Democrats: who do they hate the most?

House Democrats Block Resolution Supporting Iran Protestors  "On Tuesday, House Democrats blocked a resolution introduced by Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., which expressed support for the Iran protestors.
“ 'Why in the world are @HouseDemocrats blocking the @GOPLeader‘s resolution condemning this Iranian regime for obvious human rights violations?” Leader McCarthy wrote on Twitter. “This isn’t complicated. Let’s stand up for the same basic right to free speech in Iran that we have here and vote on this resolution.”
"Protests in Iran continued for a fourth day as Democrats blocked the vote, with the crowd denouncing clerical rulers and Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei during a brutal crackdown. At least 30 protestors were taken into custody.
"Demonstrations were sparked after Iran admitted Saturday its military shot down Ukraine International Airlines (UIA) Flight 752 bound for Kiev, killing all 176 aboard. While the regime called it a “disastrous mistake”, the admission came after three days of denials and mounting international pressure.
"On Saturday, protestors were calling for the death of Ayatollah Khamenei, despite risk of execution. The crowd defended President Donald J. Trump and called Qassem Soleimani a “murderer.”
"Numerous videos posted late on Sunday recorded gunfire in Tehran’s Azadi Square. Wounded protestors were being carried and security personnel ran holding rifles. Riot police hit protesters with batons as people shouted “Don’t beat them!”
"Fars News Agency, the a “semi-official” media for the Iranian government, said a person who posted the video online last week showing a missile hitting the plane, has been arrested.
"House Resolution 791 expressed support for the Iran protestors, condemned how the regime handled the accidental shoot-down of UIA Flight 752, and called on the mullahs to not use force against its own people."

'Guillotine the rich': Sanders staffer says he's ready for armed 'revolution'

Jeffries: Trust Me, We Took “No Joy” From Our “Solemn” Genuine Souvenir Impeachment Pen Giveaway  "Whom should we believe — Hakeem Jeffries, or our own lying eyes? This fun leftover from yesterday’s Fox News Sunday had Chris Wallace doing a double-take after Jeffries’ double-talk over the signing ceremony for the articles of impeachment. “There was no joy in that ceremony,” Jeffries says as Wallace plays footage of a smiling Nancy Pelosi and her souvenir-pen business." . . .

. . . "We’ve seen the pictures from House Democrats’ calls for impeachment over the last three years, too, so it’s not clear whom Jeffries thinks he’s fooling here. But it does bring up an opportunity to play this clip from the 1998 impeachment follies, when House Democrats claimed that the case then was motivated by hatred and an attempt to overturn a legitimate election rather than constitutional concerns. And guess what? You’ll see some of the same faces as at the souvenir pen giveaway, too:. . . "

The Secret Sauce of the Democrats’ Impeachment Strategy: The Judiciary

This wouldn’t be the first time Democrats tested an idea and then used it as a template for future endeavors.  After the Left destroyed Robert Bork’s Supreme Court nomination, “borking” entered the political lexicon and the Democrat playbook as a way to take out conservative nominees.

Sally Zelikovsky  "What is it about this impeachment that is so valuable to Democrats that they feel justified risking a flimsy impeachment strategy today, knowing that it could be used against them tomorrow? 

"Legal scholars and political pundits are justifiably worried about the implications President Trump’s impeachment holds for America’s future.  Not only will tomorrow’s presidents be vulnerable to political vendettas, coups to undo election results, and frivolous attacks on policy and ideology by a House mob run amok, but our entire constitutional republic, and the separation of powers and checks and balances on which it is built, are in jeopardy.   

"The Democrats are certainly motivated by their short-term goals of ousting Trump, disrupting his presidency, and creating chaos for the 2020 elections.  But an impeachment on such a shaky foundation does not serve them well in the long-term, especially if the tables should turn and they are sitting in the White House while Republicans control the House.

"What makes this entire impeachment risk worth their while is… the judiciary. It’s their secret sauce.

"For decades, the Democrats have had an ideological lock on the judiciary.  It has been their failsafe for policy when they are unable to pass desired legislation, promulgate burdensome regulations, or affect change with either a swipe of the President’s pen or by propaganda delivered through the media, the educational system, and Hollywood." . . . 

. . . 

"The Democrat machine is relentless, and we cannot afford to stick our heads in the sand as we did after we lost Colorado.  Trump will only be in office another one to five years, but his appointments will endure for decades, so we must go on offense in order to defend them or the Trump years will have been for naught." 

Romney Reveals Where He Stands on Witnesses in the Senate Trial

Townhall

"Sen. Mitt Romney (R-UT) is one of a handful of moderate Republicans who is undecided as to whether the Senate should allow more witnesses in the impeachment trial against President Trump. He said he's open to it, as long as they take the vote after opening arguments.
Read Romney's statement here
. . . 
"As mentioned, Romney is one of the Republicans on the fence regarding additional witnesses. The other persuadable senators include Susan Collins (ME), Lisa Murkowski (AK), Lamar Alexander (TN), and a few other retiring senators." . . .

He wants to see which way the wind blows.  Mitt Romney A ‘Well-Oiled Weather Vane’

Government in the Shadows; "Goodbye to the peaceful transfer of power."

Victor Davis Hanson

At worst, the endless opposition turned into a slow-motion sort of coup in which progressive, life-tenured bureaucrats leaked, obstructed, and connived to stop the daily operations of the administration — as they often proudly admitted to the media. The subtext was that the Obama-progressive-media complex would create enough momentum to abort Trump’s first term. Or was it that Trump represented such an existential danger to the administrative-state way of doing business that any means necessary were justified to end his presidency?

"The frenetic opposition to Donald Trump by the Washington establishment, the new progressive, hard-left Democratic party, and in particular the veterans of the Obama administration has led to the ruination of a number of hallowed protocols and customs.
Impeachment has been redefined as a mere vote of no confidence and will become a rank political ploy for years to come once an opposition party gains a majority in the House. It is taking on the flavor of a preemptory device, a vaccination, rather than a medicine, as if to prevent future hypothetical crimes in the absence of current impeachable offenses.
Whistleblowers are now mere political operatives, who work with the opposition party to disseminate second- and third-hand rumor to prompt impeachment frenzies." . . .

Is this gender-related? The NYT endorses both Amy Klobuchar and Elizabeth Warren.

Althouse

"The nice illustration is by Jules Julien. It's even better if you go to the article page, here.

"If Kamala Harris were still in the race, would the Times have picked 3?

"Let's read:

On the Democratic side, an essential debate is underway between two visions that may define the future of the party and perhaps the nation. Some in the party view President Trump as an aberration and believe that a return to a more sensible America is possible. Then there are those who believe that President Trump was the product of political and economic systems so rotten that they must be replaced....

Democrats must decide which of their two models would be most compelling for the American people and best suited for repairing the Republic.... The history of the editorial board would suggest that we would side squarely with the candidate with a more traditional approach to pushing the nation forward, within the realities of a constitutional framework and a multiparty country....

. . .
"But chances are, it will boil down to Biden and Bernie, and if it does, that's when we'll know how dedicated the Times is to the realist side of the Democratic Party. They'll embrace Biden."

The Never-Ending Impeachment

National Review

Efforts to remove Trump didn’t start with Ukraine. And won’t end there.

"Maybe Nancy Pelosi waited to send impeachment to the Senate because she was waiting for her pens to arrive. The fancy commemorative ballpoints, featuring the speaker’s name engraved in gold, that Pelosi gave to colleagues at Wednesday’s engrossment ceremony quickly became the subject of mockery. Republicans saw them as emblematic of Democratic partisanship and triviality. “Nothing says seriousness and sobriety like handing out souvenirs,” said Mitch McConnell. “As though this were a happy bill-signing instead of the gravest process in our Constitution.”

"In Pelosi’s eyes, impeachment is something to celebrate. It’s more than an accomplishment. It’s the most significant product of the 116th Congress. What McConnell calls “the gravest process” has been the preferred means of Democrats to inflict maximum damage on President Trump and possibly remove him from office before the end of his term. The trial that begins on Tuesday has been years in the making. And the drive to impeach Trump won’t end when the verdict is rendered. He may well end up the first president to be impeached multiple times.

"Maxine Waters has been chanting “impeach 45” since the spring of 2017. Representative Al Green introduced the first impeachment resolution that summer. Tom Steyer founded “Need to Impeach” that October.  . . ."

Too Stupid for Words: NBC News Op-ed Claims Voting for Trump Not Only Racist But Unconstitutional

Legal Insurrection

"Has the dumbest article of 2020 already been written?"

. . . "The author, Noah Berlatsky, seems to be serious about this if you can believe it:

Trump voters motivated by racism may be violating the Constitution. Can they be stopped?

If the Trump era has taught us anything, it’s that large numbers of white people in the United States are motivated at least in part by racism in the voting booth. Donald Trump ran an openly racist campaign for president, calling Mexicans rapists and criminals, regularly retweeting white supremacists and at least initially balking at repudiating former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke. Trump made it clear in his campaign that “Make America Great Again” meant that America was greater when white people’s power was more sweeping and more secure. White voters approved of that message by a whopping 58 percent to 37 percent.

Some politicians deny the evidence, no doubt because they don’t want to alienate white voters, including prejudiced ones. Other commentators try to parse whether Trump’s racism will be a winning strategy in 2020. Terry Smith, a visiting professor at the University of Baltimore School of Law, offers a different response in his new book, “Whitelash: Unmasking White Grievance at the Ballot Box.” Rather than excuse racist voters or try to figure out how to live with their choices, he argues that racist voting is not just immoral, but illegal. The government, Smith says, has the ability, and the responsibility, to address it.

This sounds radical. But Smith argues that it’s in line with the Constitution and with years of court rulings. For example, Smith points out that racist appeals in union elections are illegal and that an election in which one side uses racist appeals can be invalidated by the National Labor Relations Board.

. . .
Ace Of Spades HQ:  
"NBC Agitates for the Last Step Before Violent Civil War: Voting for Trump Is Illegal, and the Government Should Act to Forbid It"

. . . Say, are there any Democrats motivated by racism or antisemtism, I wonder?I know Obama met with and posed for pictures with antisemitic cult leader Louis Farrakhan.Should we deploy the police around polling stations in Democrat cities?

Conservatives Need to Stop Playing Defense

Simon de Hundehutte  "The problem for conservatives debating progressives and leftists is that those on the far left always choose the playing field.  Using a sports analogy, progressives wisely choose a baseball field for a confrontation, putting conservatives at a decisive disadvantage.  Conservatives need to stop playing progressives in baseball and start playing them in football. 

"Think about it:  In football, your opponent can start out with the ball on offense, but suddenly have it taken away by a pass interception or by recovering a fumble.  Now, your team is on offense and in a position to score.  In fact, in all major team sports -- football, basketball, hockey, soccer -- in all of them, you can actually score on defense -- by taking the ball (or puck) away from the other team and going in for a goal (or basket).  Baseball is the only sport where you can only score on offense.  One team gets to bat, score as many runs as possible before making three outs, then the other team gets to bat and score.  I mean, a player in the field can't suddenly knock over a runner who's rounding third base and then run down the line himself, cross home plate, and score a run for his team, right?

"So, how does this sports' analogy carry over into debating and, in a larger sense, effecting changes in the culture?

"What seems to be happening in every matchup between conservatives and progressives is that Progressives are always up at bat and conservatives are always playing the field.

. . . 

"By way of example, here again is that progressive question heard quite a bit these days:

" 'How can a Christian support Trump?"

"Notice, the question immediately assumes there is something wrong with supporting Trump, so the person who is asked it must assume a defensive position.

"But how do you turn things around, go on offense, and score?

"Shouldn't a conservative (and especially a Christian) be taking a page out of Jesus' playbook and turning the tables on Progressives?

"A conservative/Christian could respond: "I will answer that question after you answer mine -- How could a Christian have supported Obama?' "  . . .

The Windsors Blackmailed by their Daughter-in-Law

A California Hollywood liberal enters the British Monarchy; what could go wrong?

Deborah C. Tyler  . . . "The roadside bomb in the royal family named Meghan Markle exploded not because of immoral conduct in the conventional sense.  Markle is the first duchess who hails from the American left-wing, post-Christian, anti-moral belief system that worships the journey of self-directed personal actualization.  Her justification after only a few months of marriage for urging hubby away from his family?  "It is not enough to survive, you have to thrive."  Apparently, Harry's fulfilling his role as prince prevents her thriving.  For Meghan, thriving entails doing what you want, no matter if it hurts others or depreciates the generosity that has been heaped upon you.
. . . 

"Meghan Markle enjoys absolute melanin immunity from criticism.  Any challenge, however gentle, is racist!  The duchess of York was publicly pulverized for her appearance for years on end, but she's white so it was OK.  A critique of Meghan's nail polish is racism!

"Racism! is a justification for the elite globalist kleptocracy to loot their nation state, because that is where the money is.  The E.U. didn't fix up Frogmore "Cottage" for Meghan and Harry; the British people did.  Such super-rich transnational lifestylers cling to a patina of virtue in their lack of loyalty to homeland, because the British, like all white people, are racist!" . . .

Iranian politician announces $3 million reward for 'whoever kills Trump'

Several Hollywood actors began a Go-Fund-Me campaign to help out with this. TD

Daily Mail  "An Iranian politician has announced a $3 million 'cash prize' for anyone who kills President Donald Trump.
"Ahmad Hamzeh, parliamentary speaker from central Kerman province, told lawmakers: 'We will pay a three million dollar award in cash to whoever kills Trump.' 
"Kerman is the home province of Qassem Soleimani, the Iranian Quds leader who was killed in a drone strike by Trump, and whose death the regime has sworn to avenge. "

Republicans offer commemorative impeachment pens

Ethel C. Fenig  "The first grandmother to become speaker of the House, Rep Nancy Pelosi (D-homeless capital San Francisco, naturally), oh, so laboriously signed the so-called articles of the so-called impeachment using platters full of commemorative pens.  Republicans quickly offered "I Support Trump!" souvenir pens as a reward for donating to their party.  

"In this electronic era, when documents are signed by tapping a device, it is somewhat reassuring for this over-30 individual that pens are still available.  And used.  Even at the perverted event overseen by Pelosi.  And celebrating the Republicans' cleverness capitalizing on it. 
 "Ah, the pleasures of free-market capitalism, which offers choices.  Which pen would you rather have? "
This?

Or this?

'Jarring': CNN Chides Pelosi for Her Actions During Articles of Impeachment Signing

. . . "Things had to look pretty bad when even a CNN panel found Pelosi's actions to be strange. Remember: Pelosi has continually said this is a sad, somber moment for the country. If it was such a somber occasion why was she smiling, taking pictures and handing out mementos? If this was truly a sad time she wouldn't be acting the way she did. 

" 'We are used to seeing signing ceremonies, handing out pens, at moments of celebration, when a president is signing legislation, even sometimes on a rare occasion when the House sends over a landmark piece of legislation," CNN's Chief Political Correspondent Dana Bash explained. "It was unusual to see that kind of ceremony and making, you know, handing out the pens and smiling for a picture, in this kind of situation where the House Speaker has bent over backwards to say publicly and privately this is somber, this is not a time for a celebration.' " . . .

Mainstream media’s blatant hatred of Christians may boost Trump’s chances of re-election

As one Christian commentator recently noted: All they have to do is not hate us, and they can’t even do that. 

As shown by this liberal cartoon: 

Lifesite News  "January 17, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – I wish the mainstream media and the Democratic politicians realized that one of the primary reasons Donald Trump has a decent shot at getting re-elected despite the nonstop snarl of scandals that have plagued his presidency is that they cannot stop showing their utter contempt for millions of Christian Americans. 

"As one Christian commentator recently noted: All they have to do is not hate us, and they can’t even do that. 

Consider a recent headline over at the Associated Press: “Tennessee governor says he will sign anti-gay adoption bill.” It seems that Tennessee Governor Bill Lee announced earlier this week that he will be signing a bill affirming tax-payer funding for faith-based adoption agencies and foster care “even if they exclude LGBT families and others based on religious beliefs.” 

"Translation: Tennessee is passing a bill preventing the LGBT movement from shutting down Christian organizations that seek to operate according to the tenets of their faith and wish to place children in homes with both a mother and a father. While the LGBT movement has made it a heresy to claim children need both a mom and a dad, reasonable people should be able to agree that children are obviously best off with both a mother and father if at all possible.

"An alternative headline could be this: “Tennessee governor will sign law protecting the right of Christian organizations to abide by tenets of their faith.” Or: “Tennessee governor affirms right of religious organizations to place children in homes with both a mother and a father.” 

"But no: The headline, of course, has to refer to this bill as an “anti-gay adoption bill,”  . . .