Merrick Garland is a disgrace to the proud traditions and heritage of the Office of the United States Attorney General (AG) and the Department of Justice (DOJ), in my opinion. As I listened to his speech to the DOJ staff on January 5, 2022, I was as viscerally angry. I was also thankful to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnel for ensuring that Merrick Garland did not become an Associate Justice on the Supreme Court of the United States while he was the Senate Majority Leader. Merrick Garland’s speech demonstrated that he is a progressive partisan of epic proportions. With Garland as AG, Lady Liberty looks at justice with her left eye covered, blind folded to affronts perpetrated by those on the left, to quote me.
How did I come to such a drastic conclusion? The answer is simple. Merrick Garland has not pursued the 2020 Antifa and Black Lives Matter (BLM) rioters and murders as vigorously as he is pursuing January 6, 2021, Capital rioters. This fact contradicts statements Garland made during his speech when he said,
Our answer is, and will continue to be, the same answer we would give with respect to any ongoing investigation: as long as it takes and whatever it takes for justice to be done ” consistent with the facts and the law.
The department would do everything in our power to defend the American people and American democracy. We will defend our democratic institutions from attack. We will protect those who serve the public from violence and threats of violence.
The Department will follow the facts, and not an agenda or an assumption. The central norm is that, in our criminal investigations, there cannot be different rules depending on one’s political party or affiliation. There cannot be different rules for friends and foes. And there cannot be different rules for the powerful and the powerless.
Those involved must be held accountable, and there is no higher priority for us at the Department of Justice.
More than 700 defendants have been arrested in the probe and the FBI is still calling for the public’s help in identifying more than 350 other individuals it believes engaged in violent acts on the Capitol grounds that day. Dozens of the January 6 defendants have been charged with obstructing an official proceeding, though the department has not yet brought any sedition charges. Obviously, Merrick Garland is pursuing the January 6, 2021, Capital rioters with the right eye of Lady Liberty aggressively seeking out the guilty, to quote me again.
In contrast, under the Merrick Garland DOJ, the blind folded left eye of Lady Liberty is oblivious to the mayhem caused by Antifa and BLM during the 2020, George Floyd riots when the following details are considered. The Capitol architect told lawmakers the price tag for the January riots stood around $30 million. The George Floyd riots cost an estimated $2 billion. The vast majority of the $30 million cost of the Capitol riot was for additional costs like the unnecessary fencing, mental health care, other medical costs, and additional law enforcement and National Guard protection measures needed to protect the Capitol for months after the riot. The physical damage to the Capitol was estimated at $1.5 million, 1/20 of the touted $30 million cost of the Capitol riot. Using progressive Democrat Capitol math, the cost of the George Floyd riots was $40 billion. Did our cities, destroyed during the 2020 Antifa BLM riots that followed the death of George Floyd, get to add similar costs to the $2 Billion in costs they incurred? I don’t think so.
While they refrained from drawing any hard conclusions, RealClearInvestigations did an in-depth analysis of the data from not just the Capitol riots and last year’s, 2020, Antifa/BLM-led riots, but also the January 2017 riots that took place during then-President Trump’s inauguration.
The summer 2020 riots resulted in some 15 times more injured police officers, 30 times as many arrests, and estimated damages in dollar terms up to 1,300 times more costly than those of the Capitol riot. George Floyd rioters were found to have used more sophisticated and dangerous tactics than did the Capitol rioters, and in some cases weapons of greater lethality.
Authorities have pursued the largely Trump-supporting Capitol rioters with substantially more vigor than suspected wrongdoers in the earlier two cases. Many accused Capitol rioters, unlike accused participants in the other riots, have been held in pretrial detention for months “ with one defendant serving more time than the maximum sentence for the charge to which he pleaded guilty. Some allegedly endured solitary confinement and other mistreatment.
With authorities applying lenient prosecutorial standards in many major cities torn by the summer riots, the vast majority of charges last year were dismissed, as were charges in the Inauguration 2017 unrest. Charges have to date been dropped in only a single Capitol riot case.
Another key point to note about last summer’s riots, 2020, were the targets in some of the riots. It’s not uncommon to see liberals try to argue that the Capitol riots were symbolically worse because the Capitol building was targeted during what was supposed to be part of the peaceful transfer of power process.
What they conveniently forget, however, is that in some cities, left-wing rioters deliberately targeted government buildings including a federal courthouse, as Wilfred Reilly Tweeted reminding people as the left was busy minimizing the 2020 riots in the immediate aftermath of what took place at the Capitol building in January:
Sadly, the majority of these rioters have had all charges dropped, many with prejudice meaning they cannot be recharged; or their charges were reduced. Have there been any news stories about arrests or convictions in any of the murders committed during these peaceful 2020 Antifa BLM protests, riots? No, and to the best of my knowledge, not a single arrest has been made regarding the 34 murders.
Merrick Garland is, in my opinion, a disgrace to the United States Department of Justice and the Office of Attorney General. His actions do not hold up the high standards he set for himself. He said,
[The department would do everything] in our power to defend the American people and American democracy. We will defend our democratic institutions from attack. We will protect those who serve the public from violence and threats of violence, [and do] whatever it takes for justice to be done, [following] the facts, not an agenda or an assumption. There cannot be different rules depending on one’s political party or affiliation. There cannot be different rules for friends and foes. And there cannot be different rules for the powerful and the powerless. Those involved must be held accountable, and there is no higher priority for us at the Department of Justice.”
Merrick Garland is not vigorously pursuing Antifa and BLM rioters and their sources of funding. These rioters came equipped with weapons, protective gear and uniforms, incendiaries, lasers that could blind police officers, and trucks to haul their weapons and equipment. They are nationally organized communist or Marxist revolutionaries. With the blind folded left eye of the DOJ under Merrick Garland, Lady Liberty is in hot pursuit of everything conservative, Republican or Trump, but he/she is not interested in investigating anything that could lead to progressive financiers like George Soros. The damage caused by Antifa and BLM throughout the United States during simultaneous, coordinated Antifa BLM riots dwarfs the physical damage to the Capitol. Merrick Garland, progressives, and Democrats call the capitol rioters and parents protesting Marxist and progressive curricula in our schools, terrorists. In contrast, the term terrorist is not used when Antifa or BLM are the culprits. Additionally, as of June 9,2022, after the attempted assignation of Associate Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, Garland is not enforcing federal laws prohibiting demonstration at the residences of all federal judges intended to influence judicial decisions. As far as I am concerned, the contrast renders Merrick Garland a disgrace as AG of the United Starts.
Join the fray. All of the America’s Crossroad Posts are listed by categories in the BLOG CONTENTS tab. If you decide to read a few, please leave comments about your Patriot Visions, start or join the conversation, and share the Posts with friends and political frienimies.
Establishment speak is the same as establishment politician especially RINO and Democrat speak, mainstream progressive news media speak, and progressive academic elite speak. Establishment speak is the language of the DC swamp. Establishment speak obsesses over the meaning of is or I vs I’d ignoring the syntax of the relationship between I vs I’d used with the word probably. Establishment speak is deceptive, divisive, and designed to hide or misrepresent intent.
In “establishment speak,” “cut” never means a reduction in total cost; “cut” means a “cut” in the rate of increase.
Although the Democrat Party and progressives claim otherwise, the thing We the People, the forgotten deplorables, like about President Trump is that Trump speak and Deplorable speak does not include deceptive, divisive language intended to hide or misrepresent intent. The President has a list of campaign promises which he is working hard to fulfill one by one. Many of his campaign promises have already been fulfilled. He also uses provocative language to evoke a response or change the news or political narrative. Unfortunately, that language can be crass and profane and often diverts attention from the positive impacts of his administration on the US economy and foreign affairs.
Some examples will suffice. As an example of Trump speak during the Presidential campaign, President Trump stated that he would build a big, beautiful wall and Mexico would pay for it. The Merriam-Webster on-line dictionary definitions of wall, big, beautiful and pay are needed to discuss this example of Trump speak. Since the most significant component of President Trump’s promise is the wall, several relevant meanings are contained in the definition of wall. The meanings include,
a structure that serves to hold back pressure (as in deterring illegal immigration and drugs), something resembling a wall (in appearance, function, or effect) especially something that acts as a barrier or defense, to provide, cover with, or surround with or as if with a wall, to separate by or as if by a wall, to close (an opening) with or as if with a wall that surrounds an area or separates one area from another, something that separates one thing from another, a wall of mountains.
Both President Trump’s first description of the “wall” and his latest description of the wall are clearly described in the above detailed definition of a wall.
The meaning of the other three words contained in the President’s wall promise is also important to understanding the promise. One meaning of big is defined as chief, preeminent, outstandingly worthy or able, and of great importance or significance. In one of its meanings, beautiful is defined as generally pleasing or excellent. Several meanings and synonyms for pay are also relevant to this discussion. These meanings include, to make compensation for (and) to requite according to what is deserved. As an intransitive verb, pay is defined as, to discharge a debt or obligation (and) to suffer the consequences of an act. Relevant synonyms for this discussion of pay include ‘reimburse’ (which) implies a return of money that has been spent for another’s benefit (and) ‘recompense’ (which) suggests due return in amends. This comprehensive definition of pay provides ample justification of the President’s contention that Mexico should pay for the wall. After all, Mexico continues to fail in stemming the flow of illegal immigrants from Mexico, Central, and South America into the United States on the Mexico side of the border and control the Mexican drug cartels and human traffickers within the borders of Mexico. Consequently, Mexico deserves to pay for the wall as a direct consequence of and in recompense for their failure to stem the flow of illegal immigrants and drugs passing through and emanating within Mexico’s borders which subsequently cross the southern border of the United States.
Progressives, who engage in establishment speak, pride themselves in the nuanced nature of their writing and speech. These arrogant, pompous, condescending establishment speakers do not believe that President Trump is capable of using simple words in an expansive manner that encompasses the entire scope of the definition of the words he used when he promised that he would build a big, beautiful wall and Mexico would pay for the wall. They claim that President Trump suffers from the early stages of dementia or early onset Alzheimer’s disease and/or is otherwise mentally unstable. The means of payment for the wall has not been specified but numerous options exist. Mexico could pay in the form of a transaction fee on all money transfers from the United States to Mexico, a border crossing fee paid by every individual crossing the southern border who are not legal residents of the United States, and/or renegotiation of NAFTA in a manner that would reduce the trade deficit with Mexico sufficiently to pay for the wall to mention three ways for Mexico to pay. More than one of these and other means of payment could also be negotiated and enacted. A check is not required to exact pay from Mexico for the wall. Contrary to the establishment speak opinion, the forgotten Trump Deplorables, understand that a check from Mexico is not necessary to exact payment from Mexico for the wall even though their establishment speak constituents must be easily fooled by their establishment speak. The sneering swamp Demorat establishment speak condescension of that insinuation during the Homeland Security Secretary hearing on January 16, 2018 was infuriating to me. Of course, when the completed wall is not over 2000 miles of 30 foot high, 10 feet thick concrete wall with a beautiful red clay brick veneer and 15X25 foot oak doors with polished brass or black rod iron fixtures at every border crossing, establishment speak from the swamp “Demorats” will call President Trump a liar.
In a recent interview, the establishment speak of the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) quoted President Trump saying, I probably have a good relationship with Kim Jong-un of North Korea. This quote was disputed by President Trump because it prompted questions about secret talks with North Korea and how many times the President had talked to Kim Jong-un which he did not answer. President Trump indicated that he said, I’d probably have. The syntax of the quote supports the President’s position. I’d probably have or I would probably have indicates that if he met or talked with Kim Jong-un he’d probably have a good relationship with him and the questions about meeting or talking with Kim Jong-un would have been avoided. In addition, if the President had a good relationship with Kim Jong-un, he would have said, I have a good relationship not I probably have and good relationship. By its refusal to look at the syntax of the quote, the establishment speak of the WSJ lead to unnecessary controversy and speculation about secret talks with North Korea, or “fake news.”
Senator Dianne Feinstein proved that she is a sneaky establishment speak practitioner during the televised January 9, bipartisan DACA meeting at the White House. President Trump started the meeting detailing the four parts of a DACA bill that he would support. Obviously, the President expected that the discussion would center on a DACA bill that fulfilled all of his requirements for the bill. Senator Feinstein quickly used an establishment speak trick word when she asked the President if he would support a CLEAN DACA bill knowing full well that in establishment speak clean means a standalone DACA bill. The President, thinking that he was in an honest discussion of a DACA bill meeting his requirements indicated that he could support a clean DACA bill thinking that Senator Feinstein was also speaking of a bill meeting his four requirements. After it was obvious that Senator Feinstein had tricked the President with her establishment speak, Congressman Kevin McCarthy moved the discussion back to a DACA bill that included the President’s four requirements. After the cameras left, the group agreed that they would negotiate a DACA bill that included the President’s four requirements. Later, the fact that Establishment speak is deceptive, divisive, and designed to hide or misrepresent intent became obvious. The Democrat attendees at the meeting and the media later televised and focused on the brief portion of the meeting where the President appeared to support the idea of a clean DACA bill and not what the President had outlined and attendees agreed to negotiate. This was fake news by both omission and commission.
Additional examples of establishment speak that infuriate President Trump and practitioners of deplorable speak are relevant to this discussion. To deplorabes, if the budget for a government program is cut, the total expenditure for the program should decrease. However, the establishment speak definition of cut is a reduction in the rate of increase in the expenditure for a government program. Similarly, in establishment speak reduction or reduce also means a slower rate of increase not less of anything. In establishment speak, the Democrat definition of compromise means that Republicans must abandon their position on almost everything and Democrats will not filibuster and stop passage of a bill in the Senate.
In establishment speak, Republicans control government since they control the Presidency, the House of Representatives, and the Senate. However, deplorables understand that the Senate is, in reality, a minority ruled legislative body. Since a bill must pass both the House of Representatives and the Senate with 60 votes not 51, the minority party’s 48 votes, currently the Democrat Party, controls the legislative branch of government. Consequently, deplorables understand that under current Senate rules, the minority always controls our government unless the majority has 60 Senators to stop a minority filibuster. That is the reason that the House of Representatives has passed 12 appropriation bills that would finance the government. These appropriation bills have not been passed by the Senate. Consequently, budget continuing resolutions must be passed under threat of government shut down almost monthly. Since the filibuster allows for minority rule, the filibuster is not democratic. It is time to end the filibuster.
Finally, in establishment speak, words and phrases like support, favor, compromise, cooperate, and bipartisan legislation are mere platitudes used to appear conciliatory and concerned for the well being of We the People. In establishment speak, the Democrat Party and its leadership will say that they support a strong military and secure borders, but their actions, failing to fund a strong military and complete border security, demonstrate that their establishment speak is hollow, deceptive, and designed to hide or misrepresent their intent.
We the Deplorable People must demand an end to establishment speak. The language used by our leaders must be clear and concise without deception. We the People want our leaders to tell us what they mean by is. Leaders need to mean what they say and say what they mean. Leaders must follow their words by actions that demonstrate that they are not just blowing smoke to get elected.
If “establishment speak” continues “Deplorable Speak” will be done at the voting booths where We the “Deplorable” People will “speak” the establishment out of office.
Join the fray. All of the America ‘s Crossroad Posts are listed by categories in the BLOG CONTENTS tab. If you decide to read a few, please leave comments about your “Patriot Visions,” start or join the conversation, and share the Posts with friends and political frienimies.p;
Establishment speak is the same as establishment politician especially RINO and Democrat speak, mainstream progressive news media speak, and progressive academic elite speak. Establishment speak is the language of the DC swamp. Establishment speak obsesses over the meaning of is or I vs I’d ignoring the syntax of the relationship between I vs I’d used with the word probably. Establishment speak is deceptive, divisive, and designed to hide or misrepresent intent.
In “establishment speak,” “cut” never means a reduction in total cost; “cut” means a “cut” in the rate of increase.
Although the Democrat Party and progressives claim otherwise, the thing We the People, the forgotten deplorables, like about President Trump is that Trump speak and Deplorable speak does not include deceptive, divisive language intended to hide or misrepresent intent. The President has a list of campaign promises which he is working hard to fulfill one by one. Many of his campaign promises have already been fulfilled. He also uses provocative language to evoke a response or change the news or political narrative. Unfortunately, that language can be crass and profane and often diverts attention from the positive impacts of his administration on the US economy and foreign affairs.
Some examples will suffice. As an example of Trump speak during the Presidential campaign, President Trump stated that he would build a big, beautiful wall and Mexico would pay for it. The Merriam-Webster on-line dictionary definitions of wall, big, beautiful and pay are needed to discuss this example of Trump speak. Since the most significant component of President Trump’s promise is the wall, several relevant meanings are contained in the definition of wall. The meanings include,
a structure that serves to hold back pressure (as in deterring illegal immigration and drugs), something resembling a wall (in appearance, function, or effect) especially something that acts as a barrier or defense, to provide, cover with, or surround with or as if with a wall, to separate by or as if by a wall, to close (an opening) with or as if with a wall that surrounds an area or separates one area from another, something that separates one thing from another, a wall of mountains.
Both President Trump’s first description of the “wall” and his latest description of the wall are clearly described in the above detailed definition of a wall.
The meaning of the other three words contained in the President’s wall promise is also important to understanding the promise. One meaning of big is defined as chief, preeminent, outstandingly worthy or able, and of great importance or significance. In one of its meanings, beautiful is defined as generally pleasing or excellent. Several meanings and synonyms for pay are also relevant to this discussion. These meanings include, to make compensation for (and) to requite according to what is deserved. As an intransitive verb, pay is defined as, to discharge a debt or obligation (and) to suffer the consequences of an act. Relevant synonyms for this discussion of pay include ‘reimburse’ (which) implies a return of money that has been spent for another’s benefit (and) ‘recompense’ (which) suggests due return in amends. This comprehensive definition of pay provides ample justification of the President’s contention that Mexico should pay for the wall. After all, Mexico continues to fail in stemming the flow of illegal immigrants from Mexico, Central, and South America into the United States on the Mexico side of the border and control the Mexican drug cartels and human traffickers within the borders of Mexico. Consequently, Mexico deserves to pay for the wall as a direct consequence of and in recompense for their failure to stem the flow of illegal immigrants and drugs passing through and emanating within Mexico’s borders which subsequently cross the southern border of the United States.
Progressives, who engage in establishment speak, pride themselves in the nuanced nature of their writing and speech. These arrogant, pompous, condescending establishment speakers do not believe that President Trump is capable of using simple words in an expansive manner that encompasses the entire scope of the definition of the words he used when he promised that he would build a big, beautiful wall and Mexico would pay for the wall. They claim that President Trump suffers from the early stages of dementia or early onset Alzheimer’s disease and/or is otherwise mentally unstable. The means of payment for the wall has not been specified but numerous options exist. Mexico could pay in the form of a transaction fee on all money transfers from the United States to Mexico, a border crossing fee paid by every individual crossing the southern border who are not legal residents of the United States, and/or renegotiation of NAFTA in a manner that would reduce the trade deficit with Mexico sufficiently to pay for the wall to mention three ways for Mexico to pay. More than one of these and other means of payment could also be negotiated and enacted. A check is not required to exact pay from Mexico for the wall. Contrary to the establishment speak opinion, the forgotten Trump Deplorables, understand that a check from Mexico is not necessary to exact payment from Mexico for the wall even though their establishment speak constituents must be easily fooled by their establishment speak. The sneering swamp Demorat establishment speak condescension of that insinuation during the Homeland Security Secretary hearing on January 16, 2018 was infuriating to me. Of course, when the completed wall is not over 2000 miles of 30 foot high, 10 feet thick concrete wall with a beautiful red clay brick veneer and 15X25 foot oak doors with polished brass or black rod iron fixtures at every border crossing, establishment speak from the swamp “Demorats” will call President Trump a liar.
In a recent interview, the establishment speak of the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) quoted President Trump saying, I probably have a good relationship with Kim Jong-un of North Korea. This quote was disputed by President Trump because it prompted questions about secret talks with North Korea and how many times the President had talked to Kim Jong-un which he did not answer. President Trump indicated that he said, I’d probably have. The syntax of the quote supports the President’s position. I’d probably have or I would probably have indicates that if he met or talked with Kim Jong-un he’d probably have a good relationship with him and the questions about meeting or talking with Kim Jong-un would have been avoided. In addition, if the President had a good relationship with Kim Jong-un, he would have said, I have a good relationship not I probably have and good relationship. By its refusal to look at the syntax of the quote, the establishment speak of the WSJ lead to unnecessary controversy and speculation about secret talks with North Korea, or “fake news.”
Senator Dianne Feinstein proved that she is a sneaky establishment speak practitioner during the televised January 9, bipartisan DACA meeting at the White House. President Trump started the meeting detailing the four parts of a DACA bill that he would support. Obviously, the President expected that the discussion would center on a DACA bill that fulfilled all of his requirements for the bill. Senator Feinstein quickly used an establishment speak trick word when she asked the President if he would support a CLEAN DACA bill knowing full well that in establishment speak clean means a standalone DACA bill. The President, thinking that he was in an honest discussion of a DACA bill meeting his requirements indicated that he could support a clean DACA bill thinking that Senator Feinstein was also speaking of a bill meeting his four requirements. After it was obvious that Senator Feinstein had tricked the President with her establishment speak, Congressman Kevin McCarthy moved the discussion back to a DACA bill that included the President’s four requirements. After the cameras left, the group agreed that they would negotiate a DACA bill that included the President’s four requirements. Later, the fact that Establishment speak is deceptive, divisive, and designed to hide or misrepresent intent became obvious. The Democrat attendees at the meeting and the media later televised and focused on the brief portion of the meeting where the President appeared to support the idea of a clean DACA bill and not what the President had outlined and attendees agreed to negotiate. This was fake news by both omission and commission.
Additional examples of establishment speak that infuriate President Trump and practitioners of deplorable speak are relevant to this discussion. To deplorabes, if the budget for a government program is cut, the total expenditure for the program should decrease. However, the establishment speak definition of cut is a reduction in the rate of increase in the expenditure for a government program. Similarly, in establishment speak reduction or reduce also means a slower rate of increase not less of anything. In establishment speak, the Democrat definition of compromise means that Republicans must abandon their position on almost everything and Democrats will not filibuster and stop passage of a bill in the Senate.
In establishment speak, Republicans control government since they control the Presidency, the House of Representatives, and the Senate. However, deplorables understand that the Senate is, in reality, a minority ruled legislative body. Since a bill must pass both the House of Representatives and the Senate with 60 votes not 51, the minority party’s 48 votes, currently the Democrat Party, controls the legislative branch of government. Consequently, deplorables understand that under current Senate rules, the minority always controls our government unless the majority has 60 Senators to stop a minority filibuster. That is the reason that the House of Representatives has passed 12 appropriation bills that would finance the government. These appropriation bills have not been passed by the Senate. Consequently, budget continuing resolutions must be passed under threat of government shut down almost monthly. Since the filibuster allows for minority rule, the filibuster is not democratic. It is time to end the filibuster.
Finally, in establishment speak, words and phrases like support, favor, compromise, cooperate, and bipartisan legislation are mere platitudes used to appear conciliatory and concerned for the well being of We the People. In establishment speak, the Democrat Party and its leadership will say that they support a strong military and secure borders, but their actions, failing to fund a strong military and complete border security, demonstrate that their establishment speak is hollow, deceptive, and designed to hide or misrepresent their intent.
We the Deplorable People must demand an end to establishment speak. The language used by our leaders must be clear and concise without deception. We the People want our leaders to tell us what they mean by is. Leaders need to mean what they say and say what they mean. Leaders must follow their words by actions that demonstrate that they are not just blowing smoke to get elected.
If “establishment speak” continues “Deplorable Speak” will be done at the voting booths where We the “Deplorable” People will “speak” the establishment out of office.
Join the fray. All of the America’s Crossroad Posts are listed by categories in the BLOG CONTENTS tab. If you decide to read a few, please leave comments about your “Patriot Visions,” start or join the conversation, and share the Posts with friends and political frienimies.
Treason is being committed by those attempting to undermine the Presidency.
The current efforts to render the President of the United States of America ineffective and unable to fulfill his duties as President in both domestic and foreign affairs constitute treason, in my opinion. The coalition of conspirators opposing the President, though uncoordinated, includes progressives in most of the television, on-line, and print news media, including liberal commentators on Fox News Channel, Never-Trump conservative commentators and Republicans, the entire Democrat Party, Executive Branch leakers, administrators, faculty members, and students at most universities and public schools, and street demonstrators including the violent black clad Antifa rioters. The assault on President Trump is, in reality, an assault on the Executive Branch of the United States government, the Institution of the Presidency, and the Constitution of the United States of America. This uncoordinated assault on the Presidency is treason.
Treason was such an egregious crime against the Constitution that it is the only crime defined in the Constitution of the United States of America. Article III Section 3 of the Constitution states,
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.
The Merriam-Webster on-line definition of the four critical terms related to treason is necessary to follow the argument being presented. Treason is defined as The offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance or to kill or personally injure the sovereign or the sovereign’s family. The definition of adhering is, to give support or maintain loyalty. Aid is defined as, to provide with what is useful or necessary in achieving an end or give assistance. Comfort is defined as, to give strength and hope. Therefore, my expanded Constitutional definition of treason follows:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against the United States, or in giving support or loyalty to enemies of the United States, giving enemies of the United States what is useful or necessary in achieving an end, assistance, or giving enemies of the United States strength and hope.
One phrase in the above definition of treason is key to this discussion, to personally injure the sovereign, the President. Again, the following Webster on-line definition of injure is relevant: to harm, impair, or tarnish standing or inflict material damage or loss. Although the President has made mistakes, in all my 70 years, the vicious, untruthful, malicious, and slanderous attacks on the Presidency are unprecedented. The listed conspirators seek to injure, harm, impair, and tarnish the standing of the current holder of the office of the President and inflict material damage to the Presidency and Constitution of the United States.
The conspirators seek only political gain, control, and power. We the People be damned.
We the People will not forget that your acts are treason. We the People will vote in 2018 and 2020!
Join the fray. All of the America’s Crossroad Posts are listed by categories in the BLOG CONTENTS tab. If you decide to read a few, please leave comments about your “Patriot Visions,” start or join the conversation, and share the Posts with friends and political frienimies.
Viral speculation, red wolf colludes with villagers to attack goats; or Trump campaign colludes with Russian red wolf to attack Clinton.
Presenting viral speculation as news is disruptive and a disservice to the public when presented in an authoritative manor by people who reportedly know what they are talking about, experts and pundits. Viral speculation about Russian involvement in the 2016 election has been a constant narrative in the news for months. The only fact presented thus far is that the Russians attempted to influence the election. The speculation beyond that fact is innuendo about Trump campaign collusion with the Russians to defeat Hillary Clinton. The collusion speculation is fake news. To this point in the speculation onslaught, no facts that substantiate the allegations exist. Russia speculation is only one area where speculation is treated as news. Hours of speculation by pundits masquerades as facts and fans rabid political partisanship on cable news networks and social media. This viral speculation then drives hyper partisanship in Washington, DC. Unfortunately, the viral speculation drives ratings and profit which appears to be the primary factor driving this type programming.
In my opinion, the primary function of the viral speculation news cycle is to fan hyper partisanship, promote political gridlock in Washington, DC, and promote ratings and profits. Virtually every news outlet regardless of their political orientation or size uses the speculation to promote more speculation, rebuttal by speculation, and speculation about which speculation will eventually become fact at the end of the day. Journalists rush to the guilty politician for their reaction to the latest innuendo and their speculation about the speculator. This news cycle regarding the Russian connection has lasted too long and served only to limit the news about other significant news where the facts have been established, meaningful discussion about bills that are law, and the impact of verified events occurring in the nation’s capital, other parts of the nation, and the world. Again, viral speculation as news is disruptive and a disservice to honestly informing We the People about real news and important facts.
It is time to end the viral speculation news cycle and start reporting the factual events occurring throughout the capital, the nation, and the world. There are adequate real news stories that need to be reported. Congressional committees are completing their work; Cabinet Secretary Hearings are ongoing and executive branch appointments are being approved; Cabinet initiatives are being formulated; the Middle East is on fire, and real progress is occurring regarding North Korea; and other events that impact the future of the world are occurring daily. There is more than enough real verified news to replace the viral speculation that is passed off as news in today’s news cycle. Reporting on factual events just does not bleed mentally and emotionally, create controversy, political vitriol, or hyper partisanship. Fact based reporting does not promote ratings or profits. It appears that getting the who, what, where, how, and why verified by multiple sources just is not as fun and profitable as spreading innuendo and speculation.
Is it time to report real news rather than viral speculation?
END VIRAL SPECULATION NOW!
Join the fray. All of the America’s Crossroad Posts are listed by categories in the BLOG CONTENTS tab. If you decide to read a few, please leave comments about your “Patriot Visions,” start or join the conversation, and share the Posts with friends and political frienimies.
It is my opinion that Democrats support the Constitution only when the Constitution or the Federal Courts decisions support and provide an advantage in promoting their agenda. Democrats rarely defend the actual words of the Constitution, as defined when it was written, the “original intent” or “manifest tenor” since they believe that the Constitution should reflect current mores of our society. In other words, the Democrat Party and the left are at best Constitutional pragmatists. President Obama clearly demonstrated that he did not support and defend the Constitution when he repeatedly used Executive Orders to by-pass the Legislative Branch because he was unable to get his agenda items passed by congress. Many of his orders were deemed unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court proving his failure to support the Constitution.
Democrats support for the peaceful transfer of Constitutional power was weak at the Inauguration of President Trump.
The 30% of the Democrat members of the House of Representatives who did not attend the Inauguration of Donald Trump also demonstrate, by their behavior, that they do not support or defend the Constitution. Actions speak louder than words. Each Inauguration where the new President comes from a different political party is a peaceful, Constitutional transfer of power. Failure to attend the Inauguration demonstrates that these Democrat Representatives do not support the provisions of the Constitution that provide for this peaceful transfer of power. Each Inauguration is a celebration of our Constitution not a celebration of the next President. Inauguration attendance demonstrates whether or not these Democrats support the Constitution and defend the processes set up to ensure the peaceful transfer of power from one political party to the other.
Join the fray. All of the America’s Crossroad Posts are listed by categories in the BLOG CONTENTS tab. If you decide to read a few, please leave comments about your “Patriot Visions,” start or join the conversation, and share the Posts with friends and political frienimies.
Merrick Garland is a disgrace to the proud traditions and heritage of the Office of the United States Attorney General (AG) and the Department of Justice (DOJ), in my opinion. As I listened to his speech to the DOJ staff on January 5, 2022, I was as viscerally angry. I was also thankful to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnel for ensuring that Merrick Garland did not become an Associate Justice on the Supreme Court of the United States while he was the Senate Majority Leader. Merrick Garland’s speech demonstrated that he is a progressive partisan of epic proportions. With Garland as AG, Lady Liberty looks at justice with her left eye covered, blind folded to affronts perpetrated by those on the left, to quote me.
