[B. N. Faraj]

Hi Juile,

--objections which seem highly relevant to Sessions's suitability for the job of Attorney General.

If the suitability test wasn't administered to the occupant of the White House, do you think it's realistic to expect it to be imposed on those holding lower positions?

[Charlie Southerland]

It's pretty easy to insult the Honorable Senator Warren, Julie. Corretta Scott King also praised Senator Sessions as a good man and a good senator. You won't hear that from the not so Native American Warren. She doesn't hold the moral high ground here quoting Mrs. King. Warren is a partisan Left-wing hack and a nut-job. If I claimed that I was a minority to get Gov't bacon to finish school when I had not a shred of Pow Wow in me, that would pretty much finish me as a wannabe politician, but the standard is different for Democrats. They embrace their falsity and their voters love them for it, or maybe not in Warren's case. She got caught with her knickers down about her heritage but she still makes the claim of being an Indian. Fake, fake, fake. She might not get re-elected next time. Hypocrisy, over and over again.


*Fauxcahontas* if you really take time to think about it, isn't a racial epithet at all. Just the opposite. It's calling out someone for pretending to be something they are not. Kind of like the Winter soldiers, Stolen Valor thing to my mind. Just sayin'.

[Gregory Palmerino]

More of Trump's necrophilous character's true intentions coming to light here.

As Publius, Anton is best-known for his September 2016 article, “The Flight 93 Election,” which argued that, like the passengers on the aircraft hijacked by al Qaeda on Sept. 11, 2001, Americans in 2016 needed to “charge the cockpit” and prevent Hillary Clinton from winning the election — or die. The article, which ran in the Claremont Review of Books, was circulated widely on conservative and white nationalist websites. The New Yorker declared it “the most cogent argument for electing Trump” but cited the responses by Ross Douthat of The New York Times that he’d “rather risk defeat at my enemies’ hands than turn my own cause over to a incompetent tyrant” and by Jonah Goldberg of National Review that its central metaphor is “grotesquely irresponsible.”

Greg

[RCL]

More on Bannon (Anti-Christ?)

https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/8c6dbdb...ieves-the.html

[Julie Steiner]

Originally Posted by Charlie Southerland

*Fauxcahontas* if you really take time to think about it, isn't a racial epithet at all. Just the opposite. It's calling out someone for pretending to be something they are not. Kind of like the Winter soldiers, Stolen Valor thing to my mind. Just sayin'.

Actually, Charlie, what it reminds me of is Barack Obama's birth certificate. Are you seriously demanding that Senator Elizabeth Warren prove that her DNA test results confirm her family stories, before she's allowed to conduct Senate business, such as speaking at a Senate confirmation hearing?

Whether the Blaze is right or Snopes.com is right, the validity of Elizabeth Warren's account of her racial heritage has absolutely no bearing on her duty to express concerns about what an Attorney General nominee's past actions indicate about his commitment to civil rights for all. This was a hearing to assess Sessions's character and competence, not Warren's.

No matter how much you hate her--and don't tell me that under all the personal vitriol you're spewing against the woman, there's a spirit of Christian charity, because the contemptuous name-calling says otherwise--she still has a duty, as a Senator, to express concerns about cabinet appointees. It's part of our system of checks and balances.

I'm surprised that so many people who call themselves conservatives seem opposed to conserving things like our system of checks and balances, and the principle that people should be regarded as innocent until proven guilty (not the other way around). Frankly, it makes me wonder what these conservatives think they are conserving. But I'm pretty sure it's not the honor and integrity of the Cherokee Nation, against impostors.

[Charlie Southerland]

Geez, Julie, as usual, you miss the point. I don't care if Warren is related to Superman. She lied to further herself at taxpayer expense and used that to parlay it into a public position of Trust. when in fact, her racial heritage has been debunked. No one else that I am aware of is standing behind her claim of Native American status or ancestry. And, if she really cared about the truth and her honor and credibility, she would have an DNA test done. Obama didn't make an issue of his BC. Someone else did.Warren clearly made an issue out of hers before anyone else could. She's clearly a white woman. She's promulgated a lie to get ahead. Is that something you would teach your students to do to further themselves? Because of her own words, not mine, she cannot lay claim to any kind of moral superiority or high ground when it comes to a colleague in the US Senate whom she serves with day in, day out. She wasn't out there spewing her vitriol about him until he was nominated for AG. Again, hypocrisy, Julie. It can't be cut any other way.

I don't, as a Christian, hate her. I hate her politics which is a very different thing. As far as checks and balances are concerned, I never saw a single Democrat march against Senator Robert Byrd (God rest his soul) for his long association with the KKK, did you? I wonder what he would have classified Obama as? I never saw a single Democrat march against Senator Edward Kennedy for his Chappaquiddick encounter. Where was checks and balances in that instance? Were all the people who elected Byrd Klansmen, or were all the folks of Massachusetts who voted for Kennedy murderers? No, they were pretty much Democrats.

Duty? Really?

[James Brancheau]

You didn't mention her politics, Charlie.

And, really? I mean, we have the polymorphously horrible Trump as president. And you bring this up? My my my.

Silliness.

[James Brancheau]

Not to be disrespectful, Charlie, but I really think your views are based on regionalism, being provincial. Nothing at all to do with Jesus. Islamic terrorism much the same. I think Warren, whether or not she has Native American blood for God's sake, certainly follows Christ more than Ted Cruz, Mike Pence, or any other such people who in fact should hope there isn't a god.

[Julie Steiner]

I don't, as a Christian, hate her. I hate her politics which is a very different thing.

"Love the sinner, hate the sin," eh? Hmmm. I'm having some trouble delineating where the hate stops and the love begins. Something about the nasty nicknames makes it feel more personal than just political to me.

As far as checks and balances are concerned, I never saw a single Democrat march against Senator Robert Byrd (God rest his soul) for his long association with the KKK, did you?

I don't think "checks and balances" means what you think it does, Charlie. Most people use the term to refer to the separation of powers among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government. As when, say, the Senate is supposed to vet and vote on the President's cabinet nominees.

Geez, Julie, as usual, you miss the point.

Finally, something we can agree on. You're right, Charlie--I'm missing the point.

Before, I didn't understand why you were replacing a relevant confirmation hearing question (namely, whether Jeff Sessions did or did not abuse his power in his home state to disenfranchise elderly black voters) with a seemingly irrelevant question (namely, whether or not Elizabeth Warren did or did not enjoy an unfair employment advantage due to her claims about the ethnicity of one of her great-great-grandfathers.)

Now, I don't understand why you are replacing a relevant confirmation hearing question (namely, whether Jeff Sessions did or did not abuse his power in his home state to disenfranchise elderly black voters) with a question that is even more irrelevant (namely, whether or not former Democratic Senators Robert Byrd and Ted Kennedy had significant character failings).

Silly me. I thought the whole point of a Senate confirmation hearing was to determine things like whether the Attorney General nominee under consideration was likely to promote equal justice under the law.

You seem to be saying that Elizabeth Warren, as Democratic Senator, had no right to raise a question about that, because nobody's perfect, and Democratic Senators have character failings, too.

Have I got it now? Is that the point? "Let the Senator who is without fault cast the first stone"?

Wow, I hope not, or no Senator of any party will be able to question any of Trump's nominees.

[Gregory Palmerino]

Originally Posted by RCL

More on Bannon (Anti-Christ?)

https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/8c6dbdb...ieves-the.html

Thanks for sharing that article. Anti-Christ? I know you are jesting, Ralph, but if ever a man's eyes frightened me, it's Bannon's. I'm not joking.

Greg