Just “What Is”

Sometimes it’s not a matter of which side you’re on. It’s just “what is.”

Don’t know how many of you saw Attorney General Bill Barr sparring with the House Judiciary Committee, but he wiped up the floor with the Democrats on said committee. As part of the process a video was shown featuring the violence we’ve been seeing across the nation. Can we at least agree on that? That what we’re seeing is VIOLENCE? People being shot, run over by cars, blinded with lasers, hit with objects, punched, kicked and thrown to the ground. If these things happened during the course of any other event they would be prosecuted as crimes. If we can’t agree on that, there is no point reading the rest of what I have to say.

I think we should be billing the mayors of these cities for damages to federal buildings, because that’s money out of all our pockets. These officials, all the way up to the Governors and Senators, should also pay for whatever it costs this country to send in reinforcements to protect their people in their cities who are in harm’s way, because of their failed attempt to take steps to curb the violence and restore order in their jurisdictions. Where applicable, I think we should hold their House Representatives accountable for calling these riots “peaceful demonstrations” and failing to act.

They took an oath. It reads:  “I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”

What we are seeing is an insurrection which is defined as, “a violent uprising against an authority or government.” No one can dispute this. Yet why are certain members of the House unwilling to fulfill their duties and obligations? Why are they not supporting our president with respect to his right to call a militia to protect the people of the United States?

Article I, Section 8, Clause 15: [The Congress shall have Power . . .] To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; . . . The states as well as Congress may prescribe penalties for failure to obey the President’s call of the militia.”

When the Attorney General tells you “these are not peaceful protests, but “an assault on the Government of the United States” are they not obligated to listen and respond accordingly? They don’t get to imagine a different reality. If they truly cannot see what is going on around them, shouldn’t they be expelled?

They seem to have trouble with definitions. The definition of peaceful is “free from disturbance; tranquil; not involving war or violence.” That is not what we’ve been seeing here. Even the mainstream media knows this, that’s why they use the phrase “mostly peaceful” when describing the rioters. It’s laughable; nobody believes them. They don’t believe their own words. They’re just hoping that nobody will call them on their mendacity.

Members of Congress are refusing to obey the law of the Constitution. It is a federal criminal offense (and a violation of oath of office) for anyone employed in the United States Government (including members of Congress) to “advocate the overthrow of our constitutional form of government”. According to Black’s Law Dictionary, “advocate” means to “speak in favor of or defend by argument; to support, vindicate, or recommend publicly.” Those who are calling what we’ve seen all over the nation, “peaceful protests” when they are clearly anything BUT, are supporting, vindicating, and recommending publicly that it is constitutional to allow it.

Lawsuits have got to be waiting in the wings and we’re going to be seeing a flutter of paper come their way THE SECOND the elections are over.

Members of Congress have refused to obey the law of the Constitution. Such refusal establishes the objective of the members to overthrow our form of government by establishing that they (the members of Congress) can disobey the law of the Constitution and thus overthrow our constitutional form of government.

I hope Jabba Nadler and his flunkies are fined, arrested, and thrown in jail with the terrorists they are aiding and abetting through their refusal to take action. Ten years in federal prison is not good enough for the likes of them.

Otherwise, the Constitution they took an oath to uphold is dead to them, and therefore, they are dead to me.  –  Mrs. Monomakhos


  1. Sage-Girl says

    Excellent post Mrs. M?,
    please send to AB Elpidoforos, he’ll thank you eventually — 

  2. Austin Martin says

    Barr is a fraud. He’s controlled opposition. All he would have to do is bring federal charges against a couple dozen rioters, and the rest of the roaches would scatter. His outrage is just political theater.
    Trump’s biggest flaw, I think, is that he is a poor judge of character. He surrounds himself with terrible advisors and cabinet members who work against him or simply just don’t share his vision.

    • I think you’re right, Austin. If he would stop getting “advice” from these staffers, including Ivanka and Jared, I think he could accomplish a lot more than he has. Somebody is giving him bad advice, examples being the recent interviews where he fumbles and not prepared for questions, e.g. the alleged Russian bounty issue. His focus should be on trying to calm the country during this pandemic crisis and further recommending face masks and social distancing.

      • Austin Martin says

        One particular Bible hero might even call many of these subversive advisors the “synagogue of Satan”.

    • George Michalopulos says

      While I agree that Barr is from Bushworld, his critique of the riots, the terrorists and the spying on the Trump campaign/presidency is spot on. Plus, I know for a fact that many in the Dem elite are scared witless as to whether he & Durham are going to drop the indictments right before the election.

      Remember one thing about the Bushies, the DOJ dropped the Cap Weinberger indictment five days before the 1992 election. I have a feeling that the Bushies are itching to do the same thing to the Dems. Yes, yes, the Bushies are Deep State but I sense a disturbance in the Force: George P Bush, the Texas Land Commissioner and heir-apparent to the Bush dynasty has become a Trumpist as of last year. Think of it: this is the son of “Low Energy Jeb”.

      Methinks the Bushies know which way the wind is blowing.

    • Pat Reardon says

      Barr is a fraud.
      I don’t think so. I think he is an honest and competent official with a tough job. As the Administration’s chief prosecutor, he has the difficult task of applying the Administration’s policies in the legal sphere.
      He is not a judge; he doesn’t wear the blindfold of Justice. An Attorney General always has a ax to grind. Grinding axes, if  my distant memory serves, is a delicate task; you don’t want to overheat the steel. I remember doing this once or twice; the blade was never the same afterwards
      The most recent issue of The Washington Examiner has a cover story that calls our current Secretary of State an “interpreter” and explains why this term is appropriate to someone who applies policies that he does not determine.
      The Secretary of State grinds his ax in a different sphere, where  an overheated blade can do serious international harm
      I believe much the same is true of our current Attorney General. Among all the Cabinet positions, this one is, I think, the toughest.
      Mr Barr does not strike me as a “fraud.”

      • Antiochene Son says

        “he has the difficult task of applying the Administration’s policies in the legal sphere.”

        Our Talmudic legal system is one of the greatest fatal flaws of American government.

        • Wayne Matthew Syvinski says

          Antiochene Son,

          Please explain how our legal system is “Talmudic”. This isn’t thinly veiled criticism – I’m genuinely curious, since I’ve never heard that term applied to it.

          • George Michalopulos says

            To all: all legal systems usually start out simply (i.e. “thou shalt not murder”) but after awhile become more complex. The Talmud is nothing if not complex. Most Western legal systems have been twisted and turned by sophisticated lawyers –usually for the defense–in order to get their clients reduced sentences.

            To my mind, this started with Clarence Darrow, who moved heaven and earth with his tortuous defense of Leopold and Loeb, two notorious killers who strangled a young boy in cold blood.

            Since then, it’s all be downhill. Truth be told, one of the greatest arguments against the death penalty is the utter capriciousness of it. Think of Charles Manson and his “family”, none of whom suffered for the Tate-LoBianca murders.

            • Or Hellary Clinton openly lying when she presided over the trial of a guy that raped a young girl.

              • “Or Hellary Clinton openly lying when she presided over the trial of a guy that raped a young girl [twelve, 12 year old].”



                Sevin Poe
                4 years ago
                He says evidence got accidentally destroyed, that seems to happen a lot whenever there’s a Clinton involved.

                Shawn Goodling
                4 years ago
                Hillary Clinton actually lived the plot of the Devil’s Advocate.

                Strangely, this is indeed the exact situation that the main character in The Devil’s Advocate finds himself in, defending a child rapist that he knows is guilty, only he makes the opposite choice, to resign and face punishment for doing so.

            • Wayne Matthew Syvinski says

              Story time. After witnesses had given conflicting accounts in an English court, the frustrated judge asked the barrister, “Am I never to hear the truth?” The lawyer replied, “No, my lord, merely the evidence.”

              While I am a believer in the flexibility of common law, and the principle of stare decisis, when precedent gets twisted (as you cite in the Leopold and Loeb), it falls to the legislative branch to correct it. Unfortunately….

  3. George Michalopulos says

    This is how the Great Righteous Blue Wall crumbles:


    When the ultra-Leftists start going after the Leftists. I think we should all stock up on an industrial-grade vat of popcorn. It’s gonna be exciting.