Please disable your Ad Blocker to better interact with this website.

Connect with us

Hillary Calls for End of Civility in Politics, Incites Violence Against Republicans — Scalise Fires Back

Published

on

The Daily Caller reports, “Antifa protesters blocked traffic and almost started a riot during a Saturday march and vigil,” and we’re reminded again – as if we need another memory aid on this matter – that current social interaction is spinning out of control.

On top of that, folks don’t seem particularly enraged about it. Nothing much to see here, just the way it is and is going to be, move along.

Accounts abound of “protesters running down the street, and a group chasing an older white-haired man to his car … protesters blocking the road and trying to direct traffic during the vigil.” [A] man … yelled while approaching [a] vehicle. “… Get the f* down the road.”

Of course, we shouldn’t be completely taken aback by the proliferation of developments like this. Bad behavior is increasingly being excused, rationalized, even encouraged from high-profile people; so heretofore “low-profile” people are taking the cue.

Trending: Mark Zuckerberg Just Stole $315,000 From A Triple-Amputee Vet

YoungConservatives’ Andrew Mark Miller reflects:

“The Democratic Party today supports violence to get their point across. There’s no debating that at this point. It started with Antifa which has used violence for years now but the Democrats would dismiss them as being on the fringe. Then Antifa got more and more popular. Keith Ellison supported them. Leaders stopped denouncing them. Then Maxine Waters came along and started encouraging liberals to harass conservatives in public.  … Republican offices have been attacked and defaced. It’s a violent mess and the Democratic Party can no longer argue that the violence is on the fringe.”

“In fact, they aren’t even really making the argument anymore. Democrats at the highest levels of the party are openly embracing a ‘whatever it takes’ attitude when it comes to political debate.”

Exhibit A: Hillary Clinton who just announced to CNN: “You cannot be civil with a political party that wants to destroy what you stand for.” Steve Scalise was quick to fire back on that one.

Where to begin? The problems with her statement are legion – and not merely because she’s a Democrat or a Clinton, but because her reasoning is functionally meaningless. What she really means is: ‘You cannot be civil with a political party that disagrees with your agenda’.

Pro-life? Can’t be civil to ya. Pro-traditional marriage? Rudeness in order. A supporter of America’s military? Bring on the bullying. Endorsing limited government, low taxes, restricted spending? All bets are off!

Judicial Watch’s Jerry Dunleavy perceptively tweeted: “So Republicans cannot be civil with Democrats? Interesting.”

If it applies for Team Hillary, I suppose it has to apply for Team Anti-Hillary, right? Where does this road end?

Hillary’s CNN battle-cry is really a variation on a popular cliché, a self-justifying, catch-all excuse that suspends the requirement for basic decency: In war, there are no rules.  Well – and pardon the pun –  with all due respect, that’s a pile of profound-sounding and convenient buncombe.

You do see the problem with Hillary’s admission, right? Either side, every side of every issue, could say that about every and any disagreement – particularly since nowadays everything is of an existential magnitude to activists.

Unnervingly, the radical progs have pre-emptively taken a page from the former first lady’s book for some time now.

Miller already mentioned the mobbish Antifa. I’ll throw in Black Lives Matter, Occupy Wall Street, any one of a number of man- and/or white- and or conservative-hating media figures… Georgetown University Professor Christine Fair comes to mind:

“All [Republican Senator Brett Kavanaugh supporters] deserve miserable deaths while feminists laugh as they take their last gasps. Bonus: we castrate their corpses and feed them to swine?”

How about the New York Times’ tech-writer Sarah Jeong who pre-her NYT gig had written, “Oh man it’s kind of sick how much joy I get out of being cruel to old white men … are white people genetically predisposed to burn faster in the sun, thus logically being only fit to live underground like groveling goblins.”

You simply must ask yourself: What if it had been a Republican white male professor or pundit who screeched similar stuff against liberal women of color? They’d be identified as a recently fired-professor or a recently fired-pundit. No denying that.

Conservatives must push back against Hillary’s pernicious counsel, rejecting not just their savage opposition, but savagery itself. While we’re on the subject, everyone with an opinion right left or center must do the same.

If we become like “them” in challenging “them,” regardless of the political outcome, who wins? Unloading cruel and damaging statements in criticizing those who are unloading cruel and damaging statements against you doesn’t make a lot of sense. And it’s not helpful.

We might “win” the occasional policy argument or current events debate if we unscrupulously go-low, go-nasty — but in the long run, if we lose our humanity and the anchor of our civil civilization, what, really, have we gained?

Who was it who said, “What does it profit a man …?”

 

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please hover over that comment, click the ∨ icon, and mark it as spam. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.

President Trump Just Blindsided Dems – Huge Breakthrough Announced In Mueller Investigation

Published

on

...

* By

President Trump has been unfairly treated by the Democrats. They have questioned the legitimacy of his Presidency the day after he beat Hillary, and they won’t let up until they see him gone.

President Trump is no stranger to being treated wrongfully by the media, and its no surprise the Mueller which hunt is still dragging along. They’ve tried every single tactic available to mankind, and now there’s signs they are finally running out of options.

From CNN:

President Donald Trump’s legal team is preparing answers to written questions provided by special counsel Robert Mueller, according to sources familiar with the matter.

The move represents a major development after months of negotiations and signals that the Mueller investigation could be entering a final phase with regard to the President.
The questions are focused on matters related to the investigation of possible collusion between Trump associates and Russians seeking to meddle in the 2016 election, the sources said. Trump’s lawyers are preparing written responses, in part relying on documents previously provided to the special counsel, the sources said.

“We are in continuing discussions with the special counsel and we do not comment on those discussions,” said Trump attorney Jay Sekulow.

There may be more rounds of questions after the first answers are returned. The special counsel had insisted that there be a chance for follow-up questions as well. But after a prolonged back-and-forth over months, the two sides agreed to start with a first round of questions.

Additionally, the two sides have still not come to agreement on whether the President will be interviewed in person by investigators who are also probing whether Trump obstructed justice by firing FBI Director James Comey.

Asked on Thursday about answering Mueller’s questions, Trump again signaled his willingness to sit down for an interview with Mueller or provide written responses — the option much preferred by his attorneys.

“It seems ridiculous that I’d have to do it when everybody says there’s no collusion, but I’ll do what is necessary to get it over with,” Trump said in a phone interview on Fox News. Despite Trump’s insistence to the contrary, the possibility of collusion remains an open question in the ongoing investigation led by Mueller, who has not tipped his hand one way or the other.

Negotiations for Trump’s testimony lasted for the better part of a year. The two sides nearly reached a deal in January for Trump to be questioned at the presidential retreat in rural Maryland, Camp David, only for talks to break down at the last minute. What followed was a series of letters and meetings — some hostile — in which Trump’s lawyers raised objections and sought to limit any potential testimony.

For months, Mueller told Trump’s lawyers that he needed to hear from the President to determine his intent on key events in the obstruction inquiry. During one tense session in March, Mueller raised the possibility of getting a subpoena to compel the President’s testimony.

Trump’s lead attorney John Dowd resigned later that month. According to a recent book published by journalist Bob Woodward, Dowd quit because he believed Trump would never heed his advice to avoid an interview at all costs. Trump once publicly said he was “100%” willing to go under oath to answer questions about his decision to fire Comey, who led the original Russia investigation before Mueller was appointed.

The President eventually hired Rudy Giuliani to join his legal team, and the former New York mayor quickly took to the airwaves to defend Trump and attack Mueller. As Giuliani made the rounds on TV newscasts — blasting the investigation as illegitimate — Trump’s other lawyers, Jane and Marty Raskin, carefully worked behind the scenes with Mueller’s team to narrow the topics that Trump could be asked about.

Continue Reading

Trump Just Blindsided Democrats With Breakthrough Investigation 24 Days Before Midterms

Published

on

...

* By

As the most reliable and balanced news aggregation service in the world, RWN offers the following information published by CNN:

President Donald Trump’s legal team is preparing answers to written questions provided by special counsel Robert Mueller, according to sources familiar with the matter.

The move represents a major development after months of negotiations and signals that the Mueller investigation could be entering a final phase with regard to the President.

The questions are focused on matters related to the investigation of possible collusion between Trump associates and Russians seeking to meddle in the 2016 election, the sources said. Trump’s lawyers are preparing written responses, in part relying on documents previously provided to the special counsel, the sources said.

“We are in continuing discussions with the special counsel and we do not comment on those discussions,” said Trump attorney Jay Sekulow.

There may be more rounds of questions after the first answers are returned. The special counsel had insisted that there be a chance for follow-up questions as well. But after a prolonged back-and-forth over months, the two sides agreed to start with a first round of questions.

Additionally, the two sides have still not come to agreement on whether the President will be interviewed in person by investigators who are also probing whether Trump obstructed justice by firing FBI Director James Comey.
Asked on Thursday about answering Mueller’s questions, Trump again signaled his willingness to sit down for an interview with Mueller or provide written responses — the option much preferred by his attorneys.

“It seems ridiculous that I’d have to do it when everybody says there’s no collusion, but I’ll do what is necessary to get it over with,” Trump said in a phone interview on Fox News. Despite Trump’s insistence to the contrary, the possibility of collusion remains an open question in the ongoing investigation led by Mueller, who has not tipped his hand one way or the other.

Negotiations for Trump’s testimony lasted for the better part of a year. The two sides nearly reached a deal in January for Trump to be questioned at the presidential retreat in rural Maryland, Camp David, only for talks to break down at the last minute. What followed was a series of letters and meetings — some hostile — in which Trump’s lawyers raised objections and sought to limit any potential testimony.

For months, Mueller told Trump’s lawyers that he needed to hear from the President to determine his intent on key events in the obstruction inquiry. During one tense session in March, Mueller raised the possibility of getting a subpoena to compel the President’s testimony.

Trump’s lead attorney John Dowd resigned later that month. According to a recent book published by journalist Bob Woodward, Dowd quit because he believed Trump would never heed his advice to avoid an interview at all costs. Trump once publicly said he was “100%” willing to go under oath to answer questions about his decision to fire Comey, who led the original Russia investigation before Mueller was appointed.

The President eventually hired Rudy Giuliani to join his legal team, and the former New York mayor quickly took to the airwaves to defend Trump and attack Mueller. As Giuliani made the rounds on TV newscasts — blasting the investigation as illegitimate — Trump’s other lawyers, Jane and Marty Raskin, carefully worked behind the scenes with Mueller’s team to narrow the topics that Trump could be asked about.

Continue Reading




Latest Articles

Become an insider!

Thank you for your interest in receiving the Right Wing News newsletter. To subscribe, please submit your email address below.

Send this to a friend