Resisting damage – too late?

sundance: AG Bill Barr Speaks About The Damage to Our Nation From The “Resistance”… “AG Barr discusses how, in the Trump-era, the resistance movement has abdicated their legislative power and responsibility in favor of a politically motivated intent to harm the constitutional executive power.” It’s a history lesson about the ‘why’ of the executive branch and what was behind its formation and a description of duties in the U.S. Constitution.

“Immediately after President Trump won election, opponents inaugurated what they called “The Resistance,” and they rallied around an explicit strategy of using every tool and maneuver available to sabotage the functioning of his Administration. Now, “resistance” is the language used to describe insurgency against rule imposed by an occupying military power. It obviously connotes that the government is not legitimate. This is a very dangerous – indeed incendiary – notion to import into the politics of a democratic republic. What it means is that, instead of viewing themselves as the “loyal opposition,” as opposing parties have done in the past, they essentially see themselves as engaged in a war to cripple, by any means necessary, a duly elected government.

A must read. It might take time and effort but it is the civics lesson of the decade describing the issues of the time and how they impact the established governing principles of the United States.

Patricia McCarthy: The silly sanctification of Marie Yovanovitch – “That no Democrat attempts to stop his unconstitutional denial of due process reflects very badly on their party.” … “The Democrats, since the moment Trump won the 2016 election, have treated their country very, very badly. They have demonstrated for all to see that they value their personal power and their corrupted ideology over the well-being of the greatest nation on earth.

Paul Mirengoff [can’t help himself from illustrating his bias]: Elise Stefanik stands out – “it takes a considerable amount of naivety to think that Trump would have cared at all about Burisma but for the fact that Hunter Biden is the son of a political rival. … Still, the question of whether Trump would have wanted Burisma investigated absent a Joe Biden connection is counterfactual.” You mean facts exist regarding motivation like this? A casual reference in a phone call ignoring context is stretching things way past reason in a way that indicates an inordinate bias. Compare and contrast with neo below.

neo: The Democrats want to define Trump being president as a high crime and misdemeanor – “all presidents regularly do things that are in their political interests. … as with Trump, those things almost always have other motivations, as well – most often, that the president believes that such actions will also benefit the country or even the world. … And among those things can be something described as “fighting corruption,” including corruption that occurs at the hands of people opposed to that president.”

Comments are closed.