admit that it is not using formal definitions or understandings, let alone “science,” regarding what “race” means. That is right — they aren’t — but they are making up some. Whatever might be “a social definition of race”?
All it took for Meghan’s version of her racially victimized past to stick was to haul her “Black Mother” — who raised her less than her white father did — across the ocean and announce to the world (having landed Harry) that the duchess is not “really white,” as it turns out (like her despicable, too responsible dad), but “black.” Meghan is hip that, in the currency of her journey, “white” is not a good look. She needs the MSM and progressive buy-in — and wants it driven, as part of the winning political message, out to the streets, where the clueless, protesting public await another bone to chew on.
At present, how goes the polling on Meghan and Michelle? Michelle is widely proffered as a candidate for the 2024 presidential race.
The ex–first lady’s oft-cited popularity, almost exclusively extant among the Democrats, is a result of at least a decade of unrelieved, inaccurate, fatuous, Photoshopped, and insistent accolades from the MSM and social media. Well, she could secure the Obama “fourth term” — which should be, to any sentient creature, a truly horrific prospect.
And what of poor little Meghan, still toiling as an outfielder in the polling world? Hilariously, Meghan has been advanced by several — including Biden’s sister — as a good presidential prospect.
Meghan has no political qualifications. Michelle is less politically qualified than ex–first lady Hillary was, in her bespoke, scandal-bedeviled nomination, positioned as a heavyweight in the inherently dubious ex–first lady presidential qualification scales.
Meghan is not polling very well, even as a popular “influencer,” lately. Well, that’s show business. Soap actress Meghan, bless her, may have to wait for 2028. Michelle may be more “lucky.” In the meantime, maybe Meghan should pick up a law degree. Harvard is looking for some good press.
The Democrat party: who are they?
Just who are the members of the Democrat/socialist/communist (D/s/c) Party? How do their beliefs differ from those of normal Americans?
I write “D/s/c” as an umbrella acronym for the Democrat Party, which is largely devoured and directed by its socialist and communist-leaning members. It also encompasses various anarchist and fascist—fascists are leftists—branches such as BLM, Antifa and other charming social organizations, though they’re a bit more overt in their destructive designs. Their view of politicians is at once worshipful and cynical. They tend to see and speak of them in messianic terms as they did and do with Barack Obama. He’s “The One,” and “The Lightbringer.” Google “Obama halo” and you’ll find an endless supply of photos and other images of Obama wearing a halo. He's been depicted as a pseudo-Hindu god of death, and in saint-like iconography. One magazine interposed him over a cross in time for Easter, and he often used our troops as worshipful stage props. Even now, his followers proclaim him the most brilliant man ever to have lived, and he continues to brilliantly damage America.
Image: Barack Obama 2008 Kuwait. Wikimedia Commons.org. Public Domain.
Contrast this with Joe Biden who was, until recently, universally favorably depicted, but not blasphemously worshipped. He’s being cynically used, a rapidly spoiling meat puppet whose political usefulness is nearly expired, a tragic victim of elder abuse. Even so, if he can be drug into a fourth Obama term, his handlers will be delighted to keep propping him up. He can be controlled.
D/s/cs tend not to be overtly religious. Their political beliefs are their faith, and in true communist style, there can be no greater power than the Party, which is their secular faith. This largely explains their increasingly overt hostility toward, and persecution of, Christians. This too is projection. They see Christians as deadly threats, so believe Christians feel the same and will act on those feelings. Thus has the FBI been surveilling Catholics who appreciate the Latin Mass, branding them “Radical Traditional Catholics.” Thus were innumerable Christians arrested for trying to attend church during Covid lockdowns.
Essential to understanding them is knowing many of them think themselves morally, intellectually, and politically superior to normal Americans. They're the self-imagined elite. They really do denigrate the denizens of “Flyover Country”—their term--that vast, cultural wasteland between the enlightened coasts where Deplorables live their pathetic, uninformed, meaningless little lives.
Because they are superior beings, their political beliefs and policies are perfect--non-falsifiable. They cannot fail and no evidence can prove them wrong. When those policies inevitably fail, the failure is either ignored, indignantly denied, or blamed on their generosity in allowing their opponents to keep living to oppose those policies. Perhaps the policies haven’t been in force long enough for their wonders to manifest, they haven’t been imposed on Deplorables good and hard enough, or as always, not nearly enough money has been spent. Failure is impossible, but inadequate messaging may be reluctantly admitted. Doubling down on failure, and the more destructive the better, is their status quo.
They value ideological purity in voting and all else, and virtually always vote in lockstep. They are masters of warping language to their benefit and invent new narratives to suit their transitory political needs. Critical Race Theory (CRT) and Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) are related narrative systems that reflect their political methods of class/identity warfare where there are oppressors—white Americans—and the oppressed—everyone else. Individuals don't matter.
Joe Biden infamously observed “we believe in truth over facts.” Among their current truths is America was founded on slavery, is irredeemably racist, and is the source of all the world’s evils. All white people are white supremacists, and all political opponents are domestic terrorists, insurrectionists, and existential threats to “our democracy,” their intended tyranny of the majority.
Among their favored oppressed are criminals--the more violent and depraved the better--and their policies have turned our blue cities into third world war zones. Other oppressed are the millions of illegal aliens they’re importing. Non-D/s/c Americans have so disappointed them. They intend to abolish them and import their replacements. That many of them are criminals, terrorists, pedophiles, slavers and masses who can’t speak the language and have no skills with which to support themselves is a feature rather than a bug. They’re worried about the illegal avalanche, but not because of the damage it’s doing to America. They’re afraid of losing power, afraid, despite their best Trump Derangement Syndrome efforts, their election fraud protocols might not prevail.
Some of them still possess a conscience, a modicum of morality and decency. They know what they’re doing is wrong, but their politics appeal to the basest emotions and drives, among them, power, and power corrupts. Pursuing power, they’re becoming increasingly afraid of Donald Trump—of normal Americans—and desperate people do desperate things.
Mike McDaniel is a USAF veteran, classically trained musician, Japanese and European fencer, life-long athlete, firearm instructor and retired police officer and high school and college English teacher. His home blog is Stately McDaniel Manor.
“Protect and enrich.” This is a perfect encapsulation of the Clinton Foundation (TWO GAMER LAWYERS - OWNED BY GEORGE SOROS) (WHAT ABOUT THE CHINA BIDEN PENN CENTER?) and the Obama (TWO GAMER LAWYERS - OWNED BY GEORGE SOROS) book and television deals. Then there is the Biden family (FOUR GAMER LAWYERS - JOE, HUNTER, JAMES, FRANK - OWNED BY GEORGE SOROS AND LARRY FINK OF BLACKROCK) corruption, followed closely behind by similar abuses of power and office by the Warren (GAMER LAWYER) and Sanders families, as Peter Schweizer described in his recent book “Profiles in Corruption.” These names just scratch the surface of government corruption (ADD GAMER LAWYER KAMALA HARRIS (WANTS TO BE OWNED BY GEORGE SOROS) AND HER LAWYER HUSBAND AND THE BANKSTERS’ RENT BOY, LAWYER CHUCK SCHUMER, OWNED BY LARRY FINK OF BLACKROCK WHO OWNS A BIG PIECE OF THE ‘BIG GUY’ JOE, AND GEORGE SOROS’ RENT BOY (GAMER LAWYER) TONY BLINKEN, AS WELL AS CON MAN (GAMER LAWYER) ADAM SHIFF) AND HIS CORRUPTNESS (GAMER LAWYER) BOB MENENDEZ STILL EVADING PRISON.
BRIAN C JOONDEPH
Why Michelle Obama is as Rotten a Choice for President as Hillary Clinton
Democrats are using identity politics again to test the waters for a ballot replacement for Joe Biden instead of finding a candidate with bona fide qualifications -- and integrity.
Michelle Obama is being touted a possible candidate who could beat Donald Trump.
She was recently publicized as an executive producer of a Netflix fiction movie, along with husband Barack.
There was not much of the old Obama hopey-changey messaging in her anti-white Netflix endeavor, however, which left identity politics as her selling point with voters.
Per the academic definition, identity politics is a Marxist tactic of assigning utmost societal importance to a candidate’s empowerment of a collective, victimized group such as women, or minorities.
Anyone opposing the victim-candidate is immediately labeled as suppressing the entire representative group. For example, people who opposed presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton were labeled as anti-women or misogynists, just as those who criticized Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012 were called racist.
Identity politics has pulverized Dr. Martin Luther King’s Jr.’s dream of Americans judging others by the “content of their character instead of the color of their skin” in choosing a candidate.
Meanwhile, collectivism is a fundamental element of totalitarian ideology.
As a result, political candidate selection that should embrace American individualism and Dr. King’s character-content theory is now surpassed by identity politics.
But individualism and integrity as candidate-qualifiers have not worked out well for Democrats.
For example, in Hillary Clinton’s case, her entire 2016 campaign was dependent on identity politics and Democrats’ collective yearning to elevate women with a first woman president.
But, Clinton’s integrity was defined by such moments as being caught on tape nervously laughing about winning a case for a 41-year old rapist of a 12 year-old girl, and her soulless, exasperated, “What difference, at this point, does it make?” remark regarding her part in terrorists’ 2012 murders of a U.S. ambassador and three embassy employees in Benghazi, Libya shortly before President Obama's 2012 re-election.
Yet, Clinton had the opportunity for an unprecedented moment of integrity, that could have secured her future presidency, relevant to having endured many insufferable sexual misconducts (including dubious Jeffrey Epstein'd travels) by her philandering husband, Bill.
In that respect, Clinton was a genuine victim of wifely, mental abuse. She could have evidenced some feminist leadership by taking daughter Chelsea’s hand and proclaimed to the world, “We’re outta here, he’s a pig and women deserve better!"
Unfortunately, that moment never came, and she mercilessly maligned the “other women” instead.
So she showed zero moments of integrity to voters and Clinton was ultimately deemed by them a rotten choice for president of the United States.
But what of identity politics, and the possibility of Michelle Obama running against Trump — a first Black-woman president -- but another Barack Obama silhouette?
Michelle Obama has somewhat similar qualifications to Hillary Clinton, having served as first lady, and her capacity to project the appeal of identity politics.
But like Hillary, Michelle had a disqualifying moment that reflected poorly on her integrity, dating from Inauguration Day in 2016.
It was about her treatment of incoming the first lady, Melania Trump.
Americans will recall, Melania clad in a Jacqueline Kennedy-esque Ralph Lauren light blue pastel coat dress and matching gloves, nervously carrying a light blue Tiffany gift box to graciously offer the departing Michelle Obama.
But, instead of graciously accepting the gift and making Melania feel at home, Michelle recounted her alleged famously ‘awkward’ moment on the Ellen DeGeneres show this way:
Shaking her head with feigned embarrassment, Michelle stated she was given the famous robin’s egg blue box by Melania, and claimed she had no idea what to do with it. In other words, she attempted to construct the perception that Melania Trump had made the most unprecedented social gaffe in White House history.
To the delight of Trump-desping DeGeneres, Michelle complained: "So, I’m sort of like, 'O.K., what am I supposed to do with this gift?' and everyone (staff) cleared out and no one took this gift,” the former first lady added. With intuitive, Marxist finessing, Michelle painted herself as a victim of a traumatically awkward $1,000 sterling silver picture frame.
Moreover, this potential presidential candidate stated she felt helpless (by not a nuclear disaster, mind you) but by the utter shock of being handed a Tiffany gift box which required Barack’s vast political experience to rescue her from.
She confided to DeGeneres how thankful she was when her husband “saved the day” by taking the gift and (heroically) placing it inside the White House. Left-wing news platforms, only too happy to elicit hate against the Trumps, published dozens of headlines about Melania’s horrifically “awkward” gift.
In the video of the exchange, it doesn’t appear as though Michelle thanked Melania for the gift. She handed it off immediately and cast a flustered smirk into the camera, as if to say, “how weird is this?” The only explanation Obama offered for her boorish behavior was, “Well there is all this protocol. This is like a state visit so they tell you they’re going to stand here, and never before do you get this gift so I’m kind of like, ‘OK…What am I supposed to do with this gift?' ‘Never before,’ and ‘how awkward,’ was parroted for days in the halls of mainstream media.
But, in this defining moment of integrity, Michelle’s “protocol” story turned out to be a colossal lie, when the audience looks at the video of Michelle Obama giving outgoing first lady, Laura Bush, a similar gift on the exact same day: Inauguration Day in 2009, which brought the Obamas to the White House. Evidently, this is a tradition that Melania’s staff likely researched thoroughly, as opposed to any journalists reporting the stunningly awkward breaking news.
Then first lady Laura Bush, the epitome of Texas hospitality, had warmly thanked Michelle, and then simply positioned her gift box behind Barack’s back during the photo shoot as was normal social ‘protocol.’
What was Michelle’s defining moment hee-hawing with DeGeneres about the enormous “never been done before” lie rated?
What is this on the scale of presidential candidate choices?
Seems pretty much rotten.
However, Michelle’s intriguing memory loss could potentially be balanced out by association with husband Barack’s defining moments of integrity.
For example, who could forget the heart-wrenching video when Joe Biden, in the throes of senility, was pictured wandering in a crowd, lost, disoriented when suddenly he was relieved by spotting the familiar face of Barack?
This was an anguishing scene for anyone who has experienced the inner turmoil of dementia victims, and it was captured when Joe, snubbed by everyone swarming around him, fixated his eyes on someone he recognized and called out: 'Barack!' Painfully, Joe struggled through the unrecognized strangers in the crowd and when he did not get a response, he reached out and put his hand on Barack Obama’s shoulder, trying to get his attention and murmured a sentence... Barack...
But, Joe was icily ignored by the arrogant Obama, pompously working the room with more important people. Anyone who watched this pathetic video would identify the moment of disposable humanity oozing from the second gentleman in the White House if Michelle Obama were to be selected. How does this all measure up for a presidential candidate choice? Rotten indeed.
Marie Hembree is an Academic Resource Instructor for Northern California Title One schools and an academic journalist completing a Ph.D. dissertation in the Communication discipline.
Image: U.S. government // via Picryl (cropped) // public domain
The Eyes of Totalitarianism
It’s not your grandfather’s Democrat Party.
April 20, 2023 by John Perazzo 29
|
The iconic broadcaster, author, and legal scholar Mark Levin recently observed: “As a nation we’ve now turned the corner. We’ve turned the corner into a hard tyranny…. I just want the audience to know that we are staring into the face of tyranny, that the Democrat Party is a totalitarian party.”
And indeed, it is. To recognize this, we need only to listen when Democrats tell us – repeatedly – of their burning desire to “transform” the U.S. into a radicalized cesspool by such means as:
· ending the filibuster rule so they can forcibly ram their radical legislation through the Senate;
· governing via presidential executive orders rather than navigating the normal legislative process;
· promoting immigration and border policies designed to import massive blocs of foreigners who will eventually become reliable Democrat voters for generations to come;
· turning the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico into new U.S. states, thereby allowing Democrats to permanently pack the Senate with four additional members of their party;
· expanding the Supreme Court and packing it with newly appointed leftist ideologues;
· openly defying that same Supreme Court whenever its rulings conflict with Democrat Party preferences;
· forcibly censoring the free expression of any ideas that conflict with Democrat values; and
· pursuing the impeachment and imprisonment of their political foes on the flimsiest pretexts imaginable.
Below is an abundant collection of remarkable quotes by which immensely powerful Democrats in recent times have openly and proudly promoted the objectives enumerated above, like the domineering totalitarian thugs that they are.
Barack Obama (GAMER LAWYER)
During a campaign stop in Missouri five days before Election Day 2008, then-presidential candidate Barack Obama famously said, to thunderous applause: “Now, Mizzou, I just have two words for you tonight: Five days. Five days…. [W]e are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.”
Three months earlier, when candidate Obama spoke in July 2008 to the open-borders group, National Council of La Raza, he stated that “together, we won’t just win an election; we will transform this nation.”
And a year before that, on July 17, 2007, candidate Obama spoke before the Planned Parenthood Action Fund to advocate for unfettered abortion rights and said: “I am absolutely convinced that we’re not just going to win an election, but more importantly we’re going to transform this nation.”
Indeed, nearly two decades earlier, in an interview published by the Daily Herald on March 3, 1990, Obama had candidly articulated his desire to “reshape America” and “be part of a transformation of this country.”
The Democratic Party’s 2016 Platform
In 2016, the Democratic Party’s official platform said that in an effort “to end institutional and systemic racism in our society … [w]e will push for a societal transformation.”
Joe Biden (GAMER LAWYER)
At a March 26, 2019 presidential campaign event in New York City, Joe Biden said: “We all have an obligation to do nothing less than change the culture in this country. This is English jurisprudential culture, a white man’s culture. It’s got to change.”
On April 13, 2020, Biden said “we can transform this nation … so that [my administration] goes down in history … as one of the most progressive administrations since Roosevelt.”
On May 4, 2020, Biden characterized the coronavirus pandemic as an “incredible opportunity … to fundamentally transform the country.”
In early June 2020, Biden stated that America needed to make “revolutionary institutional changes.”
On July 4, 2020, Biden pledged to “rip the roots of systemic racism out of this country” and “transform” it.
On July 13, 2020, Biden promised to make “systemic” and “institutional” changes to American society.
On October 29, 2020, Biden channeled Obama’s famous utterance from 12 years earlier and said: “Five days left [until Election Day]. Five days. I believe when you use your power, the power of the vote, we literally are going to change the course of this country for generations to come.”
Shortly after two mass shootings that had killed a combined total of 18 people in Colorado and Georgia, White House press secretary Jen Psaki announced on March 24, 2021 that President Biden was planning to issue executive orders to address the issue of gun violence, and was “not waiting for anything to fail” in Congress.
In a September 9, 2021 speech announcing new federal COVID vaccine mandates, Biden said: “And tonight, I’m calling on all governors to require vaccination for all teachers and staff…. Let me be blunt. My plan also takes on elected officials in states that are undermining [teachers] and these lifesaving actions. […] If they’ll not help, if these governors won’t help us beat the pandemic, I’ll use my power as president to get them out of the way.”
On September 25, 2021, Biden said the following about the $1.9 trillion infrastructure bill that he was promoting: “My first piece of economic legislation will “fundamentally change the structure and the nature of the economy in this country.”
On October 4, 2021, Biden – citing the October 18 deadline by which time the Democrat-controlled Congress was seeking to raise the federal debt limit in order to allow for more government borrowing – condemned Senate Republicans for using the filibuster rule to block such a measure. “Republicans just have to let us do our job,” said Biden. “Just get out of the way. If you don’t want to help save the country, get out of the way so you don’t destroy it.”
On October 5, 2021, Biden said there was a “real possibility” that Senate Democrats might use their razor-thin majority to suspend the filibuster rule so they could forcibly raise the debt ceiling even with no Republican support at all.
During a June 30, 2022 press conference, Biden was asked what “specific actions” he might take in the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s recent decision to overturn Roe v. Wade. “I believe we have to codify Roe v. Wade in the law,” he said, “and the way to do that is to make sure Congress votes to do that. And if the filibuster gets in the way … we provide an exception for this, we require an exception to the filibuster for this action to deal with the Supreme Court decision.”
During a September 30, 2022 speech for Hispanic Heritage Month, Biden celebrated what he viewed as the political benefits of the mass migration – legal and illegal — of Mexicans and Central Americans into the United States. “When in American history has there been a circumstance where one ethnicity has the potential to have such a profound impact on the direction of a country?” he asked rhetorically. “Twenty-six percent of every child who’s in school today speaks Spanish — 26 percent,” Biden added.
Bernie Sanders
In October 2019, then-presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders said in a tweet: “Our campaign is not only about changing the system politically and economically. We will change the value system of this country.”
In August 2020, Sanders, who by then had dropped out of the presidential race, said that “when Joe Biden is elected president, when we have a Democratic House, when we have a Democratic Senate, we can begin the process of transforming this government and our nation.”
Charles Schumer (GAMER LAWYER)
In a September 30, 2020 interview with MSNBC’s Joy Reid, then-Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer speculated about what he and his fellow Democrats could accomplish if they were to win both the White House and a majority in the U.S. Senate: “I’m not busting my chops to become majority leader to do very little or nothing, We are going to get a whole lot done. And as I’ve said, everything, everything is on the table.” He further elaborated: “I would — believe me, on D.C. and Puerto Rico … I’d love to make them states.”
On the afternoon of November 7, 2020 — shortly after America’s largest media networks announced that Joe Biden had won the Electoral College vote in the disputed 2020 presidential election — Schumer, raising a clenched left fist for emphasis, told a jubilant crowd of supporters in Brooklyn: “Now we take Georgia, and then we change the world! Now we take Georgia, and then we change America!” (This was a reference to the two upcoming Senate runoff elections slated for January 5, 2021 in Georgia. If the Democrats could win both, they would gain control of the U.S. Senate.)
In a January 30, 2021 interview with Al Sharpton on MSNBC’s Politics Nation, Schumer, who was now the Senate Majority Leader, re-emphasized his commitment to bringing transformational change to the United States: “Well, Rev, we have one goal: big, bold change in America” which would include “dealing with D.C. and Puerto Rican statehood.” He also articulated his desire to end the Senate filibuster rule, thereby empowering his party to ram its radical agenda down the throat of a deeply divided nation at a time when Democrats controlled both the House and Senate by the slimmest of margins.
At a March 16, 2021 press conference, Schumer spoke about the prospect of Democrats either dispensing with the Senate filibuster rule, or circumventing it by means of the budget reconciliation process (by which budget-related bills can pass with a simple majority and do not require 60 votes to overcome a filibuster). “[W]e must get bold change,” he said. “And if our Republican friends block it, we’re going to put our heads together and figure out the best way to go. Everything’s on the table. It’s plain and simple.”
· This was a stark contrast to what Schumer had said about the prospect of ending the filibuster in 2005, when Republicans held a solid majority in the Senate. SaidSchumer at that time: “The ideologues in the Senate want to turn what the Founding Fathers called ‘the cooling saucer of democracy’ into the rubber stamp of dictatorship. We will not let them. They want – because they can’t get their way on every judge – to change the rules in midstream, to wash away 200 years of history. They want to make this country into a banana republic, where if you don’t get your way, you change the rules…. It would be a doomsday for democracy if we do.”
· Schumer had similarly spoken out against ending the filibuster in April 2017, when he suggested that President Donald Trump should replace his Supreme Court nominee, Judge Neil Gorsuch, with “a mainstream nominee” who would be able to garner 60 votes in the Senate — rather than allowing the majority Republicans to do away with the filibuster and confirm Gorsuch with a simple majority vote: “Look, when a nominee doesn’t get 60 votes, you shouldn’t change the rules, you should change the nominee.”
On October 4, 2021, Senator Schumer, who wished to be able to raise the federal debt ceiling without any Republican support whatsoever, said: “We only ask that they [the Republicans] get out of the way, let Democrats pass it on our own …”
Nancy Pelosi (INSIDE TRADER AND STOCK MANIPULATOR)
In September 2020, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi declared: “We can impeach him [Trump] every day of the week for anything he does.”
On October 12, 2021, Pelosi lamented the fact that some Democrats wished to scale back their party’s ten-year, $3.5 trillion “Build Back Better” spending bill. But she vowed that while the legislation’s price tag might be negotiated down, changes to the bill “only would be [made] in such a way that does not undermine the transformative nature of it.”
Jen Psaki (NON LAWYER WORKED IN A D.A.’s OFFICE)
During an October 12, 2021 press briefing, White House press secretary Jen Psaki discussed the ongoing negotiation between Democrat legislators vis-a-vis the $3.5 trillion “Build Back Better” bill that the Biden administration was hoping to pass. “The president wants to make fundamental change in our economy, and he feels coming out of the pandemic is exactly the time to do that,” she said.
Maxine Waters (BANKSTER BRIBES SUCKER)
At a Congressional Black Caucus Foundation event on September 21, 2017, Rep. Maxine Waters asserted that Congress could impeach President Trump for any reason it chose. “Impeachment is about whatever the Congress says it is,” she said. “There is no law that can dictate impeachment. What the Constitution says is high crimes and misdemeanors, and we define that.”
In a July 22, 2019 tweet, Waters predicted that Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s appearance before Congress on July 24 would open the door for Democrats to impeach President Trump “immediately” and then incarcerate him. Wrote Waters: “Impeachment first, prison next!”
After the Supreme Court officially announced its decision to strike down Roe v. Wade on June 24, 2022, Waters, flanked by fellow Congressional Democrat Al Green, joined a throng of pro-abortion activists outside the Supreme Court building and told reporters: “You ain’t seen nothing yet. Women are going to control their bodies no matter how they try and stop us. The hell with the Supreme Court. We will defy them!”
Ed Markey (GAMER LAWYER)
In a June 30, 2022 appearance on MSNBC’s Hallie Jackson Reports, Senator Ed Markey exhorted the Senate to eliminate the filibuster rule and pass “abortion rights” that would circumvent the recent Supreme Court decision and permanently enshrine Roe v. Wade as the law of the land. Said Markey: “I think the Congress should take up the offer that Joe Biden has made to repeal the filibuster. Carve out of the filibuster an exception for abortion rights …”
Mazie Hirono (GAMER LAWYER)
In an interview with CNN on March 5, 2021, Senator Mazie Hirono said: “I definitely support filibuster reform, and part of that is ending the filibuster. It could be totally, or it could be for certain kinds of bills, but I’m definitely open to making those kinds of changes so we can get things done …”
Dianne Feinstein (THE DEFINITION OF DEMOCRAT PARTY CORRUPTION - FEINSTEIN TAUGHT THEWM ALL HOW TO SUCK BRIBES THROUGH FAMILY MEMBERS AND STAY OUT OF PRISON)
On March 19, 2021, Senator Dianne Feinstein released a statement saying that, contrary to her previously articulated position, she was now supportive of ending the Senate filibuster: “[I]f … Republicans continue to abuse the filibuster by requiring cloture votes, I’m open to changing the way the Senate filibuster rules are used.”
Bob Menendez
In a June 23, 2021 interview with CNN’s Jake Tapper, Senator Bob Menendez said he was in favor of enacting a “democracy exception” to the filibuster rule in order to enable Democrats to pass the “For the People Act,” their radical “election-reform” bill, with a simple majority in the U.S. Senate.
Andrew Cuomo (GAMER LAWYER KNOWN TO BE A PERV)
At a July 26, 2021 media briefing, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo announced the launch of a new initiative allocating $15 million in taxpayer funds to promote the vaccination of the 3.5 million New Yorkers who had not yet been inoculated against coronavirus. “We have to get in those communities,” he said, “and we have to knock on those doors, and we have to convince people, and put them in a car, and drive them, and get that vaccine in their arm. That is the mission.”
Cedric Richmond (GAMER LAWYER)
On September 9, 2021, White House senior adviser Cedric Richmond stated that President Biden would “run over” any Republican governors who might try to resist the new federal vaccine mandates. “The one thing I admire about this president,” said Richmond, “is the fact that we are always going to put people above politics. And those governors that stand in the way, I think, it was very clear from the president’s tone [in his speech] today that he will run over them.”
Elizabeth Warren
On September 7, 2021, Senator Elizabeth Warren sent a letter to Amazon.com CEO Andy Jassy, demanding that the company use its algorithms to suppress the sale of books that, according to the senator, were spreading “COVID-19 misinformation.”
Ilhan Omar
In September 2019, Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough said it was “not appropriate” for Senate Democrats to attempt to pass their proposed pathway-to-citizenship provision by means of the budget reconciliation process which would require only a simple majority rather than the normal 60 votes. In response to that, Democrat Rep. Ilhan Omar tweeted: “This ruling by the parliamentarian is only a recommendation. Sen. Schumer and the White House can and should ignore it.”
Mondaire Jones (GAMER LAWYER)
During a House Judiciary Committee hearing on June 2, 2022, New York Democrat Mondaire Jones delivered an impassioned speech stating that Republicans would not be able to prevent the majority Democrats from using every trick at their disposal to pass gun-control legislation in Congress: “You will not stop us from advancing the Protecting Our Kids Act today. You will not stop us from passing it in the House next week. And you will not stop us there. If the filibuster obstructs us, we will abolish it. If the Supreme Court objects, we will expand it.”
Julian Castro (GAMER LAWYER)
In January 2013, San Antonio mayor Julian Castro spoke with CBS News’ Bob Schieffer on Face the Nation and predicted that because of mass immigration from Central America — both legal and illegal — the state of Texas would soon change from majority-Republican to majority-Democrat. Said Castro with delight: “In a couple of presidential cycles, you’ll be on election night, you’ll be announcing we’re calling the 38 electoral votes of Texas for the Democratic nominee for president. It’s changing. It’s going to become a purple state and then a blue state, because of the demographics, because of the population growth of folks from outside of Texas …”
Pramila Jayapal
During a January 2, 2022 appearance on MSNBC’s The Sunday Show, Rep. Pramila Jayapal applauded Twitter for its decision to permanently ban the personal account of Republican congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene, who, according to the social media giant, had been spreading “misinformation” about the COVID-19 pandemic and the vaccines designed to combat it. “I think it’s just as well that we take one voice [Greene’s] that is deliberately spreading disinformation out of the mix as much as possible,” said Jayapal. “That’s certainly a good thing.”
Ruben Gallego
On February 22, 2022, Rep. Ruben Gallego called for government and law-enforcement agencies to forcibly seize and then give away the vehicles of truck drivers who were heading to the District of Columbia in a peaceful convoy to protest the Biden administration’s COVID-19 vaccine mandates. “Perfect time to impound and give the trucks to small trucking companies looking to expand their business,” Gallego tweeted.
Conclusion
There you have it – the Democratic Party in all its totalitarian glory. Whatever obstacles its members may face, their instinctive response is always the same: iron-fisted thuggery.
If the Senate filibuster rule thwarts the Democrats’ legislative desires, they portray it as an antiquated relic of a racist epoch and demand that it be canceled.
If Democrats’ control of the U.S. Senate hangs precariously in the balance, they demand the sudden creation of a group of brand new majority-Democrat states that each will yield two new Democrat senators.
If Democrats are unable to cobble together electoral majorities in a few crucial swing states, they import massive blocs of people from across the globe who will eventually become reliable Democrat voters for generations to come.
If the radical-left Justices who sit on the Supreme Court are outnumbered by their originalist colleagues, Democrats seek to expand the Court and then pack it with newly appointed leftist ideologues to rubber-stamp every Democrat agenda item.
When that same Supreme Court issues rulings that conflict with Democratic Party preferences, the Democrats pledge with passionate zeal to defy those rulings.
If anyone dares to challenge Democrat positions on matters like the merits of critical race theory, COVID vaccine mandates, “gender-affirming” surgeries for minors, or claims that the 2020 presidential election was rife with Democrat corruption, Democrats respond by demanding that the most influential social-media platforms on Earth should censor and ban such heretics from the digital public square.
And, when challenged by a former Republican President who was highly effective at exposing and mocking the vapidity of various left-wing ideals and policies, the Democrats, in the longstanding tradition of fascists and communists from across the globe, simply call for his impeachment, arrest, and imprisonment.
If Democrats are not the party of totalitarianism, what else would you call them?
THE CLINTONS: TWO PIG PARASITE GAMER LAWYERS!
The main objective of “political animals” like Obama and the Clintons is to get elected; it’s not to fix a broken America, nor to protect her. There are people who govern and there are people who campaign; Obama and the Clintons are the latter. Just look at the huge Republican electoral gains under Obama and the Clintons. It’s amazing that Democrats who still care about their party still support the very people who have brought it down.
No comments:
Post a Comment