Featured Post

The Coup Attempt Continues

Some eight days before Trump's inauguration, and in the midst of the Russia hysteria, I wrote I have never seen such a pile on as the ...

Sunday, October 11, 2020

The Crazy Lives Loudly Within Them: America's Democrats at Work

In the last few days in our Great Republic we have seen lots of weird doings by the Democrat Party, ostensibly the world's oldest "political party," but, in fact, one of the world's Great Criminal Organizations. Let me highlight just a couple or so of these doings; surely you can list more. I would find it all funny were not our beloved Western Civilization at stake . . . not to mention the future of my equally beloved Corvettes, as well. No way will I make them electric . . .

We have Joe "Bunker" Biden refusing to answer a question of fundamental importance to the shape and fate of American democracy: if the Democrats win next month's elections will they proceed to "pack" the Supreme Court, i.e., increase the number of Justices from the current nine a la FDR's failed attempt to do so back in 1937? Not only do he and his boss, Kamala "Lock up the Black Guys for whatever! Boost my Prosecutor Stats!" Harris, refuse to answer, Joe takes it one step further: he denies voters "deserve to know" his stance on the issue! The utter contempt and disdain shown for voters comes through loud and clear. Joe Biden, servant of the people. Right.

Got it.

We mere peasants have no right to ask His Masked Majesty for His view until He feels good and ready to give it--or better said, until His bosses tell Him he can . . .

This, of course, is a key issue. Yes, yes, the history of the number of Justices on the Supreme Court is not a straight-forward one. The Constitution says nothing, and, therefore, it does not take a Constitutional amendment to change that number; Congress can do it. Up until 1869, the number fluctuated between five and ten, until set at nine, where it has remained, despite FDR. That number has served us well--most of the time--for just over 150 years, as the late and sainted Ruth Bader Ginsburg, her very self, noted. 

Voters have the right to know if a Harris-Biden administration intends to undo the Court structure of the past 150 years, and to analyze openly the consequences. I take away from this too-cute-by-half non-answer--as I do from the non-answer on banning fracking--that, if elected, a Harris-Biden administration, if it holds Congress, will pack the Court, and do other nefarious things, e.g., erase the second amendment, destroy the Electoral College, make DC a state, etc, to ensure one-party rule for decades and decades. They effectively will destroy our imperfect but quite workable system of "republican democracy" in order to guarantee themselves and their cronies power and riches, in saecula saeculorum. Maybe we should call it the Hunter Biden Permanent Wealth Creation Project. 

Perhaps a goal for the GOP should consist of getting an amendment to the Constitution fixing the number at nine? Just an idea.

Speaking of amendments, we have Nancy "I love expensive ice cream" Pelosi, the Speaker of the House, calling for the creation of a Congressional commission to study invoking the 25th amendment. Let me note for this blog's two foreign readers bored of American politics, that this amendment provides the process by which to remove a President from office, either permanently or temporarily, voluntarily or forcibly. Now, of course, Pelosi has made no secret of her disdain for American voters, refusing not only to accept the results of 2016, but to overturn those. She and her minions, for example, supported and pushed the fake Russia Collusion narrative, and, of course, the fake Ukraine "quid pro quo" impeachment. She now raises the specter of declaring the President incompetent to hold office . . .  but, aha, which President? In one of her highly caffeinated press shows, she let slip that this proposed review does not necessarily apply to Trump! 

So, again, I state, aha!

We get another glimpse of the Democrats' master plan, and what they really think of Joe "Where am I?" Biden. Her Majestic Imperial Speaker clearly believes polls that show Harris-Biden winning the election; as a self-appointed leader of the American National-Socialist Revolution, she has decided to dispatch ASAP America's Paul von Hindenburg, and have his number two take office. We all know, of course, how well that worked out for Germany and the world. 

Nancy, you should try decaf; on a Nespresso machine, it's quite good.

Off to visit a grandkid.


  1. Well the Dems do have a long history of meddling in the election process dating back at least 150 years.

    1. They also have a history of not accepting the results, ala 1860.

  2. Speaking of which.. why is Trump stopping at one appointment?
    If dems take the senate and presidency in november, can we have a lame duck appointment of all red-state residents? then a mass confirmation.. then harris will return the favor when she assumes office and everybody will be able to 'have their say' on every constitutional question?
    Vote by facebook like!

    Things are going to get very very bad.

    - reader #1482

    1. "...everybody will be able to 'have their say' on every constitutional question? Vote by facebook like!
      Things are going to get very very bad."- reader #1482

      I hope not #1482, I'm expecting wiser heads to prevail once again... as a matter of proper behavior tho, I expect all good men and women too, are preparing for the worst, as that is OUR 1st response-ability for Family, God & Country:
      Praise the power that hath made and preserv'd us a nation!
      Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
      And this be our motto - "In God is our trust,"
      And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
      O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.

      On Watch~~~
      "Let's Roll"

  3. When the Republicans take the House, keep the Senate, and Trump is re-elected...
    They should agree with the Democrats view. Set a Constitutional Amendment that sets the number of Supreme Court Judges to the number of Circuit Courts (currently 13). Then Trump can immediately nominate 4 more Judges to fill these positions and Trump would have personally set up a long term 7-6 majority...not counting any other Justices he gets to fill due to retirements (Thomas) or passing (Bryer).
    The Schaudenboner would be glorious and it would then be impossible to pack the Court in the future without setting up more Circuit Courts first.
    And you can just look at the Left/Democrats and remind them it was their idea.

    1. "When the Republicans take the House, keep the Senate, and Trump is re-elected... The Schaudenboner would be glorious..."

      Pray your 'glorious' optimism is contagious, dearest KJ! Moreover, your 'Circuit Courts' Avenue 13 plan, is positively brilliant if not delightfully devious... the young Turks, eh, Maoist-Marxist-'Rats & Progs will never know what sh!t hit'em! Frankly tho, I think its high time we stop surrendering our vengeful erections to the German parlance, therefore I propose that we strike the word Schaudenboner from the record and replace it with a more Anglo equivalent eg. Epicaricachardon, what say you?
      On Watch~~~
      Yeoman at Heart,

  4. I'm most worried about the Democrats--the Party of the increasingly immoderate Left--doing away with the First Amendment by applying a thousand cuts. As a traditional believer, I see an active attempt to marginalize, and even demonize, anyone who disagrees with the LGBTQWXYZ agenda, or who notes that the unborn child can definitely feel the abortion happening. The blatant refusal to condemn the BLM/Antifa riots is also disheartening.

    1. "I'm most worried about the Democrats..."

      I think that most responsible, intelligent, and fair-minded Americans are as well, K! IMHO, they worry, Not only for the reasons you articulate, but for the constant lies, bullying tactics, violence, and total disrespect for America's historic role as the peacemakers and protectors of the good or vulnerable people among us here at home, or around the world. Truth be told, if there wasn't a USA, G-D would have to invent US... Now, as for the slackers on the Left, there will be consequences for their CRIMINAL Assaults, and Illegal trespasses against US. While the rabble may sound, noisy while unchecked, their pain & wimpers increase when called to account for their misdeeds! Just remind Friends, Family, Neighbors, and whoever is listening, TO: RESPECT and Support as you can, your Local LEOs - State/Nat. Guard - Armed Forces & Hail to the Chief~~~ he needs some back-up as well! Last but not least, support your local Gun Shop and FFL Dealer.
      On Watch~~~
      "Let's Roll"

  5. Since she is in The line of succession, that should apply to the Speaker, as well.

  6. I see, accession of a VP to the presidency in case of death or incapacitation results in a VP post that will be (nowadays) unfilled unless the president's party controls both houses of congress.
    That seems like a bit of a boondoggle... President wins an election, he should be choosing his line of succession and it should pretty much *never* land in another political party.
    Too much motivation there to circumvent the will of the people through a murder etc...

    - reader #1482

  7. I look forward to the post on the importance of accepting election results for democratic norms.

    1. One Brow, I guess you are new to this blog. I have been writing about the need for the Democrats to accept the results of the 2016 and stop trying to conduct a coup with the sort of fraud known as Russia hoax, Ukraine hoax, BLM/Antifa etc. You know, the kinda stuff people like you have supported . . .

    2. DiploMad,

      Trump is saying in 2020, as he did in 2016, that he will only accept the results of the election if he is declared the winner. You don't think that's against Democratic norms?

      Of course, since you're with the party that set up fake ballot boxes in California, perhaps norms don't matter too much to you after all.

    3. Even Joe Biden, this very week, refuses to recognize the results of 2016 when he tells Americans that it's not the case that Trump is the President of the United States of America until 1/20/2021.
      Biden attempts to make this case *daily*.

      - reader #1482

    4. "I look forward to the post on the importance of accepting election results for democratic norms"

      When we finally get one, you will see one. Not before.

    5. The GOP is finally doing what the Democrats have been doing in California by "harvesting" ballots. Don't be such a dick Uno Brow.

    6. reader #1482,

      Even Biden did indeed say that Trump was not President, that deserves strong condemnation, and I will join you in condemning him. On the other hand, if Biden is saying that the Senate should hold to the standard it adopted in 2016, that's not the same thing at all.

      However, I did do a search for Biden saying Trump was not President, and I could not find a quote. Do you have a source for that?

    7. whitewall,

      You got it in 2016 when Clinton accepted the election results instead of contesting them, as did every Democratic US Senator and Representative.

    8. Unknown,

      I'm sure you have your rumors, but can you point to actual occurrences of such vote harvesting? Or, is it that you think Republicans are too stupid to avoid getting caught?

    9. Yes, he claims Trump can't nominate a scotus appointee, a basic function of being president. Just part and parcel of the 2016 denial.

      - reader #1482

    10. reader #1482,

      Is it "Trump can't nominate" or "Senate shouldn't approve"? Do you have a specific quote in mind?

    11. He makes the same case every time... the same comey makes, the same mueller makes.. the same hillary makes...

      Unfortunately it's looking more likely Biden and his "call everybody a racist, and whoever doesn't like it is the racist" mantra will win out.

      But polls aren't the vote, and I've given up discounting Trump's political fortunes after the sixth time he was "hosed for sure".

      Sanity might win out.

      - reader #1482

    12. reader #1482,

      If sanity were to win out, neither Trump nor Biden would be the nominees, IMHO.

    13. Mr Brow:

      You said "Trump is saying in 2020, as he did in 2016, that he will only accept the results of the election if he is declared the winner".

      Can you provide a source showing that Trump actually said that? Or are you simply wishing he had said it?

    14. Graham,

      It's easy enough to find the "If I win ..." quote from the 2016 campaign. Google "trump 2016 if I win" and take your pick.

      In 2020, at the first debate, he refused to commit to abiding by the election results.

    15. "Google" my Arse, Browbeat!
      Typical CRAP, you won't provide
      a citation when requested --
      Deflect to the reader to
      provide an alternate source,
      for your LIE!
      Another 'rat disguised troll trick!
      You're not even a clever sockpuppet,
      just another hack, strokin itself!
      On Watch~~~
      Taking a double shot
      of listerine...spit RIGHT
      in your browless eyeball!

    16. "I commit to honoring election results regardless of what kind of cheating might surface!"

      that does sound like your type of commitment, mr. row.

      - reader #1482

    17. On Watch~~,

      How many links would you like? 10? 15? If you don't remember hearing Trump say it in 2016, it's either a selective memory or a very shallow selection of news sources.

      I mean, I get that you're too lazy to bother, I just want to know what the standard is here.

    18. reader #1482,

      Considering it was the Republicans who were ordered by a judge to stop interfering with people trying to vote, said order only discontinued a couple of years ago, there's not much of a moral high ground to talk about cheating from the con side.

      Both sides cheat. Traditionally, both sides still have accepted the results of elections. Trump is the one changing the tradition or accepting election results. You don't want to open that Pandora's box.

    19. Listen up browbent
      Dumping another load of your deflective manure, only serves to remind us of the nature of you, and your 'Rats & Progs, you STINK! We the people continue to struggle against the Global Maoist threat -- You and yours have created this battle space, tactics and strategies -- all the so-called "Cons" are doing is adopting our enemies tools to defeat them! Such Fun watching you and them gurgle in defeat! As for the "Election" we shall see just how bad the LEFT has damaged the process! Till then, it ain't over till its over - even if the final blow is struck in superior courts! by superior Judges!
      On Watch~~~
      "Let's Roll"

    20. On Watch,

      On the contrary, the cons have a different goal (suppressing votes instead of getting more voters), so they cheat very differently, like paying police officers to go up to people trying to vote and threaten them with charges if they make an error in the ballot process.

      As I said, if y'all sow the wind by starting the tradition of refusing to accept election results, y'all will reap the whirlwind.

  8. My take Nanzi is telling all Democrat voters your not voting for Sundowner Joe, he is just the front man to get the Socialists through the door.
    You can vote the Socialists in, but will need a gun to get the Marxists out.

  9. I believe the committee Dems have all come down with PMS in unison. They are into hysterics. The Dem's protesters outside got a head start before the hearing. These people are not mentally stable.

  10. ... because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. Therefore God sends them a strong delusion, so that they may believe what is false,

  11. Loving the Truth:

    Confirmed by a Senate vote of 55-43, Barrett joined the 7th Circuit on Nov. 2, 2017.

    President Donald Trump announced Sept. 26 that he would nominate Barrett to fill the Supreme Court seat vacated by the Sept. 18 death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
    Laura Wolk, 33, a former Notre Dame student of Barrett’s, told The Daily Signal that Barrett was, in some ways, a lifesaver for her. Wolk is blind.

    “When I went to Notre Dame, I had asked the school to provide me with the same exact assistive technology that I had purchased for myself, just in case … something were to go wrong,” Wolk told The Daily Signal in an interview.

    “Unfortunately, though they had worked on that process, the technology from the school was not there. And so I came to Notre Dame, the technology was not purchased, and almost immediately my own personal computer started to fail. So it was … the exact emergency scenario that I had planned for.”

    Accommodations for blind students across the nation are better now then they were in 2013, Wolk said.

    Unlike classmates who could see, Wolk said, she couldn’t just borrow a computer or go to a library.

    Even if she could, the computer wouldn’t have the right software on it for a visually-impaired person.

    “And so I was immediately put into a position where I couldn’t read my textbooks,” Wolk said. “I couldn’t take notes. I was really struggling to keep up in class, and as a first-semester student who is also trying to learn how to do law school, it was a really terrifying experience.”

    She said that Barrett went to bat for her in ways she had never experienced before:

    What I was expecting from her was just practical advice: ‘This is the person you need to email. This is what you should say.’ But when I went to go talk to her, I instantly … I found myself just talking with her not only about my technology problems, but also about all of the other struggles that I was having as a blind person at Notre Dame.

    Barrett’s husband, Jesse Barrett, a former assistant U.S. attorney, also graduated from Notre Dame. He was editor in chief of the Notre Dame Law Review, she was executive editor.

    Barrett’s students named her “Distinguished Professor of the Year” during three different years, The Indy Star reported.

    “Professor Barrett, she was very kind,” Wolk recalled.

    “She just allowed me to talk and to say my piece and to get out all of my emotions. And at the end of it, as I wrote in my piece describing this interaction, she just very quietly, but completely matter of fact, told me, ‘This is not your problem anymore. It’s my problem.’”

    Wolk said that Barrett “made it clear to me that … there are times in life when the best gift that you can give to someone is to completely take something on and take it onto yourself and take it off of their plate.”

    Wolk said Barrett exhibited the same care and concern during her last semester of law school, when she had a small health scare related to her blindness resulting from treatment she underwent as a child:

    And again, just like my first semester, Professor Barrett was — she just proved to be this presence where she would occasionally check in on me as things were proceeding, asking me how I was doing and expressed that she was there for me for the long haul and she was willing to be there as a support, even when it had absolutely nothing to do with her role as being a professor for me.
    Wolk, who lives in Washington, D.C., will return to private practice in that area after recently wrapping up a clerkship with Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas... Excerpted from The Stream -linked below.

    A tear, a smile, and a lump in my throat... watched my wife teach Blind H.S. Science students for over forty years, was privy to her student's heartfelt joy and praise for her thoughtful generous gifts of learning, love and caring...
    I get the same vibe from Justice to be, Amy Barrett - G-d Bless and Protect her~~~
    On Watch~~~
    "Let's Roll"


    1. How very conservative... the distinction is how the progressive posts the entire thing to their facebook account to show how virtuous they are.
      ... praying loudly on the street corners.

      - reader #1482

    2. Yea and verily,
      - reader #1482...
      Tks for reading,
      and commenting...
      On Watch~~~
      "Let's Roll"

  12. Mr. Amselem,

    Something of import lately hit my "desk" Will likely be of interest to you (and perhaps your other eight readers).

    As what came in to my desktop was in a state making it difficult to read the entirety of the text - portions on either side 'sliced off' right, then sometimes left, willy nilly I had to look around for a more complete text

    Click where the pdf is indicated:


    Be interesting to know whether that's made its way to IG Durham and if so, how recently.

    One Of Nine

  13. Mr. Anon, the "Gang of Nine", & Residing Master Masticator in Chief,(aka WLA/MMMC), whilst thou rough and ready, potentate chewers, and choppers REVIEW the Anon's Collection of |Vaulted Stuff| linked above...may I say,

    My tired eyes, just now, happened to fall upon an enumerated reveal stating, and I quote:

    "If you need more evidence that climate is about communism…
    This compilation of my 2020
    “If you need more evidence that climate is about communism…” tweets lets climate activists present their real goal in their own words. Don’t just accept what climate skeptics have been saying for the past several decades. -->>But do take the activists at their word. Keep in mind this small collection is merely what I have tweeted this year under this particular rubric. There is a motherlode of similar sentiments and positions all over the Internet."

    I know , I know, Quite a Mouthful huh!?
    In fact it seems to DEMAND another Freudian AHA!
    As Expressed by by our Host's Post...
    That is,
    "So, again, I state, aha!
    We get another glimpse of the Democrats' master plan, and what they really think... Her Majestic Imperial Speaker clearly believes polls that show Harris-Biden winning the election; as a self-appointed leader of the American National-Socialist Revolution,..."

    So I decided to dispatch my find (linked below), ASAP.
    And, as a tease, Start here at the end of Steve Milloy's "Junk Science" presentation with item 32 out of 32:

    "In conclusion and as this non-communist observes:

    32. Melody McIntyre
    >>“Their main objective is to bring down Democracy”, January 11, 2020.


    On Watch~~~
    "Let's Roll"

  14. Speaking of "crazy", Nancy Pelosi and Wolf Blitzer got into a heated exchange much to her surprise! Subject matter was the stimulus argument and Nancy was prepared for the usual softball questions they are used to. Not this time. Wolf stood his ground and persisted. I have a feeling he may be "retired" come Monday morning.

    1. Nancy Pelosi and Wolf Blitzer...
      Wolfie crawled right under her craepy skin, when he dared to tell the Socialist Queen, that Citizens were suffering and need 'stimulus' relief... she went apoplectic calling him a GOP hack etc, saying that she and her 'fools on the Hill' were the ones paying the Bills, but failed to emphasize the Taxpayers prime role ... AnyhOWl~~~, her blowout seems to have given the PRESIDENT a boost in the Polls...she'll probably need a buff out and a wax job before the election!

      Here's Rush he's been on top of it too, says that the 'Rats internal polling has then heading for the lifeboats:
      RUSH: Fireworks on CNN yesterday, Nancy Pelosi and Wolf Blitzer. Normally we wouldn’t spend much time on it. These are not normal times. It’s not often that the troops get into a knock-down-drag-out with the general. Pelosi is the general and the troops are Wolf Blitzer and the people in the Drive-Bys. They think Pelosi is blowing this on the COVID relief bill. . .
      On Watch~~~~

  15. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.