Despite what we might think of them as public figures, they were spouses, fathers, mothers, uncles, aunts, grandparents, and they should be mourned. It does not diminish any other argument to bring gravity to the grief experienced and wish those experiencing that grief comfort.

But just as grief is complicated, so are these particular lives. For their sake and the sake of their causes, along with changing the world “for good,” they managed to unleash significant evil. Archbishop Tutu, Reid, and Sarah Weddington changed the trajectory of life and politics for this nation, and the world, so viewing their legacy through a more critical lens should be standard operating procedure.

Instead, what you see are the fulsome, glowing tributes on their accomplishments and how they changed the world for the better. What you rarely see is the post mortem on how those same accomplishments helped to further evil attitudes, evil intentions, divisiveness, and a culture of death.

Then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid eroded a once august body of governance with his decision to nuke the filibuster regarding judicial appointments. The Left is now paying for this — in spades. Then-Minority Leader Mitch McConnell warned them they would. When McConnell became Majority Leader after 2010, he used it to his advantage, most infamously blocking the nomination of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court.

Reid also helped tank Senator Mitt Romney’s 2012 presidential aspirations with unfounded lies about Romney not paying his taxes for 10 years. In a CNN interview, Reid was unapologetic about his comments which Republicans compared to McCarthyism:

“They can call it whatever they want. Romney didn’t win did he?” Reid said.

Archbishop Tutu championed Anti-Semitism in his cause to destroy the cultural racism of apartheid. Even after apartheid was overthrown in South Africa, Archbishop Tutu had nothing good to say about Israel or the Jewish people.

British writer Melanie Phillips observed:

There was, however, another side to Tutu — a shocking side. And just as one should respect the dead and pay tribute to their achievements, it is also incumbent upon us to tell the truth about that person if that truth is important enough, however distasteful this may be. And it undoubtedly is that important.

It’s not merely that Tutu demonised Israel with libellous falsehoods. Worse still, he explicitly and repeatedly demonised the Jewish people. His occasional claims that he identified with the Jews and his acknowledgement that they had been allies in the great fight against South African apartheid generally morphed into his grotesque and incomprehensible accusation that the Jews of Israel had done to the Palestinian Arabs what the apartheid regime had done to the black population of South Africa. //

Alpha Kitty @AlphaKitty
Sarah Weddington, American Lawyer of the Roe v. Wade Case, Dies at 76 | She argued the landmark U.S. Supreme Court case that legalized abortion in her first appearance before the high court at age 26 https://texastribune.org/2021/12/26/sarah-weddington-texas-roe-v-wade/
#womenshistory #womenrights #law
Image
11:58 AM · Dec 29, 2021 //

Thanks to Weddington and her work, the nation has experienced the almost 50-year stain that Roe and its subsequent culture of death have ingrained into the fabric of our country. From euthanasia to elder abuse and murder; youth murders, young people perpetrating mass shootings; to suicides and child trafficking: once you open the door to devaluing life at its most fecund point, that devaluation flows downstream. Pregnancy is a burden? Well, so is a special needs newborn, a troubled child, sick parents, and on it goes.

We are at the bottom of that slope and have been wallowing in the mud for quite some time. Everyone is filthy and smelly as a result of the decision 49 years ago to make life… expendable.

We will see how SCOTUS might rule on Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, and see if the whirlwind that Sarah Weddington unleashed with her ambition and her righteous cause will die along with her.

Abby Johnson @AbbyJohnson
Sarah Weddington has died. I have many, many feelings about this. I knew Sarah. For many years, I held her in high esteem. Spent time with her. Respected her. Later, I came to see her as someone who was a master manipulator. I can only pray that she sought The Lord before death.
1:12 PM · Dec 27, 2021

For the entirety of the pandemic, Democrats and their media allies have used case numbers to trash red states. It never mattered that New York dwarfed Florida in deaths per capita despite the latter having a far older, more vulnerable population. Ron DeSantis was evil and every new infection was a moral failing, according to the left.

But now that COVID is slamming the Northeast at higher rates than the South’s summer wave, the goalposts have been uprooted and launched into orbit.

As we recognize that covid-19 is not a deadly or even severe disease for the vast majority of responsible Americans, we can stop agonizing over “cases” and focus on those who are hospitalized or at risk of dying.https://t.co/S4OQD7R58u

— Jennifer 'pro-voting' Rubin (@JRubinBlogger) December 28, 2021

The result, which helps explain nearly a century of one party’s political dominance there, was that on Tuesday Evie cast her ballot to reelect the same man who presided over Chicago that scary night when she got mugged on a dark stretch of city sidewalk.

The Wall Street Journal’s Kim Strassel points out how Manchin could torture Schumer and get his way next.

What ought to worry Mr. Schumer is that the West Virginian votes to proceed with the bill and modify it to his liking. The budget-reconciliation process allows a simple majority to pass legislation, but it comes with a price: unlimited amendments. Despite Democrats’ efforts to claim just “one senator” stands against their bill, the actual number is 51—Mr. Manchin and the 50 Republicans. Imagine what fun that majority could have in a vote-a-rama.
Mr. Manchin could craft amendments striking entire entitlements from the bill, amendments barring climate programs, amendments gutting the bill’s tax hikes.

The real reason to push for a large number of donors is math. If someone gives you $999,999 and someone else gives you $1, you can say your average donation is $500,000. That may not sound good, but it sounds a heck of a lot better than one donor giving a million dollars, thereby buying a politician.

All the money comes from a few rich donors, all the money that matters anyway. But that fact has to be obscured, lest people catch on. So the small-dollar donors are courted via email for headcount purposes only. It’s math, basic math, so the ruling class can pretend they aren’t beholden to large corporations and the mega-rich. Deadlines, dollar amounts, and everything else are all for show so you miss what’s really going on.

One wonders how French would have reacted had he met the real Jesus during His time on the earth. The One Who, long before Twitter, said mean things. The One Who had no problem flipping over tables and using a whip to send people running. The One Who alone was given the authority to judge humanity individually and collectively. The One to Whom sinners and prostitutes flocked because He gave them the love “polite” society denied. It’s no stretch to envision French going full Pharisee on Jesus. As to how Jesus would respond … while French’s condescending elitist fluff and nonsense is fair territory for criticism, aside from that? Not for me to say.

Other than to bring up Jude 1:9.

9 But even the archangel Michael, when he was disputing with the devil about the body of Moses, did not himself dare to condemn him for slander but said, “The Lord rebuke you!”[a]

a. Jude 1:9 Jude is alluding to the Jewish Testament of Moses (approximately the first century a.d.).

X Strategies LLC
@XStrategiesLLC
Bob Dole's farewell letter:

"I'm a bit curious to learn if I am correct in thinking that Heaven will look a lot like Kansas… And to see, like others who have gone before me, if I will still be able to vote in Chicago."

12:43 PM · Dec 10, 2021 //

What an absolute savage. You have to respect a man who’s willing to exercise a sense of humor at his own funeral, and I think it’s a great thing. This country could use a dose of levity. Too many people are at each others’ throats constantly. //

In short, be the person who has a funeral that makes people laugh, not one that serves as a campaign commercial. Politics is serious business at times, but it’s also not that serious at times. Dole illustrated that perfectly.

The evangelical movement flourished in this relatively anti-institutional country at a particularly anti-institutional time. Evangelical ministries and churches fit the “spirit of the age,” growing rapidly in the 1970s, and retaining more of their members even as many mainline denominations declined.

At the same time, Keller argues, that anti-institutional tendency makes evangelical communities more prone than others to “insider abuse”—corruption committed by leaders who have almost no guardrails—and “outsider-ism,” in which evangelicals simply refuse to let their church form them or their beliefs. As a result, they are unrooted—and therefore susceptible to political idolization, fanatical ideas, and conspiracy theories.

“What we’re seeing is massive discipleship failure caused by massive catechesis failure,” James Ernest, the vice president and editor in chief at Eerdmans, a publisher of religious books, told me. Ernest was one of several figures I spoke with who pointed to catechism, the process of instructing and informing people through teaching, as the source of the problem. “The evangelical Church in the U.S. over the last five decades has failed to form its adherents into disciples. So there is a great hollowness. All that was needed to cause the implosion that we have seen was a sufficiently provocative stimulus. And that stimulus came.”

“Culture catechizes,” Alan Jacobs, a distinguished professor of humanities in the honors program at Baylor University, told me. Culture teaches us what matters and what views we should take about what matters. Our current political culture, Jacobs argued, has multiple technologies and platforms for catechizing—television, radio, Facebook, Twitter, and podcasts among them. People who want to be connected to their political tribe—the people they think are like them, the people they think are on their side—subject themselves to its catechesis all day long, every single day, hour after hour after hour.

On the flip side, many churches aren’t interested in catechesis at all. They focus instead on entertainment, because entertainment is what keeps people in their seats and coins in the offering plate. But as Jacobs points out, even those pastors who really are committed to catechesis get to spend, on average, less than an hour a week teaching their people. Sermons are short. Only some churchgoers attend adult-education classes, and even fewer attend Bible study and small groups. Cable news, however, is always on. “So if people are getting one kind of catechesis for half an hour per week,” Jacobs asked, “and another for dozens of hours per week, which one do you think will win out?” //

But when people’s values are shaped by the media they consume, rather than by their religious leaders and communities, that has consequences. “What all those media want is engagement, and engagement is most reliably driven by anger and hatred,” Jacobs argued. “They make bank when we hate each other. And so that hatred migrates into the Church, which doesn’t have the resources to resist it. The real miracle here is that even so, in the mercy of God, many people do find their way to places of real love of God and neighbor.” //

He’s heard of many congregants leaving their church because it didn’t match their politics, he told me, but has never once heard of someone changing their politics because it didn’t match their church’s teaching. He often tells his congregation that if the Bible doesn’t challenge your politics at least occasionally, you’re not really paying attention to the Hebrew scriptures or the New Testament. The reality, however, is that a lot of people, especially in this era, will leave a church if their political views are ever challenged, even around the edges.

At the end of the day, senators care more about protecting themselves and their colleagues from unpredictable, inconvenient floor votes than they do about passing legislation. //

Official Washington’s conventional wisdom about the Senate filibuster is a fairy tale. It is utterly unmoored from the choices being made by individual senators, party caucuses, and the body as a whole. Every person who has ever told you that the mean, nasty, outdated legislative filibuster is the source of Senate gridlock and the obstacle to common-sense legislating in Congress has either swallowed, or is peddling, a lie. //

The mistake everyone makes is looking at Senate inaction and asking, “How can we change Senate rules so it can start legislating again?” The better question is, “Why did the Senate stop legislating in the first place?”

The answer isn’t “gridlock,” any more than “a car” drove through that parade in Wisconsin. Somewhere along the way, senators’ behavior changed. It’s not a coincidence this happened along the same timeline as the polarization of the parties over the last 30 years. Partisan filibusters were harder, and bipartisan legislating easier when the Senate had dozens of conservative-leaning Democrats and liberal-leaning Republicans.

Before moving inside the chamber, let’s take stock of an important but easily overlooked point: Senate Democrats as a group are much farther left than they were in, say, 1990, and Senate Republicans are more uniformly conservative.

Because pundits and people who read them tend to be consistent ideologues themselves, this kind of polarization seems normal, even enlightened. But all it really means is that both parties in the Senate have drifted away from—abandoned, even—the middle of the country.

The public didn’t lurch left or right. Senate rules didn’t change. Congress is simply less representative of the American people than it used to be. Pew’s well-worn ideological scatter chart from the 2016 election exit polls illustrates the point below. //

Nuking the filibuster to establish a majoritarian Senate, in the context of our actual country, would only empower out-of-touch, unpopular, ideological extremists to unilaterally impose their outré elite values on a public that dislikes them. Constitutionally speaking, in the morality play of congressional politics today, the filibuster is the good guy. It’s not the hero we deserve, but the one we need, stopping Republicans from gutting social programs and Democrats from banning guns or red meat. //

Contrary to beltway shorthand, passing bills through the Senate doesn’t require bipartisan compromise. It just requires compromise, full stop. There’s a difference. Sixty-vote majorities could be found on almost any issue, any week of any year, through an open amendment process on the Senate floor. Heck, they could call up a blank bill for floor consideration, and let every Senator offer whatever amendment he or she wanted, and before too long, a final bill that could get 60 votes would emerge.

Both parties know this, and refuse to do it. Why? Because an open amendment process—“the wild west,” they call it—would force senators to take amendment votes that would, quelle horreur, lay bare their actual beliefs and policy priorities to their constituents.

That’s it. That’s the whole story of Senate “gridlock.” Not the filibuster, not cloture, not grandstanding, not Donald Trump or “norms,” or “obstruction” or any other nonsense you’ve been told.

At the end of the day, senators care more about protecting themselves and their colleagues from unpredictable, inconvenient floor votes than they do about passing legislation. This, and no other reason, is why both parties now legislate via secret negotiations, followed by an obnoxious, rigged floor process (“filling the tree”) that blocks all amendments except the ones mutually agreed to by the party leaders.

Remember, the amendments this process blocks are not the ones that wouldn’t pass, but the ones that would. Most Democratic senators don’t want to have to vote on popular Republican amendments to, say, curb immigration or protect gun rights. Likewise, most GOP senators don’t want to have to defend a vote against a higher minimum wage or increased spending for children’s health care.

All kinds of bills and amendments could get 60 votes in the Senate today. The problem is, they would be the wrong 60 votes—majorities representing the public as such instead of their party. When the dust settled, lots of incumbents on both sides would invite dangerous primary or general election challengers next time they faced the voters. //

Ultimately, Senate majorities do not see gridlock as a frustrating, inferior alternative to passing legislation. They see it as a superior alternative to the transparency and accountability that comes with discharging their constitutional responsibilities.

Not convinced? When was the last time you saw a Senate majority of either party really put their shoulder to the wheel to break a partisan filibuster? I don’t mean whining to cable news or talk radio. I mean work: staying in session all night, for days on end, forcing late night attendance, including the sick old men, the cancellation of weekend plans, missing piano recitals and family weddings? Never.

If Senate majorities really want to pass legislation, they could, anytime, through a combination of compromise, transparency, and the exertion of physical energy. This approach has not been tried and found wanting, but found inconvenient and left untried. //

The vast majority of federal policies today rendered untouchable by the Senate’s 60-vote cloture threshold was written between the 1930s and 1960s when even Republicans were proud liberals. Are three years of Roe-lite or some half-baked Green New Deal ramp-up really worth giving President Ron DeSantis, House Speaker Jim Jordan, and Senate Majority Leader Ted Cruz free-rein to rewrite the Great Society and New Deal, the APA, the NLRB, NEPA, civil service, education, and immigration law in one swing?

They would decentralize and defund dozens of power centers within the progressive movement. The left has unimaginably more to lose from a majoritarian Senate than the right. //

At any given moment, both parties are advancing, on different issues, popular and unpopular ideas. The way the Senate is designed to work is, the popular ideas get creatively cobbled together and passed as consensus compromises. And the unpopular ideas are discarded as slogans for the performance artists in the House.

The only reason this doesn’t happen today is that senators’ real, if unstated, top priorities are personal convenience and partisan positioning. Passing major legislation is a distant second or third. What we see on C-Span2 every day is the majority applying minimal-to-modest effort to pass legislation, and maximal effort to protect their seats and undermine the other side.

The Senate’s rules do not stop it from legislating. It’s the senators themselves, entitled and vain, cowering in the shadows behind the one thing in Washington with the courage to stand up for all of us, simultaneously against the mob and the elite. The filibuster isn’t our hero. It’s a silent guardian, a watchful protector. A dark knight.

But there was another “incident” during the interview that CNN remarked on that truly caused a meltdown on the part of the left. At the beginning of the interview, Sinema’s ringtone on her phone went off. “Her ringtone is the refrain from a song in the musical ‘Hamilton’ that includes the lyrics “you don’t have the votes,” CNN noted. “It’s been her ringtone since 2015, the year the musical was originally released, her spokesman told CNN.” That caused the folks on the left to melt down, declaring their hate for her, while people on the right declared it a master troll. //

Dan McLaughlin
@baseballcrank
Troll level: 1790.

Shively
6 hours ago
How about both? Be better, set a good example, yes, but still fight for what you believe in. I think readers who criticized this story were reminded of RINOs who back down on important fights, who think they’re better than everyone else and who criticized Trump for being crass. He’s the one who got into the trenches and fought back. AOC isn’t backing down or sitting on the sidelines. Someone has to set her straight and line by line rebuttals aren’t going to change her mind. //

Chuck M Lowe
6 hours ago
This well written and thoughtful article is the soul of compos mentis and was the bible for so many Republicans for so many years. Some of those Republicans, no more than figure heads, "Fisher Kings" who could do no harm to the real power of the bureaucratic monolith that, at that time, ruled over us all from behind the media's curtain, were at least honest and thought they were addressing the needs of the electorate. The RINOs now in, or formally in place, like Paul Ryan, Lindsey Graham, the Bush family et al, are Quisling traitors who align themselves with the New World Order Branch Covidians that seek One Ring To Rule Them All.

Those Republican/Quislings of the knickerbocker strain, engaged in rhetoric and promises unfulfilled that we bought into like a new Tulip Mania.

No more.

That you would fail to see, right in front of your face, the tectonic shifts that have taken place over the last 25 years and especially since the Event Horizon election of Don Trump which tore the curtain away from the malevolent, scrofulous, Fascist forces that are fully engaged in the annihilation of American freedoms, liberty and the very Constitution that support those freedoms is disappointing.

There is yet time, for YOU to fall off of your horse outside the walls of Damascus and realize that the forces we Americans face, the absolute declaration of war on us from the entirety of the Federal Government is a real war and a war to the death.

Ashley Babbit is dead. Their are actual political prisoners, held without bail in Washington D.C. who are innocent of ANY crime while the evidence of their innocence is held in abeyance by the Fascist Feds.

This, is the FBI, the number one so called "Law Enforcement Agency" in America.

The FBI is a renegade, out of control, criminal organization no different than the Mafia, except it has more power. Your average FBI Agent gets up everyday, suborns perjury, alters official documents (302's), destroys evidence under subpoena, withholds exculpatory evidence, hides Brady Material, lies under oath to the court, lies under oath to Congress, ignores the 4th amendment and supplies ex nihilo, out of whole cloth, phony evidence then initiates with no predicate, investigations into perceived enemies of the D卐M☭CRAT party, conduct pre-dawn raids on "dangerous" septuagenarians, illegally leaks classified material to sympathetic press pack dogs who work in support of the D卐M☭CRAT Imperium, slow rolls subpoenas for FOIA information and lies about the need to classify ever more evidence that the American public should be able to see and that is before 9 o'clock. They ARE, absolutely, the American Gestapo.

But you think Harsh and Intemperate language is a problem?

These wheels are turning, these bells are tolling, these armies, will collide and we all hope, that you can find it within yourself, to look at the facts and tell the truth.

MGT has more testosterone in her little finger than most of the so called "Republicans" in Washington D.C.

God bless her. //

leesell
6 hours ago
As Solzhenitsyn said when they were in the gulag, “We didn’t love freedom enough”, sadly that’s the regret once you’ve blown the chance to stop evil and insanity. Evil doesn’t reason and play nice. I’m all for using knowledge and intellect also but when your in a fight for your life you can’t wait for the enemy to hear your great argument.

Alex Wilkes
@AlexandraWilkes
Sen.-Elect Ed Durr on @SaveJersey live when asked about @TheAtlantic’s contention that he doesn’t know how to govern in the New Jersey legislature:

“How much worse could I make it?”
8:33 PM · Nov 9, 2021

Durr walked the neighborhoods and met people and asked what they thought.

Rosie Memos
@almostjingo
Obsessed with Edward Durr, he literally posted his phone number and email asking for volunteers. He walked the streets weekly, met the people and shot his campaign commercial on a phone. This is how all races should be.

This is what the Founders envisioned. They didn’t want professional politicians.

What’s nice about about Durr? Unlike Joe Biden, he admits he doesn’t know what he doesn’t know. He doesn’t pretend to know everything or be everything. But he does want to be a voice for the people so they know someone is actually listening. How honest and refreshing is this?

Identity politics and the left’s desire to eliminate the middle class so that more Americans are reliant on the government have created a crisis that is worth fixing.... //

“I think we have to just assume that government — and that’s not just our elected officials but mostly the 2 million federal employees that are combining in their own offices, legislative, executive, and judicial power — that they want people to be dependent upon them because then they will support the expansion of that class and the greater remuneration and pensioning and power and influence and reputation of that class,” Hanson said. //

One example, Hanson argued, is that of military leaders who are more focused on profiting off of defense contracting and infiltrating their ranks with identity politics than on their service members dying in places such as Afghanistan.

“I think things are gonna change because I think in a year or two, there’s going to be a radical change in the government — legislative branch first and executive likely — and these generals are going to be shocked when they see that they don’t have a constituency anymore and the left never liked them and never supported them. They just found that they were useful idiots for a while. I think what they’ve done to traditional America is shocking.”

The answer to the problem of blue staters escaping to red states actually requires some effort on your part. Screaming on social media is easy, real action is hard.

You’re going to have to run for local office.

I know, the thought just made you cringe. You just came up with half a dozen excuses for why you can’t possibly run for a local office. The kids are in sports and that takes up a lot of time. You can’t afford to make effort, financially or time-wise. You hate speaking in public. Your life is far too busy for elected office. You don’t need one more thing to do.

On and on and on.

If you just used any of those excuses, take this one moment to understand that every time you complain about the state of politics and politicians, you are part of the problem. Good people won’t run, for all the reasons you just thought of. So who does that leave?

Stop complaining about the quality of our politicians if you can’t summon the stones to run yourself.

All that being said, if you want to protect your way of life from all the icky Californians coming your way, you’re going to have to shore up your political offices. Now.

I mean, right now. Look around you. Look at all the unrest and angst at local levels across the nation. Parents are forced to protest at school board meetings, barbers have to protest on capitol steps, citizens are showing up to city council meetings to protest in droves. Why? Because good people like you sat out local elections, thinking someone else would do the job. As it turns out, the “someone else” to do the job were left-wing progressives who love government and love the idea of serving in government in perpetuity.

You let it happen. You thought you were too good for public service (and you probably are) but the problem is that the people you left it to are simply not good enough.

I’m not suggesting you run for senate or congress. There are a ton of elected positions in your municipalities. I would bet you don’t know half of them. Take a look. Do a google search of available offices and choose something.

Get in the game.

You are not a bystander. You are a citizen. Quit complaining and be one.

It’s our only hope.

A rule to carry with you in Washington is nearly everything someone in power claims is too complicated to explain actually isn’t complicated at all. They just don’t want to tell you why.

Jill Lawrence
@JillDLawrence
My new column is probably the only #CaliforniaRecall piece today (or ever?) that quotes Patrick Henry: Telling the truth about Republicans and #COVID19 is a winner https://usatoday.com/story/opinion/2021/09/15/california-recall-covid-truths-fueled-democratic-win/8338737002/
via @usatoday @usatodayopinion #CaliforniaRecallElection #California

Timothy Sandefur
@TimothySandefur
This article begins with an untrue statement. It is not the constitutional role of politicians to “promote the general welfare.” It is the Constitution itself that “promotes the general welfare.” Politicians’ job is to obey the Constitution.
9:56 AM · Sep 15, 2021

Timothy Sandefur
@TimothySandefur
Replying to @TimothySandefur
Politicians ALWAYS say that what they’re doing—no matter how dumb, corrupt, futile, or illegal—will “promote the general welfare.” If that’s the limit on their power then there is NO limit to their power.

Thus the Constitution limits the ability of politicians to do things to you in the service of what they consider to be “the general welfare.”

“To provide for the general welfare, is an abstract proposition, which mankind differ in the explanation of, as much as they do on any political or moral proposition that can be proposed; the most opposite measures may be pursued by different parties, & both may profess that they

have in view the general welfare; & both sides may be honest in their professions, or both may have sinister views… It is as absurd to say, that the power of Congress is limited by these general expressions, "to provide for the common safety, & general welfare," as it would be

to say that it wd be limited, had the Constn said they should have power to lay taxes &c at will & pleasure. Were this authority given, it might be said that under it the legislature could not do injustice, or pursue any measures, but such as were calculated to promote the public

good & happiness. For every man, rulers as well as others, are bound by the immutable laws of God & reason always to will what is right. It is certainly right and fit, that the governors of every people shd provide for the common defence & general welfare; every govt, therefore,

good & happiness. For every man, rulers as well as others, are bound by the immutable laws of God & reason always to will what is right. It is certainly right and fit, that the governors of every people shd provide for the common defence & general welfare; every govt, therefore,

in the world, even the greatest despot, is limited in the exercise of his power. But however just this reasoning may be, it wd be found in practice a most pitiful restriction. The govt would always say their measures were designed & calculated to promote the public good, & there

being no judge between them and the people, the rulers themselves must, and would always, judge for themselves.”
https://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_1s8.html

Learn more:
The Conscience of the Constitution
https://www.cato.org/books/conscience-constitution

All of a sudden, the conservative project is not a conservative one, so much as a counter-revolutionary one. //

This is the text of the Bradley Prize acceptance speech the author gave on Sept. 13.

My issue here isn’t the pragmatism on display. Of course, Biden is not going to be impeached by a Democrat House or Senate. McConnell doesn’t need to bother pointing that out. Rather, the question is if Republicans are willing to show any kind of killer instinct and to hold the left to their own standards.

For example, every criticism McConnell otherwise lodges at Biden isn’t going to result in his removal from office. Yet, that criticism is still valuable, correct? That’s especially true when talking about shaping perceptions for the next elections. An impeachment push isn’t about actually removing Biden from office. Rather, it’s about consistency and showing voters that the president deserves to be held to the same standard Trump was held to. The messaging is the point.

Yes, the ballot box will be the ultimate test, but what happens at the ballot box is influenced by how Republicans choose to fight back at this moment. GOP voters are watching, and they aren’t going to respond well to more Washington knee-bending. It is not lost on them that many Republicans went harder at Trump than they now go at Biden. //

In short, the question for McConnell isn’t whether Biden will be impeached. Rather, it’s if McConnell thinks he should be. If he doesn’t, he should say that instead of hiding behind obfuscations about what is or isn’t possible. Stand up, stiffen your spine, and take a position.

six in ten people said the country has “seriously gone off on the wrong track.” That’s a horrible indicator for Biden.

On top of that, the latest Rasmussen numbers found that 52% want Biden to resign over the disaster of the Afghanistan withdrawal, while 39% disagree. But that wasn’t all.

An even bigger number agreed with Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) that Biden deserved to be impeached. 60% agreed with Graham’s statement that Biden should be impeached, with 37% saying no, according to Newsmax. //

Ldeer1960
3 hours ago
"...there’s been a lot of honest reporting and a lot of truth..." for certain values of "a lot", "honest", and "truth". If the actual truth were told accurately and across all media there would be a lynch mob around the White House, Congress and the Pentagon.