DemocratsFeaturedLiberals

Our Nasty Democrats | Power Line

admin
October 22, 2025
0Points
0
0
More About Jihad | Power Line

Perhaps the most characteristic quality of our historical moment is the sheer nastiness of the Left. And by Left, I don’t mean the socialist extreme, I mean the entire Democratic Party. We see it all the time, literally every day.

This is one of thousands of instances: Jen Psaki, former White House Press Secretary, now a professional representative of the Democratic Party, insulted Usha Vance, wife of the vice president:

She asserted that Mrs. Vance, 39, mother of 3, was afraid of her overly “ambitious” husband, 41, who’s even worse than the 79-year-old Trump.

Vance is overly ambitious because Psaki thinks he wants to be president. Unlike, among many other vice presidents, Joe Biden and Kamala Harris.

She snidely offered to save the poor lady from harm secretly, so her husband would not detect the rescue.

“I think the little Manchurian candidate, JD Vance, wants to be president more than anything else,” Psaki sneered….

“I always wonder what’s going on in the mind of his wife,” Psaki continued condescendingly.
***
“Like, are you OK? Please blink four times,” Psaki said.

“We’ll come over here. We’ll save you.”

Never mind that Usha Vance, a Yale Law School graduate, probably has 40 IQ points on Ms. Psaki. Never mind, too, that Usha has not tried to make herself a political figure, but has concentrated on raising her young children. Democrats think they can say anything, no matter how vicious, mean-spirited, or obviously false. Being a Democrat means never having to apologize for being a complete jerk.

The Democrats’ viciousness is now getting people killed, and we are nowhere near the end of that story.

Source link

admin

Related Posts

Featured
9

On April 12, 2021, a Knoxville police officer shot and killed an African American male student in a bathroom at Austin-East High School. The incident caused social unrest, and community members began demanding transparency about the shooting, including the release of the officer’s body camera video. On the evening of April 19, 2021, the Defendant and a group of protestors entered the Knoxville City-County Building during a Knox County Commission meeting. The Defendant activated the siren on a bullhorn and spoke through the bullhorn to demand release of the video. Uniformed police officers quickly escorted her and six other individuals out of the building and arrested them for disrupting the meeting. The court upheld defendants’ conviction for “disrupting a lawful meeting,” defined as “with the intent to prevent [a] gathering, … substantially obstruct[ing] or interfere[ing] with the meeting, procession, or gathering by physical action or verbal utterance.” Taken in the light most favorable to the State, the evidence shows that the Defendant posted on Facebook the day before the meeting and the day of the meeting that the protestors were going to “shut down” the meeting. During the meeting, the Defendant used a bullhorn to activate a siren for approximately twenty seconds. Witnesses at trial described the siren as “loud,” “high-pitched,” and “alarming.” Commissioner Jay called for “Officers,” and the Defendant stated through the bullhorn, “Knox County Commission, your meeting is over.” Commissioner Jay tried to bring the meeting back into order by banging his gavel, but the Defendant continued speaking through the bullhorn. Even when officers grabbed her and began escorting her out of the Large Assembly Room, she continued to disrupt the meeting by yelling for the officers to take their hands off her and by repeatedly calling them “murderers.” Commissioner Jay called a ten-minute recess during the incident, telling the jury that it was “virtually impossible” to continue the meeting during the Defendant’s disruption. The Defendant herself testified that the purpose of attending the meeting was to disrupt the Commission’s agenda and to force the Commission to prioritize its discussion on the school shooting. Although the duration of the disruption was about ninety seconds, the jury was able to view multiple videos of the incident and concluded that the Defendant substantially obstructed or interfered with the meeting. The evidence is sufficient to support the Defendant’s conviction. Defendant also claimed the statute was “unconstitutionally vague as applied to her because the statute does not state that it includes government meetings,” but the appellate court concluded that she had waived the argument by not raising it adequately below. Sean F. McDermott, Molly T. Martin, and Franklin Ammons, Assistant District Attorneys General, represent the state.

by admin
October 8, 2025

From State v. Every, decided by the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals…

1 of 85
Copyright © 2025 conservdailyusa - .
Copyright © 2025 conservdailyusa - .