Finally the President and his Press Secretary are starting to call it out for what it is.

The Magites are a threat to this country. There ideals are not ideals consistent with Democracy.


'MAGA Republicans' are a threat to democracy, White House says
Alexander Nazaryan
Alexander Nazaryan·Senior White House Correspondent
Wed, August 31, 2022 at 5:35 PM

WASHINGTON — With President Biden preparing to deliver a speech on the state of American democracy Thursday evening, the White House intensified its rhetorical attacks Wednesday on what it calls “MAGA Republicans” who support former President Donald Trump and share many of his views.

“The president thinks there’s an extremist threat to our democracy,” White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said at a press briefing in what appeared to be a preview of the president’s remarks, which he will make from Philadelphia’s iconic Independence Hall.

The speech will focus on a “battle for the soul of the nation,” according to the White House. The theme is an allusion to Biden’s 2019 announcement that he was seeking the presidency, a campaign that he said in a video was inspired by the w***e s*********t r**t in Charlottesville, Va., two years before.

White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre speaks at a White House lectern.
White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre at the daily White House briefing on Wednesday. (Susan Walsh/AP Photo)
Jean-Pierre described “MAGA Republicans” — a term Biden has recently come to embrace — as “the most energized part of the Republican Party.” The president views the pro-Trump faction, she said, as an “extreme threat to our democracy, to our freedom, to our rights. They just don’t respect the rule of law. They are pursuing an agenda that takes away people’s rights.”

Political tensions, already deep, have grown even deeper since the Aug. 8 raid at Mar-a-Lago, Trump's South Florida resort and residence, during which federal law enforcement recovered sensitive documents. In a Fox News appearance over the weekend, Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., warned that there would be “r**ts in the streets” if Trump faced prosecution from the Justice Department.

It is not clear whether Biden will lay out any specific proposals in Thursday’s address. A White House official told Yahoo News that the president would use his remarks to describe “how our rights and freedoms are still under attack. And he will make clear who is fighting for those rights, fighting for those freedoms and fighting for our democracy.”

Legislation to expand and enshrine v****g access — which experts see as a key reform — is all but impossible given the Democrats’ narrow majorities on Capitol Hill. But with the congressional midterms approaching, the president may view the far simpler task of drawing a stark political contrast with Republicans as a more effective use of his energy.

Former President Donald Trump speaks at a rally under a sign that says: Save America!
Former President Donald Trump at a rally in Waukesha, Wis., on Aug. 5. (Scott Olson/Getty Images)
He did just that in his remarks at a rally for Democrats in suburban Maryland last Thursday. “Trump and the extreme MAGA Republicans have made their choice: to go backwards, full of anger, violence, h**e and division,” Biden said, referencing MAGA — an acronym for Trump’s 2016 slogan “Make America Great Again” — more than a dozen times.

Speaking in Wilkes-Barre, Pa., on Tuesday, the president chastised Republicans who claimed they were pro-police but refused to support an investigation into the J*** 6, 2021, r**t at the U.S. Capitol, during which police officers were attacked.

“Let me say this to my MAGA Republican friends in Congress,” Biden said. “Don't tell me you support law enforcement if you won't condemn what happened on the 6th. You can't do it. For God's sake, whose side are you on?"

It has never been exactly clear just how much of the Republican Party the phrase is intended to encapsulate. During Wednesday’s briefing, Jean-Pierre pointed to Arizona Rep. Paul Gosar posting violent videos to YouTube last year and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis calling last week for physical violence against Dr. Anthony F***i, the president’s top adviser on the c****av***s p******c.

She offered similar condemnation of extremist rhetoric from Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia and outgoing Rep. Madison Cawthorn of North Carolina, as well as from Trump himself.

“These are things we have to call out,” she said.

A crime of betraying one's country, especially by attempting to k**l the sovereign or o*******w the government. # 1 Opened border with no oversite who is crossing over #2 No vetting of Afghans who he brought over when he allowed it to fall and left military equipment for terrorists to use against US and allies and leaving American citizens behind and allies # 3 shut down all oil production in our country so we went from independent to kissing ass and begging for oil from other countries that support terrorists. # 4 signed agreements with large parm companies that allows them to sell a gene therapy as a v*****e with no accountability for adverse side effects including death they can not be sued. # 5 destroying our military by pushing out any that were christens who he considered terrorists then pushing out those who refuse to be v******ted causing our military to be falling short and recruitment is down due to this. # 6 actively working to put our country in bankruptcy sending billions to countries who support c*******m. That's just a few but in my opinion, this administration as a whole should all be brought up on charges of treason that's including the IRS, DOJ, FBI, and CIA who actively helped in this endeavor

Harvard, Yale law profs want to destroy Constitution
Ben Shapiro warns the elimination of a 'higher law' leads to tyranny
By Ben Shapiro
Published August 24, 2022 at 12:00pm

On Friday, the New York Times published its latest op-ed calling for the end of the Constitution of the United States. The authors, Ryan Doerfler and Samuel Moyn, teach law at Harvard and Yale respectively.

They argue that the left's progress has been stymied by constitutionalism itself. "The idea of constitutionalism," they correctly write, "is that there needs to be some higher law that is more difficult to change than the rest of the legal order. Having a constitution is about setting more sacrosanct rules than the ones the legislature can pass day to day."

This, of course, orients the process of law toward the past: there are certain lines that simply cannot be crossed. And, as Doerfler and Moyn point out, "constitutionalism of any sort demands extraordinary consensus for meaningful progress."

And herein lies the problem for Doerfler and Moyn: Constitutions "misdirect the present into a dispute over what people agreed on once upon a time, not on what the present and future demand for and from those who live now." The solution, they say, lies in dispensing with the Constitution entirely; the proper solution to the Constitution is in "direct arguments about what fairness or justice demands."

After all, they admit, "It's difficult to find a constitutional basis for a******n or labor unions in a document written by largely affluent men more than two centuries ago. It would be far better if liberal legislators could simply make a case for a******n and labor rights on their own merits without having to bother with the Constitution."

How can the Constitution be jettisoned? The authors suggest packing the Union with more states; "reorganizing our legislature in ways that are more fairly representative of where people actually live and v**e"; turning the Senate into a legislative vestigial organ, without any actual power.

At least they're saying the quiet part out loud.

The t***h is that the Constitution is "antidemocratic," in the sense that it sets up a series of limits on what a democratically elected government can do. The Constitution is a charter of limited powers, delegated by the people and the states to the federal government; neither the people nor the state governments would ever have consented to the sort of pure populism promoted by Doerfler and Moyn.

The Founders deplored the idea of an unfettered federal government ruled only by popular passions. That is why they put in place a system of checks and balances to forestall mob majoritarianism. They recognized a simple t***h: that the best and most responsive government presides over homogeneous interests, generally locally, and that as we abstract rule away from the people, interests diverge. This means that as government abstracts away from the people, it ought to be granted less and less power.

The left h**es the Constitution for precisely that reason. To the left, the Constitution is a mere barrier against the utopian mission to restructure human relations, and ultimately, humanity itself. In this view, large government is to be the leveling force among human beings, cramming down the views of one half of the country on the other half. Local governance is dangerous because it might lead to diversity of viewpoint and practice; federal government is the best available tool for shaping and molding. Dispense with the Constitution's limits on the powers of the federal government, and suddenly t***sformational change becomes possible.

The only problem is that such a viewpoint utterly disregards the history of human relations. A government that presides over 330 million human beings with a variety of different viewpoints on core moral issues is unlikely to rule either benevolently or successfully if granted the unfettered power to flatten a multiplicity of jurisdictions and ways of life.

Limits are the key to both benevolence and success in governance. Dispensing with the Constitution may sound pleasing to those who seek drastic change on the greatest scale, but drastic change of that nature typically looks more like tyranny than progress.