Nadler owes alphabet community an apology
Lead Summary
By
Rory Ryan-hcpress@cinci.rr.com
It’s a sad day in the great United States of America, indeed, when a New York Democrat makes such an egregiously hurtful statement as Congress member Jerry Nadler made today on All Hallows Eve.
In a prepared statement, Nadler, the liberal House Judiciary Committee chairman, er, chair, addressed his support of House Resolution 660, a resolution that provides the path forward in the next phase of the never-ending House impeachment inquiry of President Donald J. Trump.
Nadler: “I support this resolution because it is indefensible for any official to demand that an ally – one depending on our support in an existential struggle with Russia– investigate his or her political adversaries.”
Let’s stop right there and analyze Nadler’s statement. “It is indefensible for any official to demand that an ally investigate his or her political adversaries.”
“His” or “her” political adversaries? How dare this New York liberal insert a masculine and a feminine possessive pronoun in a prepared speech to Congress. Such insensitivity is more natural to – dare I say it? – a Republican. And why did Nadler use the masculine ahead of the feminine?
Nadler: "I support this resolution because no person, Republican or Democrat, should be permitted to jeopardize America’s security and reputation for self-serving political purposes.”
OK. Nadler rebounded, somewhat, in this statement with his use of “person.” However, many in today’s society also object to the noun “person,” defined as a human being regarded as an individual.
What’s so wrong with “person?” As any congressional liberal ought to know, “person” ends with “son,” a noun defined as a boy or man in relation to either or both of his parents. While “person” is not quite as insensitive as “his” and “her,” Nadler should be better than this.
Let’s continue with the congressman’s Halloween speech.
Nadler: I support this resolution because if, after a fair and thorough inquiry, the allegations against President Trump are found to be true, they would represent a profound offense against the Constitution and the people of this country.”
“‘People’ of this country?” Really?
The noun “people” is defined by Webster’s as human beings in general or considered collectively. Who is Nadler to determine those who do or do not want to be labeled as “people?”
Still, we can overlook – if not totally forgive – the congressman’s all-inclusive, yet inconsiderate uses of “person” and “people.”
But how can any rational-thinking, oxygen-inhaling being not be offended by this final statement?
Nadler: “I support this resolution because I believe it is the duty of this House to vindicate the Constitution and to make it crystal clear to future presidents that such conduct, if proven, is an affront to the great public trust placed in him or her.”
Let’s further examine this statement: “It is the duty of this House to vindicate the Constitution and to make it crystal clear to future presidents that such conduct, if proven, is an affront to the great public trust placed in him or her.”
Let’s note, too, that this is 2019, not 1919 and certainly not 1819.
In Nadler’s haste to disparage the president of the United States before begging for more tricks and treats from his like-minded supporters, Nadler determined that future presidents are restricted to men (him) and women (her).
Where has Nadler been? Living in a cave in the Adirondacks? Future presidents have no requirements to be men or women or male or female. Not now. Not after years of liberal nonsense forced on the American people. (Yes, I said it! American PEOPLE!)
But Nadler should know better. In a nation where anybody can grow up to be president, Nadler (of all people) ought to know that the next president could be a non-binary, gender neutral, knuckle-dragger if that’s what America wants in the Oval Office.
Nadler is fortunate, though. He is a liberal. His insensitivity to the ABCLMOPXYZ crowd will go unnoticed. If Nadler were an insensitive Republican, perhaps a Cincinnati councilman – oops! – would demand his resignation or a boycott of the U.S. Congress.
Hey, I’d probably join the Cincinnati councilman in a boycott of Congress. Their actions on Halloween were funnier than Charlie Brown’s ghost costume – and equally full of holes.
(And if anyone didn’t comprehend the sarcastic hyperbole in this gem, no one can help you. “You” being a pronoun used to refer to any person in general.) On a more serious note, take a look at Rep. Brad Wenstrup's comments on HR 660 in the attached image.
• • •
Two House Democrats broke with the party today and voted against the resolution on the Trump impeachment.
Congressmen Collin Peterson, D-Minn., and Jeff Van Drew, D-N.J., voted no on the resolution.
Peterson said the process was "hopelessly partisan.” He said he would wait until all the facts have been presented.
How about that? He’s willing to wait for the facts. All of them.
"I have some serious concerns with the way the closed-door depositions were run, and am skeptical that we will have a process that is open, transparent and fair,” he said.
Van Drew said in a statement released after the vote that he believes the inquiry "will further divide the country" and "ultimately fail in the Senate" without bipartisan support.
All congressional Republicans voted against the resolution.
When House talker Nancy D'Alesandro Pelosi spoke of any pending impeachment inquiry just a few months ago, she insisted that it be a bipartisan effort. It is clear that it won’t be.
If the House partisanship is played out in the Senate, there will be no conviction (assuming a House impeachment).
“This is about patriotism,” Pelosi said today (was that a mask?). “I would hope that rather than protect the president personally our colleagues would choose to honor our oath of office.”
Pelosi might ask her California colleagues Adam Schiff and Katie Hill to do the same – although Katie’s already gone over the Hill. Good riddance.
Rory Ryan is publisher and owner of The Highland County Press, Highland County’s only locally owned and operated newspaper.
In a prepared statement, Nadler, the liberal House Judiciary Committee chairman, er, chair, addressed his support of House Resolution 660, a resolution that provides the path forward in the next phase of the never-ending House impeachment inquiry of President Donald J. Trump.
Nadler: “I support this resolution because it is indefensible for any official to demand that an ally – one depending on our support in an existential struggle with Russia– investigate his or her political adversaries.”
Let’s stop right there and analyze Nadler’s statement. “It is indefensible for any official to demand that an ally investigate his or her political adversaries.”
“His” or “her” political adversaries? How dare this New York liberal insert a masculine and a feminine possessive pronoun in a prepared speech to Congress. Such insensitivity is more natural to – dare I say it? – a Republican. And why did Nadler use the masculine ahead of the feminine?
Nadler: "I support this resolution because no person, Republican or Democrat, should be permitted to jeopardize America’s security and reputation for self-serving political purposes.”
OK. Nadler rebounded, somewhat, in this statement with his use of “person.” However, many in today’s society also object to the noun “person,” defined as a human being regarded as an individual.
What’s so wrong with “person?” As any congressional liberal ought to know, “person” ends with “son,” a noun defined as a boy or man in relation to either or both of his parents. While “person” is not quite as insensitive as “his” and “her,” Nadler should be better than this.
Let’s continue with the congressman’s Halloween speech.
Nadler: I support this resolution because if, after a fair and thorough inquiry, the allegations against President Trump are found to be true, they would represent a profound offense against the Constitution and the people of this country.”
“‘People’ of this country?” Really?
The noun “people” is defined by Webster’s as human beings in general or considered collectively. Who is Nadler to determine those who do or do not want to be labeled as “people?”
Still, we can overlook – if not totally forgive – the congressman’s all-inclusive, yet inconsiderate uses of “person” and “people.”
But how can any rational-thinking, oxygen-inhaling being not be offended by this final statement?
Nadler: “I support this resolution because I believe it is the duty of this House to vindicate the Constitution and to make it crystal clear to future presidents that such conduct, if proven, is an affront to the great public trust placed in him or her.”
Let’s further examine this statement: “It is the duty of this House to vindicate the Constitution and to make it crystal clear to future presidents that such conduct, if proven, is an affront to the great public trust placed in him or her.”
Let’s note, too, that this is 2019, not 1919 and certainly not 1819.
In Nadler’s haste to disparage the president of the United States before begging for more tricks and treats from his like-minded supporters, Nadler determined that future presidents are restricted to men (him) and women (her).
Where has Nadler been? Living in a cave in the Adirondacks? Future presidents have no requirements to be men or women or male or female. Not now. Not after years of liberal nonsense forced on the American people. (Yes, I said it! American PEOPLE!)
But Nadler should know better. In a nation where anybody can grow up to be president, Nadler (of all people) ought to know that the next president could be a non-binary, gender neutral, knuckle-dragger if that’s what America wants in the Oval Office.
Nadler is fortunate, though. He is a liberal. His insensitivity to the ABCLMOPXYZ crowd will go unnoticed. If Nadler were an insensitive Republican, perhaps a Cincinnati councilman – oops! – would demand his resignation or a boycott of the U.S. Congress.
Hey, I’d probably join the Cincinnati councilman in a boycott of Congress. Their actions on Halloween were funnier than Charlie Brown’s ghost costume – and equally full of holes.
(And if anyone didn’t comprehend the sarcastic hyperbole in this gem, no one can help you. “You” being a pronoun used to refer to any person in general.) On a more serious note, take a look at Rep. Brad Wenstrup's comments on HR 660 in the attached image.
• • •
Two House Democrats broke with the party today and voted against the resolution on the Trump impeachment.
Congressmen Collin Peterson, D-Minn., and Jeff Van Drew, D-N.J., voted no on the resolution.
Peterson said the process was "hopelessly partisan.” He said he would wait until all the facts have been presented.
How about that? He’s willing to wait for the facts. All of them.
"I have some serious concerns with the way the closed-door depositions were run, and am skeptical that we will have a process that is open, transparent and fair,” he said.
Van Drew said in a statement released after the vote that he believes the inquiry "will further divide the country" and "ultimately fail in the Senate" without bipartisan support.
All congressional Republicans voted against the resolution.
When House talker Nancy D'Alesandro Pelosi spoke of any pending impeachment inquiry just a few months ago, she insisted that it be a bipartisan effort. It is clear that it won’t be.
If the House partisanship is played out in the Senate, there will be no conviction (assuming a House impeachment).
“This is about patriotism,” Pelosi said today (was that a mask?). “I would hope that rather than protect the president personally our colleagues would choose to honor our oath of office.”
Pelosi might ask her California colleagues Adam Schiff and Katie Hill to do the same – although Katie’s already gone over the Hill. Good riddance.
Rory Ryan is publisher and owner of The Highland County Press, Highland County’s only locally owned and operated newspaper.