Quid Pro Jane … Remember Quid pro Joe got some sweet deals and big money for his son (remember Burisma?) Nancy and her Dem compatriots are expecting kickbacks from many of these beneficiaries they have attempted to add into this bill.
Quid Pro Jane
Tag: #blexit
MSM v President Trump
Chinese Coronavirus or Wuhan Flu
But then those places didn’t own the U.S. Democratic politicians the way the Chinese government owns the U.S. Democratic Party today. #XiFlu
What Really Scares Democrat Politicians
Longstanding Democrat Problem
Nathaniel Grigsby was ahead of his time. Born in 1811, Grigsby was a precinct committee man for Abraham Lincoln, according to Authentic Campaigner. He was also said to have been a friend of the president during his youth In Illinois.
He was living in Missouri at the time of Lincoln’s election, and one early morning was warned by his neighbor that he should not “light any lights.” That meant the forces of the Democratic Party were out to murder him.
Grigsby moved to Indiana. He volunteered for the Civil War, along with four of his five sons. He was named 2nd lieutenant in the 10th Indiana Cavalry.
Time took its course, as it does tend to do. In 1890, Mr. Grigsby passed away in Kansas. However, he left a brilliant warning to future generations, via an inscription on his tombstone.
“Through this inscription I wish to enter my dying protest against what is called the Democratic Party,” the dedication reads.
“I have watched it closely since the days of Jackson and know that all the misfortunes of our nation has come to it through this so-called party therefore beware of this party of treason.”
Democrats have been responsible for everything bad in this country, although now they love to revise history and pretend that they weren’t. The only question is, when will Americans wake up and stop voting for them?
DemoKrats
In June of 1857, the year before he would challenge Illinois Democrat and incumbent Senator Stephen A. Douglas for a seat in the U.S. Senate, Abraham Lincoln addressed the subject of Dred Scott and whether decisions of the Supreme Court should be challenged. Lincoln, was, famously, a lawyer and a good one. He revered the law. And up until the Dred Scott decision, issued by the Court months earlier in March of 1857, Lincoln was unhesitating in his support of judicial decisions. But deliberately, willfully inserting slavery into the Constitution — not based on the law but on the pro-slavery sentiments of the Court’s members, notably including Chief Justice Roger Taney — was a bridge too far for Lincoln. In writing his opinion on the case Taney had quite specifically made his bias plain, saying that African-Americans “had no rights which the white man was bound to respect.”
Lincoln biographer David Herbert Donald writes of Lincoln’s reaction this way:
“So blatant was the Chief Justice’s misreading of the law, so gross was his distortion of the documents fundamental to American liberty [meaning the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution], that Lincoln’s faith in an impartial, rational judiciary was shaken; never again did he give deference to the rulings of the Supreme Court.”
Not only was Lincoln done with his faith in giving “deference” to the idea of “an impartial, rational judiciary,” he used his speech to tear into Douglas (whom he refers to always as “Judge Douglas” in reference to Douglas’s earlier title as a Justice on the Illinois Supreme Court) for Douglas’s hypocrisy on the issue. In the wake of Dred Scott Douglas was an enthusiastic supporter of the Court’s decision. Lincoln accused Douglas and Chief Justice Taney of, in Herbert’s words, “working, together with other Democrats, to extend and perpetuate slavery.” With the Dred Scott case decided and slavery now, supposedly, enshrined in the Constitution forever, Douglas wanted no one to tamper with it — much less try and undo it.
Read more at http://spectator.org/articles/63293/dred-scotting-religious-liberty
