Special Opinion to the Mirror submitted by Paul Plante
So, the anarchy at the capitol is over, mass arrests are taking place, the House of Representatives under Nancy Pelosi is demanding the the vice president remove the president and install himself in his place, and the nation is split even further than it was back in 1968 when Eugene McCarthy, a little-known Democratic senator from Minnesota, announced on November 20, 1967, that he would seek the party’s nomination for president, being very straightforward about his political goals —rehabilitating the American political system and getting the antiwar protests off the streets:
“There is growing evidence of a deepening moral crisis in America — discontent and frustration and a disposition to take extralegal if not illegal actions to manifest protest.”
“I am hopeful that this challenge…may alleviate at least in some degree this sense of political hopelessness and restore to many people a belief in the process of American politics and of American government…[and] that it may counter the growing sense of alienation from politics, which I think is currently reflected in a tendency to withdraw from political action, to talk of nonparticipation, to become cynical and to make threats of support for third parties or fourth parties or other irregular political movements.”
end quotes
That deepening moral crisis McCarthy spoke about in 1968 — the discontent and frustration and a disposition to take extralegal if not illegal actions to manifest protest, were as a direct result of the policies of Democrat Lyndon Baines Johnson who had been elected in 1964 with the greatest majority since Franklin Roosevelt’s reelection triumph in 1936, and four years later, on the eve of the 1968 election, had become the most hated man in America.
“I feel like a hitchhiker caught in a hailstorm on a Texas highway,” he told his press secretary.
“I can’t run.”
“I can’t hide.”
“And I can’t make it stop.”
So, yes, people in the United States of America, one single man, in that case, Lyndon Baines Johnson, can split the nation asunder and bring us to the brink of a civil war, which thought takes us to a Yahoo News article entitled “Joe Biden, now president-elect, declares it is ‘time to heal in America'” by David Knowles, Brittany Shepherd and Hunter Walker on November 7, 2020, where we had as follows:
In his first speech as president-elect on Saturday, Joe Biden said he hoped to unify the nation after an especially bitter campaign with President Trump, who has so far refused to concede defeat in the race.
end quotes
Now, when I read that part about Joe Biden of all people saying he hoped to “unify” the nation, my first thought was, yeah, right, Joe, and how exactly do you propose to do that after working so hard to divide it?
Yes, people, like Democrat Lyndon Baines Johnson before him, Joe Biden has done more to divide this nation than has Donald Trump, which proposition is before us in this essay.
As to really healing this nation after he and Hillary Clinton and Barack Hussein Obama and Nancy Pelosi and Charley “Chuck” Schumer have done so much to divide it, does Joe Biden plan to apologize to all those people in America he previously called the “dregs of society” as in The Daily Wire story “Joe Biden Calls Trump Supporters ‘Virulent People,’ The ‘Dregs Of Society'” by Joseph Curl on September 17, 2018, as follows:
Joe Biden just had his “deplorables” moment.
Biden, who says he’ll decided in January whether to run for president in 2020 but who is making all the moves of a presidential candidate, used a pro-LGBT Human Rights Campaign annual dinner on Saturday to rip President Trump.
And in so doing, Biden had a moment reminiscent of Hillary Clinton, when she called Trump supporters “deplorables.”
Biden did his old act, starting off soft and avuncular before booming through his power points, punching the air and flailing about.
“Despite losing in the courts, and in the court of opinion, these forces of intolerance remain determined to undermine and roll back the progress you all have made,” he said.
“This time they — not you — have an ally in the White House.”
“This time they have an ally.”
“They’re a small percentage of the American people — virulent people, some of them the dregs of society.”
“God forgive me,” he added, making the sign of the cross as the audience applauded.
“Our work is not yet done by any stretch of the imagination.”
“The stakes are much too high.”
And then he went even further. “This is deadly earnest, we are in a fight for America’s soul,” Biden said.
end quotes
So what now does Joe Biden plan to do with those “forces of intolerance,” those virulent people, some of them the dregs of society?
If he is going to unify the nation, where does he envision those forces of intolerance, those virulent people, some of them the dregs of society, fitting into his scheme?
Or is he going to pull a Lenin or Stalin act and simply eliminate them from society to clear the path for the better world Joe Biden and the Democrats are promising to those who are his followers?
Getting back to the Yahoo News article while we wait for that answer from Team Biden, it continues as follows:
The former vice president repeatedly sought to reinforce his message during the campaign that he would seek to be a president for all Americans, regardless of whether they had voted for him.
end quotes
He would “seek” to be a president for all Americans?
What the **** is that?
Doesn’t the Constitution make it incandescently clear that the president is supposed to be the president for all Americans by taking care that OUR laws be faithfully executed?
So what is up with this talk of “seeking,” which is defined as an attempt or desire to obtain or achieve something?
If Joe Biden has to “seek” to be a president for all Americans, then in my estimation as an American citizen, he is not fit to be the president of a free people.
Getting back to the story:
“I pledge to be a president who seeks not to divide, but unify.”
end quotes
All well and good, Joe Biden, but dude, by calling American citizens dregs of society, you were seeking to divide us for partisan political gain for yourself and the Democrat party, which represents only a third of the American people at best, so how can you now possibly unite us, those of us in the 70% who never were Democrats and don’t want to be?
Getting back to it one more time, we have:
“We need to stop treating our opponents as our enemies,” Biden told the crowd.
“They’re not our enemies.”
“They’re Americans.”
end quotes
Yes, Joe Biden, they are Americans, aren’t they.
And they were Americans when you called them “dregs of society,” and you encouraged your followers to treat them as enemies.
So when you tell us, “This is the time to heal in America,” what now is your plan for doing so?
The candid world that watches and waits would like to know!
Paul Plante says
“Biden chief of staff vows ‘message of unity’ at inauguration”
That is what CNN (Cuomo News Network) is touting on its website today.
This comes to us from the Boston Globe:
“Biden’s message of returning to ‘normalcy’ will take center stage this week”
“Joe Biden, who ran on a message of unity and healing, will be sworn in as the country’s 46th president on Wednesday at the literal scene of a crime.”
“One hand on the Bible, the other in the air, Biden will stand in front of the US Capitol just two weeks after angry supporters of President Trump, including white supremacists, breached and then ransacked the building, leading to five deaths.”
“The tanks, razor-wire-covered fences, and thousands of National Guard troops surrounding the stage will only further emphasize the precariousness of the peaceful transfer of power this year in a dystopian scene that clashes loudly with the inauguration’s official theme: ‘America United.’”
end quotes
Joe Biden ran on a message of unity and healing?
No, he didn’t!
That’s bull****!
Joe Biden ran on a divisive message wherein he likened Trump supporters to “DREGS OF SOCIETY.”
That is not a message of healing and unity.
Far from it.
And then we have this from the Associated Press, to wit:
“In inaugural address, Biden will appeal to national unity”
January 17, 2021 1:13 p.m.
President-elect Joe Biden will deliver an appeal to national unity when he is sworn in Wednesday and plans immediate moves to combat the coronavirus pandemic and undo some of President Donald Trump’s most controversial policies, his incoming chief of staff said Sunday.
end quotes
So, national unity?
The bit about undoing some of President Donald Trump’s most controversial policies seems a bit wide of the mark of achieving national unity to me, anyway.
Rather, it seems a very good way for Joe Biden and the Democrats, who want one-party rule in America, to further marginalize those that Joe Biden has already written off as “DREGS of SOCIETY” here in America.
Getting back to that AP article, it continues thusly:
Klain told CNN’s “State of the Union” that Biden, in his inaugural address to the nation, will deliver “a message of moving this country forward.”
“A message of unity.”
“A message of getting things done.”
“President-elect Biden will take action — not just to reverse the gravest damages of the Trump administration — but also to start moving our country forward.”
Incoming White House communications director Kate Bedingfield said Biden would use his address to the American people to appeal to those frustrated by the rancor of Washington and to explain how his administration will tackle the nation’s challenges.
“I think you can expect that this will be a moment where President-elect Biden will really work to try to turn the page on the divisiveness and the hatred over the last four years and really lay out a positive, optimistic vision for the country, and lay out a way — lay out a path forward that really calls on all of us to work together,” she told “Fox News Sunday.”
end quotes
Which takes us back to the theme of this thread, which is that for Joe Biden to really heal America, and here I am talking about the roughly 70 percent of the people in this country who aren’t Democrats and don’t want to be Democrats, then Joe Biden has to apologize to the American people for the harm he has caused this nation by his message of hate and divisiveness when he was running for office by running down those who support his arch enemy, Trump, but the problem for Joe now is that the time for that ap9ology has gone by the boards with that massive assault on our democracy on and after January 6, 2021, where we have Democrats like AOC out there shrieking that the Republicans are going to kill her and the Democrats, and the PHILADELPHIA INQUIRER article entitled “Biden slams Capitol mob as ‘domestic terrorists’; Trump acknowledges new administration day after inciting riot and as calls grow for his removal” on 8 January 2021, we have Joe Biden himself, not yet in office, already lying to us, as follows:
President-elect Joe Biden called the participants in the mob “domestic terrorists.”
“Don’t dare call them protesters,” Biden said.
“They were a riotous mob, insurrectionists, domestic terrorists.”
Biden blamed Trump’s incendiary language and actions throughout his presidency for what he called “one of the darkest days of our nation.”
“I wish we could say we couldn’t see it coming, but that isn’t true.”
“We could see it coming,” Biden said.
“He unleashed an all out assault on our institutions of our Democracy from the outset and yesterday was but the culmination on that unrelenting attack.”
end quotes
That don’t sound like a message of unity to me; rather, it sounds like a man getting ready to go to war against America!
Stay tuned for further developments!
Paul Plante says
And to see exactly how ludicrous the concept of Democrat Joe Biden healing and uniting this nation really is as his Democrats make an unprecedented assault on our democracy and ramp up their efforts to further divide the nation just as they did back in the 1850’s when they caused the Civil War, let’s go to an NBC News story entitled “Some Democrats in Congress are worried their colleagues might kill them – House members openly accuse far-right representatives of threatening their health and safety after the Capitol riot” by Benjy Sarlin on Jan. 14, 2021, where we have as follows:
WASHINGTON — After last week’s deadly assault on the U.S. Capitol by supporters of President Donald Trump, members of Congress are expressing something once unthinkable: that some of their own colleagues may be endangering their lives.
Not in a rhetorical sense, but in a direct and immediate way.
“It’s the most poisonous I’ve ever seen,” Rep. Don Beyer, D-Va., said in an interview.
“There’s the overall sense that maybe if some of them have guns — and likely the ones who are more into conspiracy theories and QAnon with the pedophilic satanic rings — are we safe from them?”
end quotes
Now, seriously, people, how is Joe Biden, himself a Democrat, going to deal with that kind of inflammatory rhetoric from his faction as he tries to unite and heal the nation his faction is dividing?
Getting back to the news, we have more as follows:
Since the deadly riot Jan. 6, lawmakers have suggested — not, so far, backed up by evidence — that far-right colleagues may have helped plan or guide the attack.
end quotes
They have no evidence, but that does not stop them from making the accusations.
So how is Joe Biden going to deal with that, one must wonder – these charges by his faction that Republicans in the House of Representatives are a threat to Joe’s Democrats?
Is he going to “man up” and step up to the plate and demand these Democrats who are talking this **** to stop making dangerous and inflammatory accusations without evidence?
Or is he going to let them continue to divide us further?
Getting back to the story, it goes on as follows:
Democrats are outraged at 147 Republicans who they say abided by the rioters’ calls and voted to overturn the election results even after the violent attack, which left five people dead and forced lawmakers to hide in their offices and safe rooms.
But, Beyer said, the issue “that has the greater emotional impact is the sense that there’s perhaps actual physical danger from our colleagues.”
end quotes
The one thing you can say about the Democrats is that they have mastered the ART OF THE SMEAR with all these innuendos they are loading up this NBC News article with.
So, on the eve of Joe Biden getting sworn in as the president who is going to heal the nation and divide us, his pack of Democrats are spreading malicious lies and verbal poison to sicken the nation and divide us by accusing the Republicans of being a threat to them.
Will Joe Biden stand up like a man and tell these Democrats to cut the ****** crap or he will take them out behind the barn like he was going to take Trump, and give them some what-for?
Or is he going to wimp out and be the coward who is afraid to stand up to his own party as they work to destroy this nation?
Getting back to that spew of horse**** from the Democrats, we next come to this:
With lawmakers traumatized, hundreds of members of the National Guard sleeping in congressional hallways and warnings from authorities about continued threats, suspicion and rumor are running rampant.
end quotes
Rumor is running rampant because the Democrat rumor mill has been cranked up to flank speed as the Democrats work to bury the Republicans under a mountain of bull**** that will make Mt. Everest look like a molehill in comparison, which takes us next to this:
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., has said she feared for her life, in part because she doubted the motives of unnamed colleagues who were sheltering with her.
“There were QAnon and white supremacist sympathizers, and frankly white supremacist members of Congress, in that extraction point who I have felt would disclose my location and would create opportunities to allow me to be hurt, kidnapped, etc.,” Ocasio-Cortez, a highly visible progressive and frequent target of conservative media, said in a speech Tuesday streamed live on Instagram.
end quotes
AOC, the DRAMA QUEEN!
What would the world of theater and drama in America do without her?
But there is more:
Rep. Mikie Sherrill, D-N.J., has said she saw lawmakers holding tours around the Capitol the day before the attack, which she said she believes may have been part of a “reconnaissance” effort for the rioters.
There is no evidence of such wrongdoing, and Sherrill has not publicly disclosed any names.
“I was flat on the ground as other members were calling loved ones because they thought that might be the last phone call they made,” Sherrill said Wednesday on MSNBC’s “The Rachel Maddow Show.”
“To imagine that colleagues of mine could have aided and abetted this is incredibly offensive, and there is simply no way they can be allowed to continue to serve in Congress.”
end quotes
And there is the DEMOCRAT ASSAULT ON OUR DEMOCRACY, right there before our eyes in broad daylight – the Democrats, Joe Biden’s faction, the man who supposedly will heal and unite the nation as president, want to deny American citizens representation in the House of Representatives because they are not represented by Democrats.
And how absolutely UN-AMERICAN is that, to deny American citizens representation in the House of Representatives because they are not represented by Democrats?
Tell us, Joe – the candid world would like to know!
Paul Plante says
And as we continue to ponder just how ridiculous the concept of Joe Biden of all people healing America and uniting us as a people after working to marginalize Americans he doesn’t like as “DREGS OF SOCIETY” as he campaigned by inflaming the bises and prejudices and hatreds of his base really is, let’s go back for a moment to the NBC News story entitled “Some Democrats in Congress are worried their colleagues might kill them – House members openly accuse far-right representatives of threatening their health and safety after the Capitol riot” by Benjy Sarlin on Jan. 14, 2021, we have more to consider as a people as the Democrats mount this incredible assault on our democracy in their bid to turn us into a ONE-PARTY system in this country, to wit:
Kim Lane Scheppele, a professor of sociology and international affairs at Princeton University who studies how democracies slide into authoritarianism, said the atmosphere was disturbingly similar to those in governments in which dissident politicians live in fear of death threats, including fears that pro-regime extremists might target them with tacit support from government leaders or state security.
“In the atmosphere of threat, a lot of people quit,” she said.
“By the time you’re at the endgame, you only have the people who say they refuse to be bullied and will risk their lives and those that are so bullied they can’t even open their mouths.”
end quotes
There, people, is where the Democrats are taking us, to a one-party tyranny and despotism, which takes us an article posted on the website of kpbs at San Diego State University entitled “Live Updates: Sunday Protests Quiet; Officials Brace For More” by Associated Press on January 16, 2021, where we have as follows concerning the incipient POLICE STATE about to be imposed on us by the Democrats when Joe Biden gets inaugurated and starts issuing a flurry of executive orders that are going to change our lives forever, and not for the better, to wit:
‘We’ve Really Lost Our Innocence,’ Says Pelosi
– 10:13 A.m., Friday, Jan. 15, 2021
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says there may be a need to prosecute members of Congress if any are found to have assisted the pro-Trump rioters in last week’s attack on the Capitol.
The California Democrat says that assault highlighted the need for the U.S. to beware of domestic threats.
She says, “We’ve really lost our innocence in this.”
Pelosi tells reporters that members of Congress need to be able to trust each other.
Her words underscore some Democrats’ suggestions that some GOP lawmakers helped feed President Donald Trump’s supporters’ belief in Trump’s false charges that his presidential election loss was due to vote fraud.
They also highlight the extraordinary distrust and anger that’s grown in Congress since the attack, which led to this week’s House impeachment of Trump.
end quotes
And those threats from Nancy Pelosi to prosecute Republicans in Congress for what she unilaterally declared was an “insurrection,” despite the fact that she has no Constitutional authority to do so take us back in time to February 28, 1933, the day after the German parliament (Reichstag) building burned down due to arson, the day President Hindenburg issued the Decree for the Protection of People and the Reich.
Popularly known as the Reichstag Fire Decree, the regulations suspended important provisions of the German constitution, especially those safeguarding individual rights and due process of law.
Focus in on those words “suspended important provisions of the German constitution, especially those safeguarding individual rights and due process of law” to get an idea of where Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats may well be taking us.
The Reichstag Fire Decree permitted the restriction of the right to assembly, freedom of speech, and freedom of the press, among other rights, and it removed all restraints on police investigations.
With the decree in place, the regime was free to arrest and incarcerate political opponents without specific charge, dissolve political organizations, and suppress publications.
And there, people, is more we should give some thought to as the Democrats attempt to force the Republican representatives out of the House of Representatives on the grounds that they are insurrectionists.
The Reichstag Fire Decree also gave the central government the authority to overrule state and local laws and overthrow state and local governments, and the law became a permanent feature of the Nazi police state.
In light of what we just witnessed on 6 January 2021, and all of the accusations against the Republicans by the Democrats who hold the power here, and want all of it, that followed, is anyone really naive enough to think that that could not happen here?
As to the Reichstag Fire Decree, it reads as follows:
(Translated from Reichsgesetzblatt I, 1933, p. 83.)
In virtue of Article 48(2) of the German Constitution, the following is decreed as a defensive measure against communist acts of violence endangering the state:
Article 1
Sections 114, 115, 117, 118, 123, 124, and 153 of the Constitution of the German Reich are suspended until further notice. Therefore, restrictions on personal liberty, on the right of free expression of opinion, including freedom of the press, on the right of assembly and the right of association, and violations of the privacy of postal, telegraphic, and telephonic communications, warrants for house searches, orders for confiscations, as well as restrictions on property, are also permissible beyond the legal limits otherwise prescribed.
Article 2
If in a state the measures necessary for the restoration of public security and order are not taken, the Reich Government may temporarily take over the powers of the highest state authority.
Article 3
According to orders decreed on the basis of Article 2 by the Reich Government, the authorities of states and provinces, if concerned, have to abide thereby.
Article 4
Whoever provokes, or appeals for, or incites the disobedience of the orders given out by the supreme state authorities or the authorities subject to them for execution of this decree, or orders given by the Reich Government according to Article 2, is punishable – insofar as the deed is not covered by other decrees with more severe punishments – with imprisonment of not less than one month, or with a fine from 150 up to 15,000 Reichsmarks.
Whoever endangers human life by violating Article 1 is to be punished by sentence to a penitentiary, under mitigating circumstances, with imprisonment of not less than six months and, when violation causes the death of a person, with death, under mitigating circumstances, with a penitentiary sentence of not less than two years.
In addition the sentence may include confiscation of property.
Whoever provokes or incites an act contrary to public welfare is to be punished with a penitentiary sentence, under mitigating circumstances, with imprisonment of not less than three months.
Article 5
The crimes which under the Criminal Code are punishable with penitentiary for life are to be punished with death: i.e., in Paragraphs 81 (high treason), 229 (poisoning), 306 (arson), 311 (properties), and 324 (general poisoning).
Insofar as a more severe punishment has not been previously provided for, the following are punishable with death, life imprisonment, or imprisonment not to exceed 15 years:
1. Anyone who undertakes to kill the Reich President or a member or a commissioner of the Reich Government or of a state government, or provokes such a killing, or agrees to commit it, or accepts such an offer, or conspires with another for such a murder;
2. Anyone who under Paragraph 115(2) of the Criminal Code (serious rioting) or under Paragraph 125(2) of the Criminal Code (serious disturbance of the peace) commits the act with arms or cooperates consciously and intentionally with an armed person;
3. Anyone who commits a kidnapping under Paragraph 239 of the Criminal Code with the intention of making use of the kidnapped person as a hostage in the political struggle.
This decree is in force from the day of its announcement.
Berlin, February 28, 1933
The Reich President von Hindenburg
The Reich Chancellor A Hitler
The Minister of Interior Frick
The Minister of Justice Dr. Gürtner
MJM says
Sorry Paul. I disagree with the entire premise of President Biden needing to apologize. I’m not as good at history as you, but I don’t remember any of our good, strong Presidents being apologists. I’m a Trump guy. I don’t remember him apologizing no matter how many accusations or disagreements were thrown at him. Obama on the other hand performed a world wide 8 year long apology tour which made me believe he was more qualified to be the leader of France. I didn’t support the Biden candidacy and think he’s the worse of the 2 parties having been elected, but now he’s our guy. So I want him to be great, and I mean really great. No great President goes around apologizing. This is America and our standard is to lead the world. He leads by example and making insightful decisions for the good of the country by looking forward and beind one step ahead of everybody else. A President who is apologizing is living in and regretting the past and we don’t need a schmoe like that. Biden isn’t even in office yet and it looks like he’s ready to apologize for his campaign comments regarding our southern border, so we may be in for a long 4 years.
Paul Plante says
God bless America, MJM, and those who work to make it and keep it strong so that you can have the privilege of disagreeing with my premise.
As to Donald Trump not apologizing to anyone, the last I noticed, the dude was voted out of office and now faces serious criminal charges that could land in the federal slammer, so enough said there.
As to Hussein Obama, he was crawling around the world apologizing to other countries.
I am saying Biden, who is no more American than you or I, and thus is not afforded special privileges because he ran for president that would allow him to write off other American citizens as “DREGS OF SOCIETY” because they didn’t bow and scrape to him, owes an apology to THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, so there is a whole world of difference between Obama and Joe Biden in that regard.
And I don’t recall Trump, as insulting as he was, ever writing off Joe’s followers as “DREGS OF SOCIETY,” or Hillary’s followers as a “BASKET OF DEPLORABLES.”
And anyway, it is a moot point, because it is already way too late for Joe Biden to heal and unite America and the thought that he can is ludicrous.
He’s going into office like a tin-pot dictator in a third-world ****hole with body armor and razor wire and tanks and troops surrounding him, and now they are actually vetting the troops down there to make sure that they are loyal to Joe Biden!
We’ll be hearing soon that because the Democrats can no longer trust the police or military, that they are going to form their own armed “Storm Detachments” with only vetted Democrats allowed in the ranks who have taken a personal oath to Joe Biden to protect the Democrats from the American people, who they cannot trust, and must be kept guarded from.
But you can believe in him, MJM, all you want, and even worship him as your idol or god, and it won’t trouble me, anyway, being egalitarian as I am.
Paul Plante says
And as Joe Biden comes into power with security far more reminiscent of a South American or African dictator assuming power in a third-world ****hole after seizing power in a military coup than an American president winning power in a free and fair election, where in a display of just how unpopular he really is here in America, Joe will have more than double the number of troops surrounding him to protect him from the American people as has been the case with other inaugurations in the United States of America where the incoming president was far more popular than is Joe, and as we continue to ponder just how absolutely ludicrous is the concept of Joe Biden of all people healing America and uniting us as a people after him working so hard to garner votes from his base by dividing us as a pe0ple for partisan political reasons by marginalizing Americans his base doesn’t like as “DREGS OF SOCIETY” as he campaigned by fanning the flames of the bises and prejudices and hatreds of his base, and as his Democrat faction mounts this incredible assault on our democracy in their bid to turn us into a ONE-PARTY system in this country, quite frankly I am reminded of a New York Times story entitled “Congo Leader Reportedly Dead After Being Shot by Bodyguard” by Norimitsu Onishi on Jan. 17, 2001, where we had as follows:
President Laurent Kabila of Congo, who deposed one of Africa’s great dictators but then brought his country into even worse disarray, was shot and killed today, diplomats and associates said.
The president was shot by one of his bodyguards, according to John E. Aycoth, a lobbyist and public relations consultant in Washington who acts as Mr. Kabila’s spokesman in the United States.
He said he had talked to top Congolese officials, who told him that the president was dead.
The killing was also reported by Louis Michel, foreign minister of Belgium, Congo’s former colonial ruler, who said he was told of Mr. Kabila’s death by ”two trustworthy sources.”
The circumstances of the shooting were not immediately known, but one report said that it had involved a dispute between Mr. Kabila and some of his generals.
The Congolese government gave no details of the incident, but announced that it had sealed borders, closed the airport and imposed a night curfew.
A televised address by President Kabila’s personal chief of staff, Col. Edy Kapend, suggested the seriousness of the events.
Soldiers surrounded the presidential palace, according to reports from the capital, Kinshasa, though the city itself appeared calm.
There was no indication who was in charge.
Ordering senior commanders to bring their units under control, Colonel Kapend said: ”No shots may be fired, for whatever reason, without prior order.”
“The population must not be thrown into panic and the troops must not grow agitated.”
The government’s minister of interior, Gaetan Kakudji, one of Mr. Kabila’s closest allies, went on state television to say that the president himself had ordered the curfew, suggesting that he was still alive.
But in Washington, a senior administration official said the United States has received several reports from credible sources that Mr. Kabila had been assassinated.
”Our operating assumption is that he is dead,” the official said.
Mr. Kabila’s death would dramatically alter the dynamics of a two-and-a-half-year war that has drawn in half a dozen African nations and destabilized all of Central Africa.
Mr. Kabila, who deposed the longtime dictator Mobutu Sese Seko in 1997, had long been considered the main obstacle to any diplomatic resolution to the current conflict, and had become increasingly isolated in his four years in office.
It was not clear tonight who might have led the shooting of Mr. Kabila, though his standing in the military had fallen recently.
After months of stalemate during which the warring parties had seemed satisfied with carving up Congo and feasting on its natural resources, Mr. Kabila’s forces suffered a serious defeat late last year in Katanga, the mineral-rich province in the southeast.
Shots were heard this afternoon near the presidential palace, where fighting also had occurred, according to the United Nations in New York, citing Kamel Morjane, the United Nation’s special envoy to Congo, who was in Kinshasa.
While Mr. Kabila had promised to deliver the Congolese from the years of Mr. Mobutu’s dictatorship, he immediately banned all political parties after coming to power.
And he never followed through on his promise to hold elections in April 1999, instead running the country himself, with the help of a strong military.
Mr. Kabila steadily lost popularity in the capital.
He traveled only at night, because during the day pedestrians would lift their shirts to show their bellies at his passing motorcade as a sign that they were hungry.
end quotes
So why would Joe Biden’s upcoming inauguration remind me more of an African or South American dictator coming into power than a legitimate American president popularly elected by the American people as opposed to having seized power?
How about this FRANCE 24 news article entitled “FBI vets National Guard troops amid fears of insider attack on inauguration” issued on: 18/01/2021, to wit:
US defense officials say they are worried about an insider attack or other threat from service members involved in securing President-elect Joe Biden’s inauguration, prompting the FBI to vet all of the 25,000 National Guard troops coming into Washington for the event.
The massive undertaking reflects the extraordinary security concerns that have gripped Washington following the deadly Jan. 6 insurrection at the US Capitol by pro-Trump rioters.
And it underscores fears that some of the very people assigned to protect the city over the next several days could present a threat to the incoming president and other VIPs in attendance.
end quotes
Or how about the article in THE GUARDIAN entitled “FBI vets thousands of troops amid fears of insider attack on Biden inauguration” by David Smith in Washington on 19 Jan 2021, to wit:
Thousands of military personnel guarding Joe Biden’s inauguration as US president on Wednesday are being vetted by the FBI amid fears of an insider attack.
The biggest ever security operation for a presidential transition has turned swaths of Washington into a fortress, barricades, razor wire and 7ft fences erected to prevent a repeat of the deadly 6 January attack on the US Capitol by a mob incited by Donald Trump.
Some 25,000 members – more than double the number at previous inaugurations – are pouring into Washington from across the country, at short notice.
There are concerns that some of the very people assigned to protect the city could present a threat to the incoming president and other dignitaries, the Associated Press reported.
end quotes
Makes us sound a lot like Iraq or Afghanistan, does it not?
Or how about the CNN (Cuomo News Network) story “12 Army National Guard members removed from inauguration duty” by Barbara Starr, Oren Liebermann and Zachary Cohen on January 19, 2021, to wit:
(CNN) Twelve Army National Guard members have been removed from inauguration duty in Washington, DC, as part of the security vetting process initiated, in part, to ensure troops tasked with securing Wednesday’s ceremony in the nation’s capital do not have ties to extremist groups, the Chief of the National Guard Bureau said Tuesday.
end quotes
Yes, people, if it sounds like a police state descending down us as Joe Biden takes power, where everyone not a Democrat who has taken a loyalty oath to Joe Biden is under suspicion, like the Shiites were in Iraq when Sunni Saddam Hussein was the dictator there, it is because a police state is descending down on us as Joe Biden takes power, and the only way Joe can “unite” America is at the point of a bayonet.
As to Joe Biden “healing” America?
Yeah, right!
tj says
Correction: CNN has elevated its moniker to most accurately be described as; The (Communist News Network
Stuart Bell says
Funk O’Biden and CNN too!
Paul Plante says
Works for me, anyway.
Paul Plante says
And as we American citizens who are still loyal to our now-dead Republic wait for the Marxist Dictatorship of the Democrat Proletariat to begin with the ascension of Joe Stalin, er, no, scratch that, just a Freudian slip there, people, sorry about that, I mean Joe Biden to the office of chief magistrate of the United States of America, to get an idea of what is waiting in the wings for white-skinned Americans who are not Democrats and do not want to be Democrats when the Democrats impose their tyranny and despotism on us after capturing and taking hostage the “soul of America,” let us go to a New York Post article entitled “AOC proposes funding to deprogram white supremacists” by Carl Campanile on January 15, 2021, where we learn the fate AOC, Joe Biden and the Democrats have waiting for us, if we happen to have white skin and are not card-carrying members of the Democrat party, to wit:
The federal government needs to fund the de-programming of white supremacists and conspiracy theorists, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said Friday night.
end quotes
Said the way the Marxists like AOC would really say that, the federal government in this country now that the Democrats have seized control of our federal government to do with it as they will, regardless of the harm they cause to the nation needs to fund Gulags in the United States in imitation of the system of forced labor camps established during Joseph Stalin’s long reign as dictator of the Soviet Union – notorious prisons, which incarcerated about 18 million people throughout their history, operated from the 1920s until shortly after Stalin’s death in 1953, which is entirely consistent with the Marxist bible AOC uses that is titled “Principles of Communism,” first published in 1914 by Frederick Engels for the Communist League in the form of a catechism, to wit:
— 18 —
What will be the course of this revolution?
Democracy would be wholly valueless to the proletariat if it were not immediately used as a means for putting through measures directed against private property and ensuring the livelihood of the proletariat.
The main measures, emerging as the necessary result of existing relations, are the following:
(i) Limitation of private property through progressive taxation, heavy inheritance taxes, abolition of inheritance through collateral lines (brothers, nephews, etc.) forced loans, etc.
(ii) Gradual expropriation of landowners, industrialists, railroad magnates and shipowners, partly through competition by state industry, partly directly through compensation in the form of bonds.
(iii) Confiscation of the possessions of all emigrants and rebels against the majority of the people.
It is impossible, of course, to carry out all these measures at once.
But one will always bring others in its wake.
Once the first radical attack on private property has been launched, the proletariat will find itself forced to go ever further, to concentrate increasingly in the hands of the state all capital, all agriculture, all transport, all trade.
end quotes
And put your focus on (iii) Confiscation of the possessions of all emigrants and rebels against the majority of the people, and then ask yourself in the context of what AOC and the Democrats are proposing for our future: “Gee, I wonder who those rebels against the majority of the people in America are going to be now that the Democrats control our national government,” which takes us back to the New York Post as follows:
“The White supremacist cause is futile, it’s nihilist,” AOC, a Democrat who represents parts of The Bronx and Queens, said during a virtual town hall meeting Friday night.
“Their world will never exist.”
end quotes
Ah, not to be overly critical here of the logic AOC is trying to employ to justify her GULAG or re-education camp policy here, but the word “nihilistic” means “rejecting all religious and moral principles in the belief that life is meaningless” as in “an embittered, nihilistic teenager.”
So when she says “(T)heir world will never exist,” that ends up being totally meaningless since the nihilist doesn’t really have a world to begin with.
But AOC is a DRAMA QUEEN, not a scholar, so we can forgive her if she doesn’t know what the **** she is talking about on humanitarian grounds, anyway, which takes us back to the New York Post for more AOC on stage, to wit:
“That’s why we’re seeing violence right now.,” she said, speaking in the wake of the violent siege on the US Capitol by radical supporters of President Trump.
“We have to pick up those pieces.”
Ocasio-Cortez said the House subcommittee on civil rights she serves on has held hearings over the prior two years on white supremacy and said there are programs to “de-radicalize” brain-washed adherents.
But she said funding was not a priority for those programs during the Trump years.
“There are people who are radicalized right now.”
“It’s going to take a very long time to de-radicalize these people and a lot of effort,” she said.
“This is a problem that doesn’t go away on Jan. 20,” said the congresswoman, referring to when Trump leaves the White House and is succeeded by President-elect Joe Biden.
She said many fringe radicals operate in a “misinformation bubble” and it will take more than more than one conversation to de-program them, likening it to therapy.
But, she said, research has shown “healing is possible.”
“We need to double, triple or quadruple the funding for these programs,” Ocasio-Cortez said.
AOC said there is a spectrum of radicalization that ranges from sympathizers to conspiracy theorists, to Neo-Nazis.
Such radical ideology could lead to violence and domestic terrorism.
end quotes
Which justifies getting these white people off the streets and into work camps pronto to keep the nation safe!
Stuart Bell says
Good bye America First, hello Illegals First. Truly a sad day for our nation…
The survival of our republic is dependent upon an indictment of Barack Hussein Obama. Obama set precedent by weaponizing federal agencies like the FBI, IRS, and DOJ and using these weapons against his “enemies.” I prefer that we return to constitutional sanctity and force government back into it’s proper role; this absolutely involves punishing Obama and his entire cult so that this sort of travesty never happens again.
Paul Plante says
Yesterday, on 20 January 2021, a day that will go down in history books as a DAY OF INFAMY, while America slept, with a single stroke of his dictator’s pen, Democrat strongman Joe Biden, the man who supposedly was going to “heal” and “unite” America, which always was a joke, put a bullet right into the head of our REPUBLIC with an “executive order” or dictator’s decree making the former Republic of the United States of America a MARXIST SOCIALIST DEMOCRACY, where according to the IMPERIAL DECREE of Dictator Biden, advancing equity for all is now the government’s responsibility pursuant to the principles laid out by Karl Marx and Frederick Engels in their Marxist bible, “Principles of Communism,” first published in 1914.
Dictator Biden has done what other strongmen in Africa and Egypt and South America have done the moment they assumed power – change the constitution unilaterally to make them dictators.
That was his mandate, he would say, if asked.
On 20 January 2021, dictator Biden, who will rule through executive orders, took an oath that stated “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
And right after Joe swore that he would, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, he simply tossed that very Constitution in the trash because it was written by RACISTS and WHITE SUPREMACISTS and he replaced it with the Marxist Constitution which is for all the people oppressed by our former Constitution, which was a Constitution for white people only, not “persons of color.”
The worm has turned, as that saying goes, because advancing equity for all is now the government’s responsibility, and to do that, the government has guns and under Joe Biden, as was the case in Russia under Joe Stalin, has the will to use them!
So what is this “equity” that Joe Biden says is now the government’s responsibility to advance, and why all of a sudden are we hearing the word “equity” as opposed to “equality?”
Where did this word “equity” come from, given that we do not find the word in the Preamble to OUR Republican Constitution, to wit:
“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
Does the word “equity” appear in any of our foundation documents?
Actually, yes, it does, many times, in fact, but in reference to what were called “courts of equity” which existed at the time of separation, and here is where we now have to pay some attention, by comparing a “court of law” with a “court of equity.”
Basically, in law, the term “equity” refers to a particular set of remedies and associated procedures involved with civil law where equitable relief typically refers to injunctions, specific performance, or vacatur.
For example, and as a citizen, I used the process several times against corrupt public officials, being able to bring a suit in court in a very timely manner to overturn an approval made by a corrupt public official who took a bribe for the approval without following any laws, rules, or regulations, and for successfully seeking equity in court, I ended up being crushed (see, Op-Ed: Should Sonia Sotomayor resign in disgrace? January 14, 2018 Opinion to the Mirror by Paul Plante http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/op-ed-should-sonia-sotomayor-resign-in-disgrace/#comment-77384 )
Given that I was crushed by a Democrat judge appointed to the United States Supreme Court by Barack Obama, I seriously do not think that when Joe Biden, Obama’s chosen successor, mentions “equity,” that that is the equity he is referring to.
He is referring instead to establishing federal courts of equity, where unlike in a court of law where a judge MUST follow the law even if one of Joe’s supporters and followers and adherents was justified stealing a loaf of bread, where in one of Joe’s federal courts of equity, the court can use its own discretion to determine whether Joe’s followers and supporters and adherents were justified in stealing the bread, or murdering a white cop, or burning down an American city or looting the possessions of others who are oppressing them, because of their skin color.
Paul Plante says
And recapping the play action in here for anyone just coming to this game, wondering what’s the haps, only to find themselves standing there, jaw agape, in shocked amazement as the Zamboni, in this case a metaphor for the ship of state in America, starts slewing all overt the ice and then rams the boards straight on and climbs up through the packed humanity on the other side, resurfacing them like they were more ice, if one were to consult the Reader’s Digest Great Encyclopedic Dictionary, one would find “fascism” defined as a one party system of government in which each class has its distinct place, function, and representation in the government, but the individual is subordinated to the state and control is maintained by military forces, secret police, rigid censorship, and governmental regimentation of industry and finance.
And as we ponder the move by the Democrats to bar the Republicans from having representation in our House of Representatives, which is in reality Nancy Pelosi’s house, not ours, as Joe mBiden assumes power in the United States of America, consider well these words from “The Prince” by Machiavelli, to wit:
“So it should be noted that when he seizes a state the new ruler must determine all the injuries that he will need to inflict.”
” He must inflict them once for all, and not have to renew then every day, and in that way he will be able to set men’s minds at rest and win them over to him when he confers benefits.”
“Whoever acts otherwise, either through timidity or bad advice, is always forced to have a knife ready to his hand and he can never depend on his subjects because they, suffering fresh and continuous violence, can never feel secure with regard to him.”
end quotes
And as we consider the fact that right after Joe Biden came into office, he took the dictatorial action of not only essentially changing the purpose of our national government unilaterally, substituting a form of “National Socialism” in place of our Republican frame of government, but further he took the incredible action of decreeing to us what our political history is now going to be, which is a perverted version of our actual history meant to serve as a “historical” basis for Joe changing our constitution to have it favor the “oppressed” in America, the “people of color” and the LGBQT’s, for example, in this case, to the detriment of their “oppressors,” people in America with white skin who are heteronormative and have stable, law-abiding nuclear families, we need to pay heed to this definition of fascism above here, to see if it didn’t just get here with the ascension of Joe Biden into the office of chief magistrate of the United States of America.
As to national socialism, it is a form of government that seeks to convince all parts of society to subordinate their personal interests to the “common good,” and as Joe Biden tries to “unite” us, at the point of a bayonet, if necessary, to “heal” the nation, that is exactly what Joe Biden is to trying to convince us to do – subordinate our personal interests to a “common good” that is going to be determined unilaterally by Joe Biden and imposed on us by fiat, by decree, which is what happened on 20 January 2021 when Joe Biden signed an executive order decreeing that advancing equity for all is the government’s responsibility.
Think very carefully on what those words actually mean, people, because words have meaning, and those meanings have consequences.
As we ponder the ramifications to our nation of that decree by Joe Biden on 20 January 2021 that advancing equity for all is now the responsibility of the national government of the United States of America under Joe Biden, consider that while equality, which is what we are supposed to have in this country, everybody equal, is typically defined as treating everyone the same and giving everyone access to the same opportunities, equity refers to proportional representation by race, class, gender, etc. in those same opportunities.
Of importance to this discussion, consider that while the terms equality and equity are often used interchangeably, they differ in important ways, and to achieve equity, policies and procedures may result in an unequal distribution of resources, which is to say, today in America under Joe Biden, we are all equal, but some are more equal than others.
In America today, we do not have a common body of citizens, each equal to the other; in America today, based on Joe Biden’s executive order decreeing that advancing equity for all is the government’s responsibility, we now have classes of citizens, each with different sets of “rights” when it comes to distribution of government “services,” which under Joe’s decree, are now to be directed at “underserved” communities, an undefined and nebulous term to be determined on a case-by-case basis.
So what Joe is clearly saying by this decree that advancing equity for all is now the government’s responsibility is that today, America now has a system of government in which each class has its distinct place, function, and representation in the government, which is a characteristic of a fascist government, not a Republican government such as is guaranteed to each and every one of us by the Constitution Joe Biden unilaterally scrapped on 20 January 2021 when his dictatorship began.
As to the form of Republican government we are supposed to have, but no longer do, let’s go to the Center for Civic Education site as follows, keeping in mind that this is the history of America that Joe Biden scrapped by fiat on 20 January 2021 with an executive order decreeing a different history of America to be taught, to wit:
Lesson 3: What Is a Republican Government?
This lesson is from the first edition of We the People: The Citizen & the Constitution, Level 1, for upper elementary students.
Purpose of Lesson
This lesson will help you understand why the Founders thought a republican form of government was best.
You will also learn about civic virtue and the common welfare.
The Founders Studied History
The Founders studied the history of governments.
They were very interested in what they read about the government of the Roman Republic.
It was located in what is now the country of Italy.
The Roman Republic existed more than 2,000 years before our nation began.
The Founders liked what they read about the Roman Republic.
They learned some important ideas from their study of the government of ancient Rome.
They used some of these ideas when they created our government.
What is a Republican Government?
The government of Rome was called a republican government.
The Founders read that republican government was one in which:
* The power of government is held by the people.
* The people give power to leaders they elect to represent them and serve their interests.
* The representatives are responsible for helping all the people in the country, not just a few people.
Vocabulary Terms
Representatives: people elected to act for others
Interests: those things which are to a person’s benefit
What are the Advantages of Republican Government?
The Founders thought a republican government was the best kind of government they could choose for themselves.
They believed that the advantages of republican government were:
* Fairness.
They believed that laws made by the representatives they elected would be fair.
If their representatives did not make fair laws, they could elect others who would.
* Common welfare.
The laws would help everyone instead of one person or a few favored people.
* Freedom and prosperity.
People would have greater freedom and be able to live well.
What is the Common Welfare?
When a government tries to help everyone in a country, we say it is serving the common welfare.
The common welfare is what is good for everyone in the country, not just a few people.
end quotes
Well, it used to be anyway, but that was before we got Joe!
Now, it is something entirely different!
G Anderson says
It appears that you may have hit your head Paul or worked yourself up into such a fanatic state that you can’t think clearly.
Have you forgotten that House Representatives are elected by the people? A party can’t bar another party.The election wasn’t stolen.(not sure I understand why it was only stolen in the swing states and not all the states) So your statement “And as we ponder the move by the Democrats to bar the Republicans from having representation in our House of Representatives” is BS
“And as we consider the fact that right after Joe Biden came into office, he took the dictatorial action of not only essentially changing the purpose of our national government unilaterally, substituting a form of “National Socialism” in place of our Republican frame of government,” Biden has done nothing different than what Trump did when he took office. I looked at your past comments during Trump’s inauguration and you had no problem with HIS “dictatorial” actions
“As to national socialism, it is a form of government that seeks to convince all parts of society to subordinate their personal interests to the “common good,” If this is true then whats the big deal? We have done this as a nation for WWI, the depression, WWII, during the gas shortage, etc. Isn’t democracy designed for the “Common Good”. A dictatorship is designed for personal interest.
WTF is this “In America today, we do not have a common body of citizens, each equal to the other; in America today, based on Joe Biden’s executive order decreeing that advancing equity for all is the government’s responsibility, we now have classes of citizens, each with different sets of “rights” when it comes to distribution of government “services,” which under Joe’s decree, are now to be directed at “underserved” communities, an undefined and nebulous term to be determined on a case-by-case basis.”
We always had classes of citizens. Unlike some countries like India, we have the ability and means to climb those classes. If you think we have a common body just try to join any of Trumps golf clubs and report back.
You’re the type of person given gold, you would want silver, given silver, you would want bronze When I have the time and the stamina to read through your poorly written (you said you were in a professional position, did you not have to write reports? I can’t imagine them being clear and concise)
Paul Plante says
G Anderson, thanks very much for coming on board as you have done above here to give me such a rich harvest of segues which is a true tribute to your erudition, and may I say, Sir, in praise of it that your writing style is very reminiscent of a young Hemingway with more than a touch of James Grover Thurber thrown in and if you apply yourself, you could have a lucrative career as a Hollywood script writer or a Democrat party propagandist, which you might in fact already be from your writing style, and with respect to Democrat party propaganda which we are going to be seeing plenty of as the Democrats consolidate their hold on political power the way an anaconda tightens its coils so as to crush the life out of its victim, and this is a side note that I find of interest, in her book “Propaganda of Terror,” Sylke Wunderlich examines the significance of Nazi propaganda posters in her book, which features more than 200 illustrations and focuses on art and ideology.
“I think the artistic style of the posters contributed greatly to the fact that they were so successful in influencing the masses,” Wunderlich told DW, adding that she means they were “successful” in the sense of Nazi politics.
She highlights that the Nazis had never shied away from copying the most effective Socialist and Communist strategies, even well before the Nazi party had risen to power in 1933.
In terms of their style and iconography, posters and placards depicting the likeness of Adolf Hitler could have easily been a product of the revolutionary left — if they had instead shown a picture of Rosa Luxemburg or Karl Liebknecht instead.
end quotes
And as to it appearing that somebody in here may have hit their head or worked themselves up into such a fanatic state that they can’t think clearly, I think it would be yourself, G Anderson.
Have I forgotten that House Representatives are elected by the people?
My goodness, of course I haven’t!
But what does that have to do with anything?
In the context of this discussion that rises to the level of what can properly be called an inane (silly; stupid, as in “don’t constantly badger people with inane questions”) question, because it has nothing to do with anything we are discussing in here.
This discussion has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with how the members of the House of Representatives are elected; it has everything to do with once they get in office and form factions, which brings us to this inanity from yourself, to wit: “A party can’t bar another party.”
Are you a moron?
Are you an ignoramus?
Didn’t you learn anything in elementary school civics class?
Why can’t they?
How about United States Constitution Article 1, section 5, clause 2:
“Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.”
I don’t know how long your mind has been absent from reality, at least the reality that most of us share, but while you have been out beyond the far side of the moon somewhere near Arcturus or Betelgeuse, Nancy Pelosi has not only declared an insurrection against the United States of America, but she has further alleged that the Republicans are guilty of insurrection, and she is publicly speaking of prosecuting them, as we see in an article posted on the website of kpbs at San Diego State University entitled “Live Updates: Sunday Protests Quiet; Officials Brace For More” by Associated Press on January 16, 2021, where we have as follows concerning the POLICE STATE being imposed on us by the Democrats now that Joe Biden has been inaugurated and has started issuing a flurry of executive orders that are going to change our lives forever, and not for the better, to wit:
‘We’ve Really Lost Our Innocence,’ Says Pelosi
– 10:13 A.m., Friday, Jan. 15, 2021
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says there may be a need to prosecute members of Congress if any are found to have assisted the pro-Trump rioters in last week’s attack on the Capitol.
end quotes
Do yourself a favor before you come in here mumbling inanities while making a fool out of yourself and google “pelosi to prosecute house members,” and you will find that yes, indeed, the Democrats can throw the Republicans out of the House of Representatives and there is not a damn thing any of us can do about it!
And the election wasn’t stolen, the SOUL OF AMERICA was.
Stuart Bell says
He is a Combat Vet, you would do well to show him some respect.
Understand?
tj says
my my how far the far left democrats will go with their hypocrisy propaganda, for it truly knows no boundary;
think they can just utter “nuh uh, u r wrong” and then frame their argument in generalities…..
iclaiming trump acted no different than the fascist dictator biden, saying trump presided over the nation soley for his own personal interests, never citing any specifics to their slander, as CNN didn’t elaborate either.
please Cite any instance of trump personally benefiting where the Country and you and me did not also benefit…..oh and something other than the usual bs rhetoric from cnn their lemmings love regurgitating. have at least One Original non-msm planted thought in ur head before u respond.
if we intend to have any semblance of a non-TDS rhetorical banter fest even worthy of engagement of my further participation then throw away that communist manifesto and msm cheap adolescent gaslight rhetoric and let’s have a clean debate with research and facts driving the discussion.
seems the hypocrisy from all the leftist trolls attacking my posts are one n done’s mostly.
ya all seem to vaporize, scatter like cockroaches when lights flipped on.
and fyi – defending biden’s fascism by claiming trump did the same is Not a Denial refuting Biden’s dictatorial acts and maneuveringa.
BTW – i don’t really believe this is Biden’s doing at all, he’s clearly playing a roll at this stage of life and mental cognizance and it’s Obvious to Anyone after watching him speak the 2 or 3 times total that he even bothered to before his insertion into office.
Publius Americanus says
Umm, because only the swing states were necessary?
Seriously, you can’t be that gullible…..can you?
Paul Plante says
And G Anderson, I truly believe that people like yourself who give up their Saturday afternoon watching TV sports or whatever to come in here to contribute what you can to the Marketplace of Ideas FACEBOOK and Mark Zuckerberg are trying to control and dominate, you are giving the American people very important things to have to think about, such as your assessment that the election wasn’t stolen, although if that is true, it would be the first time that happened in the history of this nation subsequent to Washington being elected.
Don’t you have any memory at all of anything, G Anderson?
Don’t you bother to research these things before you make your comments?
Didn’t you ever bother to read the NEWSWEEK article on that very subject entitled “The Top Five Rigged U.S. Presidential Elections” by Fred Lucas G Anderson on 10/23/16, to wit:
In the 2016 presidential election, one candidate is warning about voter fraud, while another proclaims Russians are interfering.
It’s not the first time contenders have alleged some form of a “rigged” election.
Tuesday in the Rose Garden, President Barack Obama dismissed concerns of fraud.
“I have never seen in my lifetime, or in modern political history, any presidential candidate trying to discredit the elections process before votes have even taken place.”
“It’s unprecedented.”
“There is no serious person out there who would suggest somehow that you could even rig America’s elections, in part because they are so decentralized and the number of votes that are cast.”
“There is no evidence that has happened in the past, or instances that will happen this year.”
end quotes
He sounds an awful lot like you, doesn’t he, G Anderson?
Actually, he sounds like the ignorant A-HOLE that he is, because instead of applying himself to learn anything in high school, young Obama, who is special, was out snorting coke and smoking dope, instead, because he was special and he was going to get passed through whether he knew a ******* thing or not to fill a quota, s we see by returning to that article as follows:
While such complaints have been rare before votes were cast, they were very prominent in certain presidential elections, as was evidence that votes weren’t always counted properly.
In my book, “Tainted by Suspicion: The Secret Deals and Electoral Chaos of Disputed Presidential Elections,” I write about some of the most controversial presidential elections that left large segments of the population believing their president was selected instead of elected.
In two elections, the aftermath nearly led to mass violence.
1800: John Adams vs. Thomas Jefferson/Thomas Jefferson vs. Aaron Burr
James Monroe, who was aligned with the Democratic-Republican faction led by Thomas Jefferson, worried about reports that Jefferson supporters were arming for revolt, and said, “Anything [like] a commotion would be fatal to us.”
Jefferson much preferred a convention to amend the Constitution if the opposing Federalists continued down this road.
Though it would be Alexander Hamilton who would play a massive role in the outcome, there was a great flurry of activity that led up to the final result.
Moderates in both camps didn’t want to see the country torn apart should the die-hard Federalists push it to the deadlock and try to appoint a president.
Thousands poured into Washington, prepared for partisan violence if there was what the Jeffersonians called “usurpation.”
President John Adams would assert years later, “a civil war was expected.”
Benjamin Franklin’s cautionary words, “a Republic, if you can keep it,” were put to the test.
As it turned out, Americans could keep it.
Flaws and all, these were men with enough character and intellect to realize the folly of clinging to power or risking bloodshed to obtain it.
The nation truly could have been on the brink of collapse while still in its infancy.
end quotes
Didn’t you ever study that history in 7th grade, G Anderson, or do you deny and reject all of that history because they were all racists and white supremacists and slave owners and just plain bad people all the way around because of that?
Do you think Joe Biden was right to scrap that history by executive decree?
And how about 1876, G Anderson, Rutherford B. Hayes vs. Samuel Tilden?
According to NEWSWEEK, Henry Watterson, publisher of the Louisville Courier-Journal and a Democratic congressman from Kentucky, on January 8, 1876 — which he called “St. Jackson’s Day” because it marked the Battle of New Orleans — called for “the presence of at least 10,000 unarmed Kentuckians in the city” to march on Washington to ensure Samuel Tilden was elected.
His friend Joseph Pulitzer, still building a vast newspaper empire, went further, calling for 100,000 people “fully armed and ready for business” to ensure that Tilden became president.
Angry Democrat mobs across the country would chant, “Tilden or blood,” and reportedly in a dozen states, club-wielding “Tilden Minutemen” had formed threatening to march into Washington to take the White House for their candidate.
This came to Tilden’s chagrin, who sought to calm the rowdiness, as he didn’t want to be responsible for an insurrection.
Still, with all the bellicose verbiage from the newspapers and the masses, it was the Democrat hierarchy in the South that was ready to make a deal, though not the Northern Democrats.
Richard Smith of the Republican Cincinnati Gazette reached out to Southern powerbrokers.
Rutherford Hayes asserted to Smith in early January 1877: “I am not a believer in the trustworthiness of the forces you hope to rally.”
But, he told the newspaperman, he did back internal improvements and education funding in the South believing it would “divide the whites” and help “obliterate the color line.”
On the night of February 26, 1877, four Southern Democrats — Representatives John Y. Brown and Watterson of Kentucky, Senator J.B. Gordon of Georgia and Representative W. M. Levy of Louisiana — met with Ohio Republicans James Garfield and Charles Foster, both House members, and Ohio Senator Stanley Matthews and Ohio Senator-elect John Sherman at the Wormley House hotel in Washington to see if a deal could be reached to prevent the House Democrats from blocking the results with a filibuster.
The men talked about details through the night, and by morning agreed to stop the House Democratic delay tactics that were blocking the certification of the Electoral Commission’s findings, on the condition of ending Reconstruction, appointing a Southern Democrat to the Cabinet, and providing federal money for Southern projects.
And thus, we got JIM CROW in the South and Democrat mobs and gangs to enforce it.
And by goodness, while we are talking what a running sewer presidential elections in this country really are, who among us can ever forget 1960 and John F. Kennedy vs. Richard Nixon.
According to NEWSWEEK, and this is high school history, no “secret” or tin-hat conspiracy theory, Earl Mazo, a Washington reporter for the New York Herald Tribune, began his investigation after he said Chicago reporters were “chastising” him and other national reporters for missing the real story.
He traveled to Chicago, obtained a list of voters in the suspicious precincts, and began matching names with addresses.
Mazo told The Washington Post:
“There was a cemetery where the names on the tombstones were registered and voted.”
“I remember a house.”
“It was completely gutted.”
“There was nobody there.”
“But there were 56 votes for [John F.] Kennedy in that house.”
Mazo also found that Chicago Mayor Richard Daley’s charge that other counties were doing the same thing in favor of Republicans proved to be true — but nothing on the scale of what happened in Chicago.
In Texas, Mazo found similar circumstances.
The New York Herald Tribune planned a 12-part series on the election fraud.
Four of the stories had been published and were republished in newspapers across the country in mid-December.
At Richard Nixon’s request, Mazo met him at the vice president’s Senate office, where Nixon told him to back off, saying, “Our country cannot afford the agony of a constitutional crisis” in the midst of the Cold War.
Mazo didn’t back off, and Nixon called his editors.
The newspaper did not run the rest of the series.
“I know I was terribly disappointed.”
“I envisioned the Pulitzer Prize,” Mazo said.
The entire matter wasn’t void of accountability.
Illinois state special prosecutor Morris Wexler, named to investigate charges of election fraud in Chicago, indicted 677 election officials, but couldn’t nail down convictions with state Judge John Karns.
It wasn’t until 1962, when an election worker confessed to witness tampering in Chicago’s 28th Ward, that three precinct workers pleaded guilty and served jail sentences.
Pulitzer-winning journalist Seymour Hersh reported hearing tapes of FBI wiretaps about potential election fraud.
Hersh — whose books indicate he is a fan of neither Kennedy nor Nixon — believed Nixon was the rightful winner.
end quotes
Do you recall that Joe Kennedy was going to buy up some electors to get Jack in the white house?
And then we come to 2000 and George W. Bush vs. Al Gore, where NEWSWEEK informs us as follows:
Al Gore campaign aide Bob Beckel intended to make that moral case to Florida’s electors — and perhaps electors in other states — who could be convinced to follow the will of the people.
Gore did not need all of the state’s electors, just four.
For that matter, he didn’t think it had to be limited to Florida.
He thought demonstrating statistics to prove Gore’s win could sway enough of the George W. Bush electors to switch their votes since they were not legally bound.
The Wall Street Journal first reported that Gore’s team “has been checking into the background of Republican electors with an eye toward persuading a handful of them to vote for Mr. Gore.”
Beckel insisted afterward he never had plans to try to blackmail electors to collect Gore votes, which he thought the article implied.
But in an interview on Fox News on November 17, 2000, Beckel said: “I’m trying to kidnap electors.”
“Whatever it takes.”
Beckel later explained what the Founders wanted: “The idea was that electors, early on, were to be lobbied.”
Pro-Gore websites even started popping up, listing the names and contact information of Republican electors across the country, asking the public to barrage them with demands to vote for Gore and follow the will of the people.
Republican National Committee Chairman Jim Nichols sent an email to supporters asking them to “Help Stop Democratic Electoral Tampering.”
Responding to the chairman, Beckel said: “The Constitution gives me the right to send a piece of mail to an elector.”
It never made a difference.
No electors shifted, but it did serve as another twist as the 2000 election story unfolded — and another PR fumble for Democrats.
end quotes
Is that all history you deny, G Anderson?
Is that all history you reject?
Are you glad that Joe Biden is putting that history in the trash can, because it is the history of white people, and the “people of color” who are Joe’s base are tired of hearing it, and want the story of slaves told instead?
Paul Plante says
We Americans who are still loyal to our Republican frame of government as outlined in our Constitution where the powers and duties of the legislative branch of the national government and the executive branch are clearly defined and limited so as keep us from despotism and tyranny are truly blessed to have access to the Cape Charles Mirror to share our views on American politics today in a venue that is true to the concept of the Marketplace of Ideas which holds that the truth will emerge from the competition of ideas in free, transparent public discourse and concludes that ideas and ideologies will be culled according to their superiority or inferiority and widespread acceptance among the population, which is something I am very much for in this day and age of Mark Zuckerberg of FACEBOOK setting himself up as the sole arbiter to what the “truth” people are going to hear will be, which in his case is a one-sided, distorted pack of lies.
And that thought brings us back to the post of G Anderson where he said thusly, to wit:
“And as we consider the fact that right after Joe Biden came into office, he took the dictatorial action of not only essentially changing the purpose of our national government unilaterally, substituting a form of “National Socialism” in place of our Republican frame of government,” Biden has done nothing different than what Trump did when he took office.
I looked at your past comments during Trump’s inauguration and you had no problem with HIS “dictatorial” actions
end quotes
Now, truly people, here is the Marketplace of Ideas in operation.
Now, is the issue facing us today Donald Trump, and what he might or might not have done during his inauguration which if I recall was four years ago now?
Are we discussing “dictatorial” actions by Donald Trump, who as I recall has been voted out of office, has left Washington, D.C. to hole himself up in Florida, and who is now facing very serious criminal charges stemming from an alleged “insurrection” in Washington on 6 January 2021?
And of course, we are not!
And if Joe Biden is supposedly a better man than Trump, why should we accept Joe Biden doing the same or even worse?
So no, we are not interested in what Donald Trump may or may not have done since he is ancient history now.
What we are discussing is one single dictatorial decree by Joe Biden on 20 January 2021 that states thusly:
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered:
Our Nation deserves an ambitious whole-of-government equity agenda that matches the scale of the opportunities and challenges that we face.
It is therefore the policy of my Administration that the Federal Government should pursue a comprehensive approach to advancing equity for all, including people of color and others who have been historically underserved, marginalized, and adversely affected by persistent poverty and inequality.
end quotes
Now, first of all, does OUR Constitution give Joe Biden any authority, jurisdiction or discretion to tell us unilaterally what it is OUR nation deserves?
And does OUR Constitution give Joe Biden any authority, jurisdiction or discretion to do an end-run around congress and to unilaterally declare a policy of advancing EQUITY for SOME people in America, not EQUALITY of opportunity for ALL people in America?
Let’s check out Section 3 of Article II of OUR Constitution to see if that might be in some way so, to wit:
He (Joe Biden) shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in case of disagreement between them, with respect to the time of adjournment, he may adjourn them to such time as he shall think proper; he shall receive ambassadors and other public ministers; he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed, and shall commission all the officers of the United States.
end quotes
Anybody see a single word in there that authorizes Joe Biden to do any kind of an end-run around Congress as he is doing right here before our eyes?
And as we ponder that question, consider that OUR Constitution places the power of the purse in Congress: “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law . . .”
In specifying the activities on which public funds may be spent, it is Congress that defines the contours of federal power, not the dictatorial Joe Biden.
This requirement of legislative appropriation before public funds are spent is at the foundation of our constitutional order that Joe Biden is trying to overturn with this imperial decree here in the form of an executive order that makes the chief executive into a representative of a faction.
The Appropriations Clause creates a legislative duty that Congress exercise control and assume responsibility over the federal fisc.
Congress’s “power of the purse” is at the foundation of our Constitution’s separation of powers, a constitutionally mandated check on Executive power, a check the dictatorial Joe Biden is trying to defeat by executive decree, in essence using executive orders to say that OUR Constitution does not apply to him, because he is special somehow, like Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi..
The Appropriations Clause enjoins the President and federal agencies to spend funds only as appropriated by Congress, and even where the President believes that federal spending is urgently needed, spending in the absence of appropriations is constitutionally prohibited.
And as to this BULL**** that Joe Biden isn’t doing anything different than what FDR did back in the Depression days, I beg to differ by simply going back eighty-six (86) in our history to the Franklin D. Roosevelt State of the Union Address of 1935, to wit:
Mr. President, Mr. Speaker, Members of the Senate and House of Representatives, the Constitution wisely provides that the Chief Executive shall report to the Congress on the state of the Union, for through you, the chosen legislative representatives, our citizens everywhere may fairly judge the progress of our governing.
I am confident that today, in the light of the events of the past 2 years, you do not consider it merely a trite phrase when I tell you that i am truly glad to greet you and that I look forward to common counsel, to useful cooperation, and to genuine friendships between us.
We have undertaken a new order of things, yet we progress to it under the framework and in the spirit and intent of the American Constitution.
We have proceeded throughout the Nation a measurable distance on the road toward this new order.
Materially, I can report to you substantial benefits to our agricultural population, increased industrial activity, and profits to our merchants.
Of equal moment, there is evident restoration of that spirit of confidence and faith which marks the American character.
Let him who, for speculative profit or partisan purpose, without just warrant would seek to disturb or dispel this assurance, take heed before he assumes responsibility for any which slows our onward steps.
Throughout the world change is the order of the day.
In every nation economic problems, long in the making, have brought crises of many kinds for which the masters of old practice and theory were unprepared.
In most nations social justice, no longer a distant ideal, has become a definite goal, and ancient governments are beginning to heed the call.
Thus, the American people do not stand alone in the world in their desire for change.
We seek it through processes which retain all of the deep essentials of that republican form of representative government first given to a troubled world by the United States.
end quotes
And here is where I want to pause to let the words of that last sentence of FDR during the heart of the Great Depression sink in.
And thank you for your citizenship all who are following this debate along.
G Anderson says
Paul, some Constitutional reader you are.
Article Two of the United States Constitution gives the president broad executive and enforcement authority to use his or her discretion to determine how to enforce the law or to otherwise manage the resources and staff of the executive branch.
Executive Orders are issued by the White House and are used to direct the Executive Branch of the U.S. Government. Executive Orders state mandatory requirements for the Executive Branch, and have the effect of law.
The executive branch of the U.S. government is responsible for enforcing laws; its power is vested in the President. The President acts as both the head of state and commander-in-chief of the armed forces. Independent federal agencies are tasked with enforcing the laws enacted by Congress.
That’s the cliff note version. I couldn’t be boothered reading that whole mess above
Paul Plante says
Now, here, people, is a stark and vivid example of why I call the Cape Charles Mirror a GRAND PALLADIUM OF LIBERTY such as this nation’s founders considered those PRINTERS in our fledgling nation who were PUBLISHERS of political essays on all sides of competing issues with the Cape Charles Mirror publishing this post above here by our esteemed Constitutional scholar G Anderson as to his take on the Constitutional authority, jurisdiction and discretion of Joe Biden who on 20 January 2021, by an imperial decree disguised as an executive order, Joe Biden hereby ordered that in his sole opinion, which to him as our dictator is all that is needed, what he feels should be done will be done now that he is in the executive office, OUR Nation deserves an ambitious whole-of-government equity agenda that matches the scale of the opportunities and challenges that we face, and it is therefore the policy of his Administration that the Federal Government should pursue a comprehensive approach to advancing equity for all, including people of color and others who have been historically underserved, marginalized, and adversely affected by persistent poverty and inequality.
As to that being dictatorial, I would simply point to a VOX article entitled “Biden’s flurry of first-day executive actions, explained – The actions launch a more progressive policymaking era” by German Lopez on Jan. 20, 2021, 4:00pm EST, where we have as follows concerning the assumption of dictatorial powers by Joe Biden on 20 January 2021, to wit:
President Joe Biden isn’t waiting for Congress to start enacting his policy agenda.
His presidency is beginning with an aggressive first 10 days in the Oval Office with a suite of executive orders and actions.
end quotes
Joe Biden doesn’t need Congress and Joe Biden isn’t waiting for Congress because according to our esteemed Constitutional scholar G Anderson, Article Two of the United States Constitution gives the president broad executive and enforcement authority to use his or her discretion to determine how to enforce the law or to otherwise manage the resources and staff of the executive branch, along with the authority, jurisdiction and discretion to simply bypass Congress and by executive order, make laws for all of us by himself with no Congressional oversight whatsoever.
To which I respond, whether or not the Constitution gives Joe Biden the power to declare himself a dictator in the United States of Americas, the fact is, he has done so, and my point is that once that dictatorship has been established, it is here for good because the one thing universally true about tyrants, despots and dictators is that once they have taken power like Joe Biden has done here, protected as he is from the American people in his imperial city by 25,000 armed troops of proven loyalty to him personally, and battle tanks and razor wire, they never give it up, but keep on grasping for more and more until like Hitler they have throttled the life out of a nation.
And in response to the premise of G Anderson that Article II of OUR Constitution allows Joe Biden to declare himself a dictator who doesn’t need Congress for him to make laws and direct the expenditure of monies without Congressional oversight, I simply go back to the 1935 State of the Union address of FDR, and make the observation that if the premise of G Anderson that Article II of OUR Constitution allows Joe Biden to bypass Congress and make laws on his own, FDR certainly would have known about as well, and his 1935 State of the Union would never then have read thusly, to wit:
Let us for a moment strip from our simple purpose the confusion that results from a multiplicity of detail and from millions of written and spoken words.
We find our population suffering from old inequalities, little changed by past sporadic remedies.
In spite of our efforts and in spite of our talk we have not weeded out the overpriviledged (HILLARY Clinton) and we have not effectively lifted up the underpriviledged (disabled veterans such as myself).
Both of these manifestations of injustice have retarded happiness.
No wise man has any intention of destroying what is known as the “profit motive”, because by the profit motive we mean the right by work to earn a decent livelihood for ourselves and our families.
We have, however, a clear mandate from the people, that Americans must forswear that conception of the acquisition of wealth which, through excessive profits, creates undue private power over private affairs and, to our misfortune, over public affairs as well.
In building toward this end we do not destroy ambition, nor do we seek to divide our wealth into equal shares on stated occasions.
(Dividing our wealth into equal shares is what the equity of Joe Biden is all about)
We continue to recognize the greater ability of some to earn more than others.
But we do assert that the ambition of the individual to obtain for him and his a proper security, a reasonable leisure, and a decent living throughout life is an ambition to be preferred to the appetite for great wealth and great power.
I recall to your attention my message to the Congress last June in which I said, “Among our objectives I place the security of the men, women, and children of the Nation first.”
That remains our first and continuing task: and in a very real sense every major legislative enactment of this Congress should be a component part of it.
Paul Plante says
And here we again come back to this post by G Anderson about executive orders.
IF America was really a nation governed by RULE OF LAW, which it is not, for Joe Biden’s January 20, 2021 executive order on the responsibility of the national government with respect to “equity” under discussion in here to have been a validly issued executive order, first of all, it would have had to have been issued in relation to a law passed by Congress or based on powers granted to the President in the Constitution and must be consistent with those authorities.
Further, an executive order to “direct or instruct the actions of executive agencies or government officials, or to set policies for the executive branch to follow” signed by the President must be approved by the Office of Management and Budget and the Attorney General and recorded in the federal register.
Did Joe Biden follow that procedure?
Before he became president as a result of a coup, did Joe Biden go see Bill Barr with his executive order on equity?
Or did Joe, having proclaimed himself a dictator following his 8 January 2021 proclamation and declaration of an insurrection in the Ten Miles Square, simply blow off those requirements as being not applicable to him?
Which takes us to James Madison, himself a former American president, and his warning to us in Federalist No. 48 that “(A)n elective despotism was not the government we fought for; but one in which the powers of government should be so divided and balanced among the several bodies of magistracy as that no one could transcend their legal limits without being effectually checked and restrained by others.”
But regardless, an elective despotism (the exercise of absolute power, especially in a cruel and oppressive way; a country or political system where the ruler holds absolute power) is now what we have, and as our Constitutional scholar G Anderson makes incandescently clear above here, there really is ****-all we American citizens can do about it, since the reality of the situation is that despite anything to the contrary, American presidents, especially when we have ONE-PARTY RULE like we do in the United States of America today, a tyranny of the minority, are above the law and answerable to no one, period, despite what Chief Justice Jackson wrote in the 1952 case of Youngstown Sheet & Tube Company v. Sawyer, to wit:
“In the framework of our Constitution, the President’s power to see the laws are faithfully executed refutes the idea that he is to be a lawmaker.…”
“The Constitution is neither silent nor equivocal about who shall make laws which the President is to execute.”
end quotes
But because Joe Biden is now a dictator, he in fact has become a lawmaker, as he has just proved on 20 January 2021 with his executive order on equity.
G Anderson says
Paul, maybe you should take a look at this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_order Take the cliff note version. You’ll see that Executive Orders have been around as long as the government.
Again, what is Biden doing that Trump didn’t do? You never complained about Trump’s executive orders. Maybe we should start calling you Snowflake or maybe we should call you Karen or whatever is the male equivalent
Paul Plante says
G Anderson, I do swan that you are just about the ginchiest dude who has ever graced the pages of the Cape Charles Mirror with your very presence, and here is another example of why I call the Cape Charles Mirror a GRAND PALLADIUM OF LIBERTY, the fact that after a true, acknowledged and very highly respected Constitutional scholar like G Anderson has presented us with his thoughts on what he thinks Constitutional law in the United States under the dictatorship of Joe Biden should be, in its complete form, unlike the greedy Wall Street Journal in the case of a recent political essay entitled “No, You Can’t Try an Impeached Former President” by Alan M. Dershowitz on Jan. 20, 2021, where they gave you a paragraph or so, and then told you that if you really wanted to know what he said, you had to pay them for it, common folks without clout like myself, who wouldn’t be given the time of day at the Wall Street Journal unless I had the coin to buy it with, get to come in here and engage with them in vigorous debate, which is never going to happen at the New York Times or Washington Post or Wall Street Journal and that’s a fact!
In that regard, the Cape Charles Mirror is a blessing to the poor folks like me as well as being a very much needed scourge of all the tyrants we have surrounding us in government positions today.
As to your comment that Executive Orders have been around as long as the government, my goodness, of course they have been.
Did you think that I didn’t know that?
Are you testing me to see if I am a moron who dropped out of fourth grade at 16?
As we learned them in 4th grade, George Washington issued 8, Tommy Jefferson totaled 4, Jemmy Madison issued 1, James Monroe issued 1, John Quincy Adams issued 3, Andy Jackson issued 12, Marty van Buren, known as the “sly red fox,” issued 10, William Henry Harrison issued none, John Tyler issued 17, James K. Polk issued 18, Zachary Taylor issued 5, Millard Fillmore issued 12, Franklin Pierce issued 35, Jimmy Buchanan issued 16, Abe Lincoln, called the “Original Gorilla” by McLellan and his toadies, issued 48, including the Emancipation Proclamation, Andrew Johnson, the Democrat impeached by the House for talking smack about the House and hurting its dignity, issued 79, Ulysses S. Grant issued 217, Rutherford B. Hayes issued 92, Jimmy Garfield issued 6, Chester Arthur issued 96, Grover Cleveland in his first term issued 113, Benjamin Harrison issued 143, Grover Cleveland in his second term issued 140, Billy McKinley issued 185, Teddy Roosevelt was quite prolific at 1,081, William Howard Taft, no slouch himself, chalked up 724 as his tally, and heavy-hitter Woody Wilson is in there with 1,803, Warren G. Harding, who wasn’t regarded as being all that bright, issued 522, Cal Coolidge is on the scorecard with 1,203, Herb Hoover had 968, Franklin D. Roosevelt, who holds the all-time record, is on the books as issuing 3,721, Harry S. Truman, the “Buck stops here” dude, issued 907, Dwight D. Eisenhower issued 484, Jack Kennedy issued 214, the horse’s-ass from Texas Lyndon B. Johnson issued 325, Dick Nixon issued 346, goofy Gerald R. Ford issued 169, Jimmy Carter issued 320,
Ronald Reagan issued 381, George Bush issued 166, Bill J. “Bubba” Clinton, Hillary’s man she stands by, issued 364, George W. Bush issued 291, Hussein Obama issued 276, Trump issued 220, and so far, Joe Biden has issued 17 Executive Orders to date.
Which takes us to this from the Constitutional scholar G Anderson, to wit:
Again, what is Biden doing that Trump didn’t do?
You never complained about Trump’s executive orders.
Maybe we should start calling you Snowflake or maybe we should call you Karen or whatever is the male equivalent.
end quotes
As to the juvenile name-calling, have at it, dude, I’m hardly troubled by someone such as yourself calling me a snowflake, which I think is a stupid, ignorant, meaningless term, but, hey that’s just me, so carry on as you see fit.
As to me not having any problems with Trump’s executive orders, how about it’s because they said thusly:
Therefore, it shall be the policy of the United States not to promote race or sex stereotyping or scapegoating in the Federal workforce or in the Uniformed Services, and not to allow grant funds to be used for these purposes.
In addition, Federal contractors will not be permitted to inculcate such views in their employees.
end quotes
Why on earth, G Anderson, would anyone in their right mind, starting with myself, have any kind of problem with Trump’s declaration that it shall be the policy of the United States not to promote race or sex stereotyping or scapegoating in the Federal workforce or in the Uniformed Services, and not to allow grant funds to be used for these purposes?
As to Joe Biden, and that is a big part of what this thread is about, how mockable it is that of all the people on the face of the earth, that it would be Joe Biden who is going to heal the nation and unite us, when it is Joe Biden who is dividing the nation and making it very sick with his declaration that under his administration it SHALL be the policy of the United States to promote race or sex stereotyping and scapegoating in the Federal workforce or in the Uniformed Services, and to allow federal grant funds to be used for these purposes.
Is that the kind of sick **** you are for, G Anderson?
Are you actually for Joe Biden openly and actively promoting race or sex stereotyping and scapegoating in the Federal workforce or in the Uniformed Services, and allowing federal grant funds to be used for these purposes?
Are you actually for the president of the United States of America openly declaring that “virtually all White people, regardless of how ‘woke’ they are, contribute to racism?”
Is that what you believe?
Are you for the president of the United States of America instructing small group leaders to encourage employees to avoid “narratives” that Americans should “be more color-blind” or “let people’s skills and personalities be what differentiates them?”
Do you, like Hillary Clinton, believe that that racism “is interwoven into every fabric of America?”
Do you believe that as president, Joe Biden should be decreeing that statements like “color blindness” and the “meritocracy” are “actions of bias?”
Should the president of the United States by executive order be promoting an agenda which states that an emphasis on “rationality over emotionality” is a characteristic of “white males,” as if there was something wrong with rationality while at the same time, everything is right about emotionality?
Should the president of the United States of America by executive order make it mandatory for white men in America to have to daily “acknowledge” their “privilege” to each other?
Should Joe Biden as U.S. president be spewing ignorant horse**** such as concepts like “objective, rational linear thinking,” “hard work” being “the key to success,” the “nuclear family,” and belief in a single god are not values that unite Americans of all races but are instead “aspects and assumptions of whiteness?”
Are you one of those people who is crippled mentally because facing your whiteness is hard and can result in feelings of guilt, sadness, confusion, defensiveness, or fear?
Joe Biden is.
And you wonder why I have trouble with his executive orders – GO FIGURE
tj says
what is it with this socialist and his insane tds iasues. far left trolls run out of debate but continue to regurgitate the msm rhetoric long before the conserves or facts are spent. they’re M.O. is to keep going regardless, keep bringing up a comparison with orangeman bad to try and shift focus and throw em off the main talking points of debate.
Validate the rhetoric with something other than troll tds speak. include published citations for the claims made of trump’s EO’s that violated the office as outlined and explained in US Constitution.
Paul Plante says
Which for them is an impossible task, and they won’t even bother to read Trump’s EO’s word for word as I have done to see what they are all about, because they condemn them based on the fact that Trump issued them.
There was a time in America, and I still remember it, when you were supposed to be up on current events at all times as part of one’s citizenship duties and responsibilities to the nation of which we are a part, and that meant exerting yourself to read what was being said as opposed to simply taking somebody else’s word for what something like an EO actually said, but that was before people became so lazy mentally, because being a citizen of a Republic is a lot of work, and they don’t want to do it.
That is how nations die.
Paul Plante says
And since we are in the process of comparing what Joe Biden is attempting to do today, which is to bypass OUR written Constitution so as to install himself as a dictator with no accountability whatsoever to Congress or the Constitution, with what FDR actually did back in 1935, which was to work with Congress, let’s go back to the opening line of that address as follows:
Mr. President, Mr. Speaker, Members of the Senate and House of Representatives, the Constitution wisely provides that the Chief Executive shall report to the Congress on the state of the Union, for through you, the chosen legislative representatives, our citizens everywhere may fairly judge the progress of our governing.
end quotes
And right there is exactly what the dictator Joe Biden is tossing in the toilet when we read that President Joe Biden isn’t waiting for Congress to start enacting his policy agenda, the idea that the Constitution wisely provides that the Chief Executive shall report to the Congress on the state of the Union, for through the chosen legislative representatives, WE, THE PEOPLE who aren’t card-carrying Democrats or sworn adherents of Joe Biden may fairly judge the progress of their governing.
“**** Congress and **** the American people,” says dictator Joe, “I’m the big boss of things in America now and what I say goes, or else!”
And that takes us back to 1935 and FDR, as follows:
As the various parts in the program begun in the extraordinary session of the Seventy-third Congress shape themselves in practical administration, the unity of our program reveals itself to the nation.
end quotes
Now, it can safely be said that FDR was faced with as much of a “crisis” then as Joe Biden thinks he is today, but did FDR declare himself a dictator like Joe Biden who can forsake Congress when he feels like making some laws of his own?
Not hardly is that answer, as we can see by going back to 1935, as follows:
I am now ready to submit to the Congress a broad program designed ultimately to establish all three of these factors of security – a program which because of many lost years will take many future years to fulfill.
end quotes
In his turn, Joe Biden is simply side-stepping Congress to enact his own agenda.
Going back to 1935:
The lessons of history, confirmed by the evidence immediately before me, show conclusively that continued dependence upon relief induces a spiritual disintegration fundamentally destructive to the national fiber.
To dole our relief in this way is to administer a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit.
It is inimical to the dictates of a sound policy.
It is in violation of the traditions of America.
Work must be found for able-bodied but destitute workers.
The Federal Government must and shall quit this business of relief.
I am not willing that the vitality of our people be further sapped by the giving of cash, of market baskets, of a few hours of weekly work cutting grass, raking leaves, or picking up papers in the public parks.
We must preserve not only the bodies of the unemployed from destitution but also their self-respect, their self-reliance, and courage and determination.
This decision brings me to the problem of what the Government should do with approximately 5,000,000 unemployed now on the relief rolls.
About one million and a half of these belong to the group which in the past was dependent upon local welfare efforts.
Most of them are unable for one reason or another to maintain themselves independently – for the most part, through no fault of their own.
Such people, in the days before the great depression, were cared for by local effort – by States, by counties, by towns, by cities, by churches, and by private welfare agencies.
It is my thought that in the future they must be cared for as they were before.
end quotes
So what does Joe Biden propose today?
Put the whole nation on the dole?
Stay tuned!
Paul Plante says
And before we go further here with respect to the policies of the authoritarian government of Joe Biden, this following is language from an Executive Order that Joe Biden strongly condemned and rescinded, which gives us an idea of where Joe Biden sees himself taking OUR country now that he is despot, er, dictator:
The American founding envisioned a political order in harmony with the design of “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,” seeing the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as embodied in and sanctioned by natural law and its traditions.
The formation of a republic around these principles marked a clear departure from previous forms of government, securing rights through a form of government that derives its legitimate power from the consent of the governed.
Throughout its national life, our Republic’s exploration of the full meaning of these principles has led it through the ratification of a Constitution, civil war, the abolition of slavery, Reconstruction, and a series of domestic crises and world conflicts.
Those events establish a clear historical record of an exceptional Nation dedicated to the ideas and ideals of its founding.
Against this history, in recent years, a series of polemics grounded in poor scholarship has vilified our Founders and our founding.
Despite the virtues and accomplishments of this Nation, many students are now taught in school to hate their own country, and to believe that the men and women who built it were not heroes, but rather villains.
This radicalized view of American history lacks perspective, obscures virtues, twists motives, ignores or distorts facts, and magnifies flaws, resulting in the truth being concealed and history disfigured.
Failing to identify, challenge, and correct this distorted perspective could fray and ultimately erase the bonds that knit our country and culture together.
The recent attacks on our founding have highlighted America’s history related to race.
These one-sided and divisive accounts too often ignore or fail to properly honor and recollect the great legacy of the American national experience — our country’s valiant and successful effort to shake off the curse of slavery and to use the lessons of that struggle to guide our work toward equal rights for all citizens in the present.
Viewing America as an irredeemably and systemically racist country cannot account for the extraordinary role of the great heroes of the American movement against slavery and for civil rights — a great moral endeavor that, from Abraham Lincoln to Martin Luther King, Jr., was marked by religious fellowship, good will, generosity of heart, an emphasis on our shared principles, and an inclusive vision for the future.
As these heroes demonstrated, the path to a renewed and confident national unity is through a rediscovery of a shared identity rooted in our founding principles.
A loss of national confidence in these principles would place rising generations in jeopardy of a crippling self-doubt that could cause them to abandon faith in the common story that binds us to one another across our differences.
Without our common faith in the equal right of every individual American to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, authoritarian visions of government and society could become increasingly alluring alternatives to self-government based on the consent of the people.
Thus it is necessary to provide America’s young people access to what is genuinely inspiring and unifying in our history, as well as to the lessons imparted by the American experience of overcoming great national challenges.
This is what makes possible the informed and honest patriotism that is essential for a successful republic.
end quotes
ALL OF THE ABOVE IS NOW CONDEMNED AND RESCINDED BY ORDER OF HIS IMPERIAL EXCELLENCE, JOE BIDEN, WHO WILL REPLACE THAT HISTORY WITH A NEW NATIONAL GOVERNMENT-APPROVED HISTORY OF HIS OWN DEVISING!
Paul Plante says
And while we are on the subject of how Joe Biden, who suffers from a massive case of white guilt because of all the white privilege Joe was a beneficiary of, is changing OUR nation through executive orders, this following has been condemned and rescinded by Dictator Joe on 20 January 2021, as follows:
Sec. 3. Celebration of Constitution Day.
All relevant agencies shall monitor compliance with Title I of Division J of Public Law 108-447, which provides that “each educational institution that receives Federal funds for a fiscal year shall hold an educational program on the United States Constitution on September 17 of such year for the students served by the educational institution,” including by verifying compliance with each educational institution that receives Federal funds.
All relevant agencies shall take action, as appropriate, to enhance compliance with that law.
Paul Plante says
And here is the relevant language from the second Trump Executive Order that Joe Biden condemned and rescinded on his first day in office on 20 January 2021 to let ALL the candid world, and all the white people in America, know without a doubt what direction Joe is going to take the country, to wit:
Executive Order 13950 of September 22, 2020
Combating Race and Sex Stereotyping
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act, 40 U.S.C. 101 et seq., and in order to promote economy and efficiency in Federal contracting, to promote unity in the Federal workforce, and to combat offensive and anti-American race and sex stereotyping and scapegoating, it is hereby ordered as follows:
Section 1. Purpose.
From the battlefield of Gettysburg to the bus boycott in Montgomery and the Selma-to-Montgomery marches, heroic Americans have valiantly risked their lives to ensure that their children would grow up in a Nation living out its creed, expressed in the Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.”
It was this belief in the inherent equality of every individual that inspired the Founding generation to risk their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor to establish a new Nation, unique among the countries of the world.
President Abraham Lincoln understood that this belief is “the electric cord” that “links the hearts of patriotic and liberty-loving” people, no matter their race or country of origin.
It is the belief that inspired the heroic black soldiers of the 54th Massachusetts Infantry Regiment to defend that same Union at great cost in the Civil War.
And it is what inspired Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., to dream that his children would one day “not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”
Thanks to the courage and sacrifice of our forebears, America has made significant progress toward realization of our national creed, particularly in the 57 years since Dr. King shared his dream with the country.
Today, however, many people are pushing a different vision of America that is grounded in hierarchies based on collective social and political identities rather than in the inherent and equal dignity of every person as an individual.
This ideology is rooted in the pernicious and false belief that America is an irredeemably racist and sexist country; that some people, simply on account of their race or sex, are oppressors; and that racial and sexual identities are more important than our common status as human beings and Americans.
This destructive ideology is grounded in misrepresentations of our country’s history and its role in the world.
Although presented as new and revolutionary, they resurrect the discredited notions of the nineteenth century’s apologists for slavery who, like President Lincoln’s rival Stephen A. Douglas, maintained that our government “was made on the white basis” “by white men, for the benefit of white men.”
Our Founding documents rejected these racialized views of America, which were soundly defeated on the blood-stained battlefields of the Civil War.
Yet they are now being repackaged and sold as cutting-edge insights.
They are designed to divide us and to prevent us from uniting as one people in pursuit of one common destiny for our great country.
Unfortunately, this malign ideology is now migrating from the fringes of American society and threatens to infect core institutions of our country.
Instructors and materials teaching that men and members of certain races, as well as our most venerable institutions, are inherently sexist and racist are appearing in workplace diversity trainings across the country, even in components of the Federal Government and among Federal contractors.
For example, the Department of the Treasury recently held a seminar that promoted arguments that “virtually all White people, regardless of how ‘woke’ they are, contribute to racism,” and that instructed small group leaders to encourage employees to avoid “narratives” that Americans should “be more color-blind” or “let people’s skills and personalities be what differentiates them.”
Training materials from Argonne National Laboratories, a Federal entity, stated that racism “is interwoven into every fabric of America” and described statements like “color blindness” and the “meritocracy” as “actions of bias.”
Materials from Sandia National Laboratories, also a Federal entity, for non-minority males stated that an emphasis on “rationality over emotionality” was a characteristic of “white male(s),” and asked those present to “acknowledge” their “privilege” to each other.
A Smithsonian Institution museum graphic recently claimed that concepts like “(o)bjective, rational linear thinking,” “(h)ard work” being “the key to success,” the “nuclear family,” and belief in a single god are not values that unite Americans of all races but are instead “aspects and assumptions of whiteness.”
The museum also stated that “(f)acing your whiteness is hard and can result in feelings of guilt, sadness, confusion, defensiveness, or fear.”
All of this is contrary to the fundamental premises underpinning our Republic: that all individuals are created equal and should be allowed an equal opportunity under the law to pursue happiness and prosper based on individual merit.
Executive departments and agencies (agencies), our Uniformed Services, Federal contractors, and Federal grant recipients should, of course, continue to foster environments devoid of hostility grounded in race, sex, and other federally protected characteristics.
Training employees to create an inclusive workplace is appropriate and beneficial.
The Federal Government is, and must always be, committed to the fair and equal treatment of all individuals before the law.
But training like that discussed above perpetuates racial stereotypes and division and can use subtle coercive pressure to ensure conformity of viewpoint.
Such ideas may be fashionable in the academy, but they have no place in programs and activities supported by Federal taxpayer dollars.
Research also suggests that blame-focused diversity training reinforces biases and decreases opportunities for minorities.
Our Federal civil service system is based on merit principles.
These principles, codified at 5 U.S.C. 2301, call for all employees to “receive fair and equitable treatment in all aspects of personnel management without regard to” race or sex “and with proper regard for their . . . constitutional rights.”
Instructing Federal employees that treating individuals on the basis of individual merit is racist or sexist directly undermines our Merit System Principles and impairs the efficiency of the Federal service.
Similarly, our Uniformed Services should not teach our heroic men and women in uniform the lie that the country for which they are willing to die is fundamentally racist.
Such teachings could directly threaten the cohesion and effectiveness of our Uniformed Services.
Such activities also promote division and inefficiency when carried out by Federal contractors.
The Federal Government has long prohibited Federal contractors from engaging in race or sex discrimination and required contractors to take affirmative action to ensure that such discrimination does not occur.
The participation of contractors’ employees in training that promotes race or sex stereotyping or scapegoating similarly undermines efficiency in Federal contracting.
Such requirements promote divisiveness in the workplace and distract from the pursuit of excellence and collaborative achievements in public administration.
Therefore, it shall be the policy of the United States not to promote race or sex stereotyping or scapegoating in the Federal workforce or in the Uniformed Services, and not to allow grant funds to be used for these purposes.
In addition, Federal contractors will not be permitted to inculcate such views in their employees.
end quotes
ALL OF THE ABOVE IS NOW CONDEMNED AND RESCINDED BY JOE BIDEN WHO IS GOING TO ALLOW THE STEREOTYPING OF WHITE-SKINNED PEOPLE IN AMERICA AS A SPECIES OF CRIMINAL TO BE DISCRIMINATED AGAINST AS A MATTER OF NATIONAL GOVERNMENT POLICY UNDER JOE BIDEN!
Isn’t the new world order under Joe Biden going to be just ducky?
Paul Plante says
And getting back to this very important question, “(A)gain, what is Biden doing that Trump didn’t do,”
to properly answer it, we really need to look at what Trump has done first, which was to sign an executive order which stated thusly:
Executive Order 13950 of September 22, 2020
Combating Race and Sex Stereotyping
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act, 40 U.S.C. 101 et seq., and in order to promote economy and efficiency in Federal contracting, to promote unity in the Federal workforce, and to combat offensive and anti-American race and sex stereotyping and scapegoating, it is hereby ordered as follows:
end quotes
So, that, people is what Trump has done, and truthfully, does anyone in here find anything in there to be offended by?
And how about this:
Sec. 6. Requirements for Agencies.
(a) The fair and equal treatment of individuals is an inviolable principle that must be maintained in the Federal workplace.
Agencies should continue all training that will foster a workplace that is respectful of all employees.
end quotes
Again, people, what is found offensive in any of that?
And then we have this from that same Trump executive order:
(ii) Agency diversity and inclusion efforts shall, first and foremost, encourage agency employees not to judge each other by their color, race, ethnicity, sex, or any other characteristic protected by Federal law.
end quotes
Isn’t that consistent with the message put forth by Dr. Martin Luther King?
And that takes us over to Joe Biden and the question of what Jo9e Biden is doing that Trump didn’t do, and the easiest way to answer that question is to go to Joe Biden’s “Executive Order On Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government” on January 20, 2021, where we have from Joe as follows:
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered:
Sec.10. Revocation.
(a) Executive Order 13950 of September 22, 2020 (Combating Race and Sex Stereotyping), is hereby revoked.
(b) The heads of agencies covered by Executive Order 13950 shall review and identify proposed and existing agency actions related to or arising from Executive Order 13950.
The head of each agency shall, within 60 days of the date of this order, consider suspending, revising, or rescinding any such actions, including all agency actions to terminate or restrict contracts or grants pursuant to Executive Order 13950, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law.
end quotes
So, what Trump did was to try to put an end to racism here in the United States of America with an executive order, and what Joe Biden did that was different was to promote racism here in the United States of America.
And Joe won.
G Anderson says
“So, what Trump did was to try to put an end to racism here in the United States of America with an executive order, ” An end to racism, lol Yeah, just like how he promoted unity.
Paul Plante says
Seriously, G Anderson, are you hard of comprehension, or just plain simple-minded?
Didn’t you bother to exert yourself to actually attempt to read the executive orders, which I have provided for your benefit, knowing you to be so ******* lazy you wouldn’t bother to check them out yourself, which is so typical of Americans today, don’t you think, a mental laziness and sloppiness and “I don’t have to give a **** about facts because I have my own, thank you very much” attitude that is so prevalent in American society today, which is exactly why TWITTER exists, for those who communicate their thoughts in very short bursts of mindless ******* gibberish.
So let me take you by the hand here and walk you through the reality most of us who are not you share.
And before I waste the valuable of the Cape Charles Mirror “casting pearls before swine” in your case, do you actually dare to stand there and tell us that no, Trump never issued Executive Order 13950 of September 22, 2020, wherein was clearly stated, at least to someone not a ******* moron, as follows:
Combating Race and Sex Stereotyping
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act, 40 U.S.C. 101 et seq., and in order to promote economy and efficiency in Federal contracting, to promote unity in the Federal workforce, and to combat offensive and anti-American race and sex stereotyping and scapegoating, it is hereby ordered as follows:
end quotes
That certainly looks like Trump trying his best to put an end to racism to me, anyway, and for the record, I don’t really like Trump as a person, but when he endorsed those words in that executive order, which was his executive order that he was under no obligation to issue, he showed himself to be a true humanitarian, at least in my eyes.
And how about this:
Sec. 6. Requirements for Agencies.
(a) The fair and equal treatment of individuals is an inviolable principle that must be maintained in the Federal workplace.
Agencies should continue all training that will foster a workplace that is respectful of all employees.
end quotes
What is it that you find offensive in any of that, G Anderson?
The fact that Trump was trying to put an end to racism, and you somehow profit off of racism now, so that policy would hit you in the pocketbook where it really hurts?
And then we have this from that same Trump executive order:
(ii) Agency diversity and inclusion efforts shall, first and foremost, encourage agency employees not to judge each other by their color, race, ethnicity, sex, or any other characteristic protected by Federal law.
end quotes
Isn’t that consistent with the message put forth by Dr. Martin Luther King, G Anderson?
tj says
g anderson obviously has never read past a CNN Headline in his life.
as is evident with all the references made to cliff notes.
Paul Plante says
And as we, the American people, thanks to the agency of the Cape Charles Mirror, learn much more about the direction Democrat Joe Biden intends to take the nation now that a violent, howling Democrat mob has overthrown Trump and placed Joe Biden in his place in the oval office, let us go back to the comment G Anderson @ January 23, 2021 at 3:27 pm, where he posted as follows, to wit:
Isn’t democracy designed for the “Common Good”.
A dictatorship is designed for personal interest.
end quotes
In answer to the question “(I)sn’t democracy designed for the ‘Common Good,’” the answer is unequivocally NO, not hardly.
OUR Republic, as was delineated in our old Constitution which has been discarded by Joe Biden, stated thusly:
“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
end quotes
But none of that is what Joe Biden intends to do as we witnessed by his incredible action of rescinding Trump’s Executive Order 13950 of September 22, 2020 titled “Combating Race and Sex Stereotyping” wherein was stated, to wit:
“Therefore, it shall be the policy of the United States not to promote race or sex stereotyping or scapegoating in the Federal workforce or in the Uniformed Services, and not to allow grant funds to be used for these purposes.”
end quotes
Which takes us over to Joe Biden’s “democracy,” which states that for the “common good,” it shall be the policy of the United States TO PROMOTE race or sex stereotyping and scapegoating in the Federal workforce and in the Uniformed Services, and TO ALLOW grant funds to be used for these purposes, for there is no other way to interpret Joe’s action of rescinding Trump’s Executive Order 13950 of September 22, 2020, and only someone seriously mentally deranged could interpret it differently.
The same thing goes for Biden rescinding Trump’s Executive Order 13958 of November 2, 2020, titled “Establishing the President’s Advisory 1776 Commission,” wherein was stated thusly:
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and in order to better enable a rising generation to understand the history and principles of the founding of the United States in 1776, and, through this, form a more perfect Union, it is hereby ordered as follows:
Sec. 2.(c) The 1776 Commission shall:
(i) produce a report for the President, within 1 year of the date of this order, which shall be publicly disseminated, regarding the core principles of the American founding and how these principles may be understood to further enjoyment of “the blessings of liberty” and to promote our striving “to form a more perfect Union.”
end quotes
WHY did Joe Biden, without a word of explanation, rescind that Executive Order 13958 of November 2, 2020 on his very first day in office on 20 January 2021?
What very powerful message did Joe Biden intend to send to the American people by that action?
And when you put them together, the message becomes even more powerful, when you stop to consider the following language from Executive Order 13958 of November 2, 2020 that Democrat Joe Biden very clearly rejected on his very first day in office on 20 January 2021, as he seeks to totally change how American history is to be interpreted by imperial decree, to wit:
Section 1. Purpose.
The American founding envisioned a political order in harmony with the design of “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,” seeing the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as embodied in and sanctioned by natural law and its traditions.
end quotes
By rejecting that language, Joe Biden is making it very clear that he is totally rejecting our American heritage.
Getting back to the executive order and what else Joe Biden is rejecting, we have:
The formation of a republic around these principles marked a clear departure from previous forms of government, securing rights through a form of government that derives its legitimate power from the consent of the governed.
end quotes
That is what I learned as a young American, and that is what I believed when unlike Joe Biden, who came down with a serious case of asthma when it came time for him to stand up to the line and defend this nation against Communist aggression, I stood up and took the oath and went to Viet Nam and bled to defend OUR values, and that is what I believed when I got back to this country as a disabled veteran, and it is what I still believe, so why has Joe Biden rejected that language?
Getting back to the executive order Joe Biden rescinded on his first day in office, it goes on as follows:
Throughout its national life, our Republic’s exploration of the full meaning of these principles has led it through the ratification of a Constitution, civil war, the abolition of slavery, Reconstruction, and a series of domestic crises and world conflicts.
Those events establish a clear historical record of an exceptional Nation dedicated to the ideas and ideals of its founding.
end quotes
Is any of that false, people?
Joe Biden seems to think so.
And moving right along here, we get to the heart of the matter of what Trump was rejecting, which is what Joe Biden is defending, to wit:
Against this history, in recent years, a series of polemics grounded in poor scholarship has vilified our Founders and our founding.
end quotes
Indeed, if we go to the Cape Charles Mirror thread “Black Lives Matter is a Marxist group that wants to destroy the Nuclear family” August 9, 2020 by Wayne Creed http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/black-lives-matter-is-a-marxist-group-that-wants-to-destroy-the-nuclear-family/#comment-304594 we see that it is Joe Biden’s faction of Democrats who are pushing that meme, which takes us back to the 3executive order as follows:
Despite the virtues and accomplishments of this Nation, many students are now taught in school to hate their own country, and to believe that the men and women who built it were not heroes, but rather villains.
This radicalized view of American history lacks perspective, obscures virtues, twists motives, ignores or distorts facts, and magnifies flaws, resulting in the truth being concealed and history disfigured.
Failing to identify, challenge, and correct this distorted perspective could fray and ultimately erase the bonds that knit our country and culture together.
end quotes
And that is exactly what Joe Biden intends to do here – rip the heart out of OUR America and shred its soul, because that is what his base that put him in office wants him to do, for how else can his action of rescinding Trump’s executive order be interpreted?
Getting back to more of what Joe Biden has rejected, we have:
The recent attacks on our founding have highlighted America’s history related to race.
These one-sided and divisive accounts too often ignore or fail to properly honor and recollect the great legacy of the American national experience — our country’s valiant and successful effort to shake off the curse of slavery and to use the lessons of that struggle to guide our work toward equal rights for all citizens in the present.
Viewing America as an irredeemably and systemically racist country cannot account for the extraordinary role of the great heroes of the American movement against slavery and for civil rights — a great moral endeavor that, from Abraham Lincoln to Martin Luther King, Jr., was marked by religious fellowship, good will, generosity of heart, an emphasis on our shared principles, and an inclusive vision for the future.
As these heroes demonstrated, the path to a renewed and confident national unity is through a rediscovery of a shared identity rooted in our founding principles.
A loss of national confidence in these principles would place rising generations in jeopardy of a crippling self-doubt that could cause them to abandon faith in the common story that binds us to one another across our differences.
Without our common faith in the equal right of every individual American to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, authoritarian visions of government and society could become increasingly alluring alternatives to self-government based on the consent of the people.
Thus it is necessary to provide America’s young people access to what is genuinely inspiring and unifying in our history, as well as to the lessons imparted by the American experience of overcoming great national challenges.
This is what makes possible the informed and honest patriotism that is essential for a successful republic.
end quotes
Welcome, people, to the brave new world of Joe Biden who is intent on destroying our common faith in the equal right of every individual American to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as he provides us with an authoritarian vision of government and society with him and the Democrats in charge of every aspect of our lives.
Paul Plante says
And before we go further into why the concept of Joe Biden of all people in this country uniting all of the people in the United States of America is patently absurd, laughable and ludicrous, to understand more about how and why that is so, we need to first go back to the comment of our esteemed Constitutional scholar G Anderson @ January 23, 2021 at 3:27 pm, where he posted as follows, to wit:
Isn’t democracy designed for the “Common Good”.
A dictatorship is designed for personal interest.
end quotes
Not at all so, I reply, when we are talking about the Marxist dictatorship that descended down on America on 6 January 2021 when a howling shrieking, violent mob of Democrats stormed the U.S. Capitol and installed Joe Biden as DICTATOR of the United States of America in the style of the Marxists who now rule America, as we see in a political essay touting Marxism by Lea Ypi of the London School of Economics entitled “Legitimacy, Dictatorship and Utopia: A Marxist Perspective on Political Authority,” to wit:
Dictatorship for Marx and Engels is not the rule of one man as in the Roman republic.
Nor is it rule by a group of revolutionary leaders over a mass of uncultivated people, as in the French revolutionary case.
It is the rule of the oppressed majority of people, sufficiently aware of their oppression to want to change the existing state of affairs.
The way to reach this awareness where it is absent is through democratic political activism and the attempt to develop the political character of class struggle.
end quotes
The “oppressed majority,” of course, are the “people of color” and the LGBQT’s, nice people all, who through political activism put Joe Biden into the Oval Office as their “running dog” (a servile follower, especially of a political system) and cat’s-paw (a person who is used by another to carry out an unpleasant or dangerous task as in “Joe Biden was merely a cat’s paw of the Marxists in America).
Getting back to Marx, who is the Godhead of the Democrats, we have:
Marx and Engels’s conception of dictatorship has a profound democratic character, in line with the traditional understanding of democracy as rule by the people.
The distinction between dictatorship over the proletariat and dictatorship of the proletariat is essential to underline this point.
The political form so described exemplifies precisely the process of involvement and concrete political activity of the majority of the oppressed in the course of taking back control over the conditions of their social life.
It begins a work of social emancipation which does not rely on an elite of professional politicians, technocratic institutions or bureaucratic managers to achieve its desired political objectives but takes radical freedom to be progressively vindicated in the process of making oneself free.
As Lenin explained in seeking to further articulate Marx’s conception of legitimacy, the idea of democracy for the majority is different from the idea of complete democracy. 38
Thus the dictatorship of the proletariat is still different from communist society; only the latter can fully realise freedom.
Communism alone, Lenin emphasised, is capable of providing “really complete democracy, democracy without exceptions”.
Only in communism are people able to observe the elementary rules of social life “without force, without compulsion, without subordination, without the special apparatus for compulsion that is called the state“.
When the system is pervasively corrupt in the way we have described, losers have reasons to want to change it.
They rebel and seek to modify the rules governing the economic and social structure.
A period of political revolution ensues.
Losers re-write the constitution, profoundly modify property arrangements, change inheritance rules, abolish economic privileges and use the coercive power of the state to prepare the transition to a society in which everyone is truly free.
This is the dictatorship of the proletariat.
The dictatorship of the proletariat is not the final goal of the revolution, it is an institution that exercises political authority on a provisional basis.
end quotes
And that is exactly where we are now in this nation as of 6 January 2021, when Joe Biden assumed the dictatorship of America, which takes us to a story in RIGZONE entitled “Schumer Wants Biden to Bypass Congress on Climate” by Bloomberg | Ari Natter & Jennifer A. Dlouhy on January 26, 2021, where we have the Democratic Socialist “running dog” Charley “Chuck” Schumer, like Mark Antony, when the feast of the Lupercalia was being celebrated, carrying a diadem with a wreath of laurel tied round it, and holding it out to Caesar, encouraging Joe Biden to be a true Caesarian dictator, to wit:
(Bloomberg) — Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer called for President Joe Biden to declare a climate emergency, a controversial move that would give the new administration sweeping authority to circumvent Congress to combat global warming.
end quotes
Yes, indeed, people, Joe Biden as dictator does not need Congress, since as dictator, he can simply make laws on his own, which takes us back to that story, to wit:
Declaring a climate emergency could unlock new powers for Biden, including the ability to redirect funding for clean energy projects, shut down crude oil exports, suspend offshore drilling and curtail the movement of fossil fuels on pipelines, trains, and ships.
end quotes
Declaring a climate emergency allows Joe Biden to slip in the GREEN NEW DEAL of Democratic Socialist heroine AOC without any congressional oversight whatsoever i what it does, which again takes us back to that story, as follows:
Schumer also said he thought his party could advance major parts of a climate agenda — even a ban on conventional, gas-powered cars — through budget reconciliation, a process that allows easier passage of some tax and spending legislation on a simple majority vote.
Schumer emphasized that Democrats could use reconciliation to enact a ban on the manufacture of internal combustion engines powered by oil- and plant-based fuels.
He has previously said that if Democrats won control of the Senate he would put an ambitious $454 billion plan on the floor to remove gas-powered vehicles from American roads by 2040.
Biden has vowed to decarbonize the electricity sector by 2035 as part of his goal to reach zero net emissions by 2050, though many elements of his plan would require Congress to act.
The White House had no immediate comment on Schumer’s suggestion of declaring a climate emergency.
But a White House official said the president understands the magnitude of the climate crisis and cited his climate proposal calling for a whole-of-government approach.
Opponents of declaring an emergency have warned it could radicalize climate protection and alienate moderate Democrats whose support is needed to pass other major legislation, such as infrastructure spending, that could contain climate-related provisions.
Still, some environmentalists were heartened by the New York Democrat’s idea.
“Declaring a national emergency isn’t just symbolic,” said Brett Hartl, government affairs director at the Center for Biological Diversity.
“It unlocks additional powers to take on the climate crisis, and we can’t afford to wait any longer to muster the full powers of the federal government to combat this existential crisis.”
end quotes
So, does America need a dictator?
Stay tuned, more is yet to come!
Paul Plante says
And before we go further in here, it is important to have as background the catechism adhered to by Barack Obama which was passed down to Joe Biden as Obama’s anoited successor, which catechism guides the actions of the Democrats, and especially Democratic Socialist “running dog” Charley “Chuck” Schumer today, to wit:
Frederick Engels
The Principles of Communism
Written: October-November 1847
— 1 —
What is Communism?
Communism is the doctrine of the conditions of the liberation of the proletariat.
— 2 —
What is the proletariat?
The proletariat is that class in society which lives entirely from the sale of its labor and does not draw profit from any kind of capital; whose weal and woe, whose life and death, whose sole existence depends on the demand for labor – hence, on the changing state of business, on the vagaries of unbridled competition.
— 7 —
In what way do proletarians differ from slaves?
The slave is sold once and for all; the proletarian must sell himself daily and hourly.
The individual slave, property of one master, is assured an existence, however miserable it may be, because of the master’s interest.
The individual proletarian, property as it were of the entire bourgeois class which buys his labor only when someone has need of it, has no secure existence.
This existence is assured only to the class as a whole.
The slave is outside competition; the proletarian is in it and experiences all its vagaries.
The slave counts as a thing, not as a member of society.
Thus, the slave can have a better existence than the proletarian, while the proletarian belongs to a higher stage of social development and, himself, stands on a higher social level than the slave.
The slave frees himself when, of all the relations of private property, he abolishes only the relation of slavery and thereby becomes a proletarian; the proletarian can free himself only by abolishing private property in general.
— 14 —
What will this new social order have to be like?
Above all, it will have to take the control of industry and of all branches of production out of the hands of mutually competing individuals, and instead institute a system in which all these branches of production are operated by society as a whole – that is, for the common account, according to a common plan, and with the participation of all members of society.
It will, in other words, abolish competition and replace it with association.
Moreover, since the management of industry by individuals necessarily implies private property, and since competition is in reality merely the manner and form in which the control of industry by private property owners expresses itself, it follows that private property cannot be separated from competition and the individual management of industry.
Private property must, therefore, be abolished and in its place must come the common utilization of all instruments of production and the distribution of all products according to common agreement – in a word, what is called the communal ownership of goods.
In fact, the abolition of private property is, doubtless, the shortest and most significant way to characterize the revolution in the whole social order which has been made necessary by the development of industry – and for this reason it is rightly advanced by communists as their main demand.
— 18 —
What will be the course of this revolution?
Above all, it will establish a democratic constitution, and through this, the direct or indirect dominance of the proletariat.
Democracy would be wholly valueless to the proletariat if it were not immediately used as a means for putting through measures directed against private property and ensuring the livelihood of the proletariat.
The main measures, emerging as the necessary result of existing relations, are the following:
(i) Limitation of private property through progressive taxation, heavy inheritance taxes, abolition of inheritance through collateral lines (brothers, nephews, etc.) forced loans, etc.
(ii) Gradual expropriation of landowners, industrialists, railroad magnates and shipowners, partly through competition by state industry, partly directly through compensation in the form of bonds.
(iii) Confiscation of the possessions of all emigrants and rebels against the majority of the people.
(iv) Organization of labor or employment of proletarians on publicly owned land, in factories and workshops, with competition among the workers being abolished and with the factory owners, in so far as they still exist, being obliged to pay the same high wages as those paid by the state.
(v) An equal obligation on all members of society to work until such time as private property has been completely abolished.
Formation of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
(vi) Centralization of money and credit in the hands of the state through a national bank with state capital, and the suppression of all private banks and bankers.
(vii) Increase in the number of national factories, workshops, railroads, ships; bringing new lands into cultivation and improvement of land already under cultivation – all in proportion to the growth of the capital and labor force at the disposal of the nation.
(viii) Education of all children, from the moment they can leave their mother’s care, in national establishments at national cost.
Education and production together.
(ix) Construction, on public lands, of great palaces as communal dwellings for associated groups of citizens engaged in both industry and agriculture and combining in their way of life the advantages of urban and rural conditions while avoiding the one-sidedness and drawbacks of each.
(x) Destruction of all unhealthy and jerry-built dwellings in urban districts.
(xi) Equal inheritance rights for children born in and out of wedlock.
(xii) Concentration of all means of transportation in the hands of the nation.
It is impossible, of course, to carry out all these measures at once.
But one will always bring others in its wake.
Once the first radical attack on private property has been launched, the proletariat will find itself forced to go ever further, to concentrate increasingly in the hands of the state all capital, all agriculture, all transport, all trade.
All the foregoing measures are directed to this end; and they will become practicable and feasible, capable of producing their centralizing effects to precisely the degree that the proletariat, through its labor, multiplies the country’s productive forces.
Finally, when all capital, all production, all exchange have been brought together in the hands of the nation, private property will disappear of its own accord, money will become superfluous, and production will so expand and man so change that society will be able to slough off whatever of its old economic habits may remain.
— 20 —
What will be the consequences of the ultimate disappearance of private property?
Society will take all forces of production and means of commerce, as well as the exchange and distribution of products, out of the hands of private capitalists and will manage them in accordance with a plan based on the availability of resources and the needs of the whole society.
In this way, most important of all, the evil consequences which are now associated with the conduct of big industry will be abolished.
There will be no more crises; the expanded production, which for the present order of society is overproduction and hence a prevailing cause of misery, will then be insufficient and in need of being expanded much further.
Instead of generating misery, overproduction will reach beyond the elementary requirements of society to assure the satisfaction of the needs of all; it will create new needs and, at the same time, the means of satisfying them.
It will become the condition of, and the stimulus to, new progress, which will no longer throw the whole social order into confusion, as progress has always done in the past.
Big industry, freed from the pressure of private property, will undergo such an expansion that what we now see will seem as petty in comparison as manufacture seems when put beside the big industry of our own day.
This development of industry will make available to society a sufficient mass of products to satisfy the needs of everyone.
The same will be true of agriculture, which also suffers from the pressure of private property and is held back by the division of privately owned land into small parcels.
Here, existing improvements and scientific procedures will be put into practice, with a resulting leap forward which will assure to society all the products it needs.
In this way, such an abundance of goods will be able to satisfy the needs of all its members.
The division of society into different, mutually hostile classes will then become unnecessary.
Indeed, it will be not only unnecessary but intolerable in the new social order.
The existence of classes originated in the division of labor, and the division of labor, as it has been known up to the present, will completely disappear.
For mechanical and chemical processes are not enough to bring industrial and agricultural production up to the level we have described; the capacities of the men who make use of these processes must undergo a corresponding development.
Just as the peasants and manufacturing workers of the last century changed their whole way of life and became quite different people when they were drawn into big industry, in the same way, communal control over production by society as a whole, and the resulting new development, will both require an entirely different kind of human material.
People will no longer be, as they are today, subordinated to a single branch of production, bound to it, exploited by it; they will no longer develop one of their faculties at the expense of all others; they will no longer know only one branch, or one branch of a single branch, of production as a whole.
Even industry as it is today is finding such people less and less useful.
Industry controlled by society as a whole, and operated according to a plan, presupposes well-rounded human beings, their faculties developed in balanced fashion, able to see the system of production in its entirety.
The form of the division of labor which makes one a peasant, another a cobbler, a third a factory worker, a fourth a stock-market operator, has already been undermined by machinery and will completely disappear.
Education will enable young people quickly to familiarize themselves with the whole system of production and to pass from one branch of production to another in response to the needs of society or their own inclinations.
It will, therefore, free them from the one-sided character which the present-day division of labor impresses upon every individual.
Communist society will, in this way, make it possible for its members to put their comprehensively developed faculties to full use.
But, when this happens, classes will necessarily disappear.
It follows that society organized on a communist basis is incompatible with the existence of classes on the one hand, and that the very building of such a society provides the means of abolishing class differences on the other.
A corollary of this is that the difference between city and country is destined to disappear.
The management of agriculture and industry by the same people rather than by two different classes of people is, if only for purely material reasons, a necessary condition of communist association.
The dispersal of the agricultural population on the land, alongside the crowding of the industrial population into the great cities, is a condition which corresponds to an undeveloped state of both agriculture and industry and can already be felt as an obstacle to further development.
The general co-operation of all members of society for the purpose of planned exploitation of the forces of production, the expansion of production to the point where it will satisfy the needs of all, the abolition of a situation in which the needs of some are satisfied at the expense of the needs of others, the complete liquidation of classes and their conflicts, the rounded development of the capacities of all members of society through the elimination of the present division of labor, through industrial education, through engaging in varying activities, through the participation by all in the enjoyments produced by all, through the combination of city and country – these are the main consequences of the abolition of private property.
— 24 —
How do communists differ from socialists?
The so-called socialists are divided into three categories.
Democratic Socialists:
Finally, the third category consists of democratic socialists who favor some of the same measures the communists advocate, as described in Question 18, not as part of the transition to communism, however, but as measures which they believe will be sufficient to abolish the misery and evils of present-day society.
These democratic socialists are either proletarians who are not yet sufficiently clear about the conditions of the liberation of their class, or they are representatives of the petty bourgeoisie, a class which, prior to the achievement of democracy and the socialist measures to which it gives rise, has many interests in common with the proletariat.
It follows that, in moments of action, the communists will have to come to an understanding with these democratic socialists, and in general to follow as far as possible a common policy with them – provided that these socialists do not enter into the service of the ruling bourgeoisie and attack the communists.
— 25 —
What is the attitude of the communists to the other political parties of our time?
This attitude is different in the different countries.
In America, where a democratic constitution has already been established, the communists must make the common cause with the party which will turn this constitution against the bourgeoisie and use it in the interests of the proletariat – that is, with the agrarian National Reformers.
Against the governments, therefore, the communists must continually support the radical liberal party, taking care to avoid the self-deceptions of the bourgeoisie and not fall for the enticing promises of benefits which a victory for the bourgeoisie would allegedly bring to the proletariat.
Paul Plante says
“And I want to make it clear — there’s a lot of talk, with good reason, about the number of executive orders that I have signed — I’m not making new law; I’m eliminating bad policy.”
That, people, is the AUTOCRAT (a ruler who has absolute power as in “like many autocrats, Joe Biden found the exercise of absolute power addictive”) Joe Biden speaking to WE, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE in a Biden press release entitled “Remarks by President Biden at Signing of Executive Orders Advancing His Priority to Modernize Our Immigration System” on February 02, 2021.
And given that policy is derived from law, Joe is as chock full of horse**** as he ever was when he tells us that he is not making new law with this flurry of executive orders by which he is solidifying his grasp on power in the United States of America as an AUTOCRAT, or Saddam Hussein-like dictator – of course he is!
By changing policy, Joe is interpeting OUR laws the way his supporters want him to interpret the law, as if Joe were a Supreme Court Justice as well as the president put in office by Nancy Pelosi, a Junta of generals who have ringed Washington, D.C. with CORDON OF STEEL and an IRON CURTAIN to protect Joe from the American people, and a howling, screaming mob.
Getting back to the Biden propaganda spew meant to fool us as if we were all idiots like the Democrats who buy into this **** without question, the AUTOCRAT Joe goes on as follows:
What I’m doing is taking on the issues that — 99 percent of them — that the President — the last President of the United States issued executive orders I felt were very counterproductive to our security, counterproductive to who we are as a country, particularly in — in the area of immigration.
end quotes
Now, to get a feel for the the way OUR national government is supposed to work with respect to who sets policy, let’s go back in time for a moment to Franklin D. Roosevelt’s State of the Union Address of 1935, where we have as follows:
Mr. President, Mr. Speaker, Members of the Senate and House of Representatives, the Constitution wisely provides that the Chief Executive shall report to the Congress on the state of the Union, for through you, the chosen legislative representatives, our citizens everywhere may fairly judge the progress of our governing.
end quotes
Joe Biden, with his flurry of executive orders by which he is dismantling OUR Constitutional frame of government, is taking a long walk right around that, because as a Democrat, OUR Constitution does not apply to him.
Getting back to how OUR national government functioned in 1935 when FDR was president, a time when America was besieged with problems far worse than what Joe Biden is facing, his address to Congress continued as follows:
I recall to your attention my message to the Congress last June in which I said, “Among our objectives I place the security of the men, women, and children of the Nation first.”
That remains our first and continuing task: and in a very real sense every major legislative enactment of this Congress should be a component part of it.
In defining immediate factors which enter into our quest, I have spoken to the Congress and the people of three great divisions:
First.
The security of a livelihood through the better use of the national resources of the land in which we live.
Second.
The security against the major hazards and vicissitudes of life.
Third.
The security of decent homes.
I am now ready to submit to the Congress a broad program designed ultimately to establish all three of these factors of security – a program which because of many lost years will take many future years to fulfill.
end quotes
Focus on the words “I am now ready to submit to the Congress a broad program designed ultimately to establish all three of these factors of security …”
And then focus on the advice being given to Joe Biden by the Democratic Socialist “running dog” Charley “Chuck” Schumer in the RIGZONE entitled “Schumer Wants Biden to Bypass Congress on Climate” by Bloomberg | Ari Natter & Jennifer A. Dlouhy on January 26, 2021, where we have the Democratic Socialist “running dog” Charley “Chuck” Schumer encouraging Joe Biden to be a true Caesarian dictator, to wit:
(Bloomberg) — Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer called for President Joe Biden to declare a climate emergency, a controversial move that would give the new administration sweeping authority to circumvent Congress to combat global warming.
end quotes
And ask yourselves this one question: are we losing the soul of America here?
Think about it.
Paul Plante says
And as we American citizens who are LOYAL AMERICANS, not Democrats, and nor Republicans, but American citizens not affiliated with either faction, sit back on ponder the BIZARRE SPECTACLE of the Democrat Joe Biden coming into the office of chief magistrate of the United States of America on his very first day and sweeping aside the executive orders of Donald Trump with his own flurry of executive orders nullifying and rescinding the executive orders of Trump, saying at the same time, “And I want to make it clear — there’s a lot of talk, with good reason, about the number of executive orders that I have signed — I’m not making new law; I’m eliminating bad policy,” I’m finding myself reminded of these following words from FEDERALIST No. 62, titled “The Senate,” for the Independent Journal by either Alexander Hamilton or James Madison to the People of the State of New York, to wit:
Every nation, consequently, whose affairs betray a want of wisdom and stability, may calculate on every loss which can be sustained from the more systematic policy of their wiser neighbors.
But the best instruction on this subject is unhappily conveyed to America by the example of her own situation.
She finds that she is held in no respect by her friends; that she is the derision of her enemies; and that she is a prey to every nation which has an interest in speculating on her fluctuating councils and embarrassed affairs.
end quotes
Fluctuating councils and embarrassed affairs, people, and there we see it right before our very eyes on Joe Biden’s first day in office when he started hacking wildly with a meat axe at everything Trump had done in his four years in office, which four years in office were a reaction to the eight years Joe Biden and Hussein Obama held the office before Trump got there.
So, by telling us that Trump’s immigration policies were bad, is Joe actually trying to tell us that the immigration policies when he and Hussein Obama had the power before Trump took it away from them were good policies?
But if that were actually the case, then why is it that we find in a FindLaw blog a post entitled “Obama’s Immigration Plan Defeated by Deadlocked Supreme Court” by Casey C. Sullivan, Esq. on June 23, 2016 11:12 AM?
IF as Joe Biden wishes us to believe, the immigration policies of himself and Hussein Obama in place before Trump were such good policies, then wouldn’t the Supreme Court have noticed that?
A rational, thinking person would anyway, which takes us back to that blog post as follows:
The Supreme Court split four to four today in a case challenging one President Obama’s signature immigration reform efforts.
The case, United States v. Texas, was one of the Court’s highest profile disputes of the term, touching on a host of significant issues, from the ability of states to challenge federal immigration programs, to the extent of executive branch power, and to, not insignificantly, the status of millions of immigrants.
The split essentially puts the program, Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents or DAPA, on hold for the foreseeable future, leaving in place an injunction shutting down the program nationwide.
The Court has deadlocked several times since Justice Scalia’s death left the Court evenly divided earlier this term.
Today’s ruling is by far the most high-profile deadlock of the term, however.
Unable to reach a consensus, the split Court issued a ruling that is just one sentence long, as it does in all 4-4 ties:
The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided Court.
That leaves in place the Fifth Circuit ruling upholding a nation-wide injunction issued by Judge Andrew Hanen of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas.
Judge Hanen halted the program in February 2015, largely on administrative law grounds, finding that the change failed to comply with the Administrative Procedure Act’s notice and comment requirements.
But the case raised many significant issues beyond APA procedure.
Perhaps the largest of these issues was the extent of executive power to act on matters of immigration.
Frustrated by years of Congressional inaction on immigration, President Obama enacted DAPA via executive order, instructing federal immigration agencies to focus their deportation efforts on criminals, rather than parents of American citizens and residents.
DAPA defers deportation actions against such parents and provides them a path towards working legally in the country.
The states had argued that this act violated the Constitution’s Take Care Clause, which requires the President to faithfully execute the laws as they exist.
At question too was whether the states could even sue.
While acknowledging that immigration policy was largely the purview of the executive branch, the 26 states that challenged the law argued that DAPA would force them to provide benefits to applicable immigrants.
In the case of Texas, that meant drivers’ licenses.
Was that enough of an injury to allow them to sue?
Today’s split means that these questions won’t be answered anytime soon.
In the meantime, DAPA remains on hold, as it has been for over a year.
But the controversy over the program won’t go away just yet.
The case will continue to work its way back through the courts and will soon be before Judge Hanen again.
And Judge Hanen is no stranger to headline-making rulings.
Even as the Supreme Court considered the current case, Judge Hanen was ordering all Department of Justice attorneys to undergo ethics training, upset by potential misrepresentations made by DOJ lawyers in his court.
Meanwhile, the federal government could petition for a rehearing, should the Supreme Court become fully-staffed once again.
end quotes
For the record, that is a part of the BIG ******* MESS Hussein Obama and Joe Biden left behind them for Trump to have to deal with with the very hostile Democrats in the House and Senate dogging his every step and doing their damndest to hamstring him and cripple him, which being Democrats, they managed to do quite well, actually.
So, big question here: who really had the bad policy, and why?
Paul Plante says
And once again, as we American citizens who are LOYAL AMERICANS, not Democrats, and nor Republicans, but American citizens not affiliated with either faction, sit back and ponder the BIZARRE SPECTACLE of the Democrat Joe Biden coming into the office of chief magistrate of the United States of America on his very first day and sweeping aside the executive orders of Donald Trump with his own flurry of executive orders nullifying and rescinding the executive orders of Trump, saying at the same time, “And I want to make it clear — there’s a lot of talk, with good reason, about the number of executive orders that I have signed — I’m not making new law; I’m eliminating bad policy,” I’m finding myself reminded of these words of BIG DOG DEMOCRAT Nancy Pelosi in a video posted on The Guardian in an article entitled “Nancy Pelosi says Trump wants to ‘make America white again’ – video,” to wit:
US house speaker Nancy Pelosi says president Donald Trump wants to add a citizenship question to next year’s census because he wants to ‘make America white again.’
The California democrat says the administration is battling in federal court to insert the question because it would have a chilling effect on who responds.
Census experts and critics of the question say it would discourage people in the US illegally from responding, including large numbers of migrants from Central America
Source: Reuters
Tue 9 Jul 2019 01.54 EDT
Last modified on Tue 9 Jul 2019 03.29 EDT
end quotes
That idiotic and childish statement by the very ditzy Nancy Pelosi that Trump was trying to “make America white again” is an indication of just how ******* stupid and infantile are the Democrats who now have a lock on power in Washington, D.C., where they hold the nation’s capital in a CORDON OF STEEL to protect them from the American people, and it doesn’t bode well for the future, which takes us to these words from our political history, the political history rejected by Joe Biden his first day in office with another executive order because it is a history of white people, not Black people, to wit:
No government, any more than an individual, will long be respected without being truly respectable; nor be truly respectable, without possessing a certain portion of order and stability.
end quotes
Those too are words from FEDERALIST No. 62, titled “The Senate,” for the Independent Journal by either Alexander Hamilton or James Madison to the People of the State of New York, which raises the question of whether or not they are still true today, now that Joe Biden has rejected that white history with an executive order reversing Trump’s policy on history education in the United States of America today.
Will a government under Democrat Joe Biden be respected without being truly respectable; nor be truly respectable, without possessing a certain portion of order and stability?
Are things different for the Democrats because those words are from a white man, and the Democrats reject everything white men in this country have said about government, because everybody knows that white men, heteronormative white men, especially, have implicit bias because they are white and that makes them into white supremacists and white nationalists and racists and just plain bad people all the way around which is why everything they ever said about government should be rejected out of hand?
While we ponder that question, let’s go back to Federalist No. 62, where we have this to consider:
It is a misfortune incident to republican government, though in a less degree than to other governments, that those who administer it may forget their obligations to their constituents, and prove unfaithful to their important trust.
end quotes
And amen to that I say, as we watch Nancy Pelosi as speaker of the house selling access to what is supposed to be OUR government, not the government of the faction calling themselves “DEMOCRATS,” to the highest bidders.
And before we go further, let’s go back to fifth grade or fourth and answer the question “What is a Republican Government,” to wit:
* The power of government is held by the people.
* The people give power to leaders they elect to represent them and serve their interests.
* The representatives are responsible for helping all the people in the country, not just a few people.
end quotes
Going back to Federalist No. 62, we have further as follows:
What indeed are all the repealing, explaining, and amending laws, which fill and disgrace our voluminous codes, but so many monuments of deficient wisdom; so many impeachments exhibited by each succeeding against each preceding session; so many admonitions to the people, of the value of those aids which may be expected from a well-constituted senate?
A good government implies two things: first, fidelity to the object of government, which is the happiness of the people; secondly, a knowledge of the means by which that object can be best attained.
end quotes
And what we have now, as we are seeing with Joe Biden’s flurry of executive orders to wipe out everything Trump did by executive order, which was to straighten out the BIG ******* MESS Trump inherited from Joe Biden and Hussein Obama, is a big ******* mess what with all this repealing, explaining, and amending Joe is doing, which are nothing more than so many monuments of deficient wisdom, so many impeachments exhibited by each succeeding against each preceding administration, which is just plain stupid, as we see by going back to Federalist No. 62, to wit:
The internal effects of a mutable policy are still more calamitous.
It poisons the blessing of liberty itself.
It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man, who knows what the law is to-day, can guess what it will be tomorrow.
end quotes
And with Joe Biden now firmly ensconced in power with a CORDON OF STEEL around him to protect him from the American people, there is right where we find ourselves: NO man or woman who knows what the law is to-day has a clue as to what it will be tomorrow, and if it is something tomarrow, will it again be something different on the third day?
Or fourth?
Which again takes us back to Federalist No. 62, to wit:
In another point of view, great injury results from an unstable government.
The want of confidence in the public councils damps every useful undertaking, the success and profit of which may depend on a continuance of existing arrangements.
What prudent merchant will hazard his fortunes in any new branch of commerce when he knows not but that his plans may be rendered unlawful before they can be executed?
What farmer or manufacturer will lay himself out for the encouragement given to any particular cultivation or establishment, when he can have no assurance that his preparatory labors and advances will not render him a victim to an inconstant government?
In a word, no great improvement or laudable enterprise can go forward which requires the auspices of a steady system of national policy.
But the most deplorable effect of all is that diminution of attachment and reverence which steals into the hearts of the people, towards a political system which betrays so many marks of infirmity, and disappoints so many of their flattering hopes.
Paul Plante says
“The mutability of the laws of the States is found to be a serious evil.”
“The injustice of them has been so frequent and so flagrant as to alarm the most stedfast friends of Republicanism.”
That is future American president James Madison in a letter to Thomas Jefferson two hundred thirty-four (234) years ago on October 24, 1787, where “mutability” is defined as “liability or tendency to change,” so that on a day by day basis, one never knows what the law might be, and thus, cannot rationally and logically plan for any kind of future, never really knowing what that future might be, as we are witnessing right now as Joe Biden goes through everything Trump did with a meat-axe, and undoes it, as was just the case with Trump Executive Order 13967 of December 18, 2020, entitled “Promoting Beautiful Federal Civic Architecture.”
Not surprisingly, like his namesake Joe Stalin, who Joe Biden likes because Frank Roosevelt, as good a Democrat as Joe Biden really liked Joe Stalin and thought he represented the future, Joe Biden is into what is known in architectural circles as Brutalist architecture based on an autocratic belief that government building should project power of the ruler and thus inspire fear in the masses, whereas in Executive Order 13967 of December 18, 2020, Trump stated thusly, to wit:
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered as follows:
Section 1. Purpose.
Societies have long recognized the importance of beautiful public architecture.
Ancient Greek and Roman public buildings were designed to be sturdy and useful, and also to beautify public spaces and inspire civic pride.
Throughout the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, public architecture continued to serve these purposes.
The 1309 constitution of the City of Siena required that “[w]hoever rules the City must have the beauty of the City as his foremost preoccupation . . . because it must provide pride, honor, wealth, and growth to the Sienese citizens, as well as pleasure and happiness to visitors from abroad.”
Three centuries later, the great British Architect Sir Christopher Wren declared that “public buildings [are] the ornament of a country.”
“[Architecture] establishes a Nation, draws people and commerce, makes the people love their native country . . . Architecture aims at eternity[.]”
Notable Founding Fathers agreed with these assessments and attached great importance to Federal civic architecture.
They wanted America’s public buildings to inspire the American people and encourage civic virtue.
President George Washington and Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson consciously modeled the most important buildings in Washington, DC, on the classical architecture of ancient Athens and Rome.
They sought to use classical architecture to visually connect our contemporary Republic with the antecedents of democracy in classical antiquity, reminding citizens not only of their rights but also their responsibilities in maintaining and perpetuating its institutions.
AND WHOA, STOP RIGHT THERE, says the AUTOCRAT Joe Biden!
First of all, lose this “civic virtue” bull****, because we are a DEMOCRACY now, and there is no room in the democracy of the Democrats for such a thing as civic virtue, because it would thoroughly **** the works when it comes to Democrat fundraising, and raking off graft.
So for that reason alone, Trump’s Executive Order 13967 of December 18, 2020 had to go.
And Joe Biden does not want federal buildings inspiring the American people; he wants them striking fear into the American people.
Hence his choice of the Brutalist style of Architecture that Trump was rejecting.
And then, Trump’s executive order was based on RACISM, WHITE SUPREMACY and WHITE NATIONALISM with its reference to the totally disgraced names of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson who Joe Biden has called anathema down on because they owned slaves, and thus are part of a history that Joe Biden rejected by executive order on his first day in office on 20 January 2021.
Thus, any architecture designs dating back to them are now verboten in the America of Joe Biden and the Democrats because they are RACIST and intended to show WHITE POWER to keep the Black man down, whereas the Black folks and South Americans who form the core of Joe’s support are comfortable with Stalinist architecture, which then takes us to this:
They sought to use classical architecture to visually connect our contemporary Republic with the antecedents of democracy in classical antiquity, reminding citizens not only of their rights but also their responsibilities in maintaining and perpetuating its institutions.
end quotes
We’re having none of that **** under a Biden administration, says Joe Biden, as he signed all of that into non-existence.
There will be no talk of a REPUBLIC while Joe Biden is in power – WE’RE A DEMOCRACY NOW!
Got that, people?
Stuart Bell says
Op-Ed: To Heal the Nation, Biden Must Apologize?
Apologies will never change what he has done. Every media outlet, social media platform, and court put their fingers in their ears and shut their eyes. The complicity was breathtaking. I am not aware of any court in America – including SCOTUS – that allowed a shred evidence to be heard.
He needs to turn himself in.
Paul Plante says
Just as Biden will NEVER apologize, and if you notice, I was very careful to say “IF HE REALLY WANTS TO HEAL THE NATION,” which Joe Biden has no intention of doing other than with the bayonet, he has to apologize; Joe Biden is not going to relinquish the dictatorial power he now has over our lives, which dictatorial power was awarded to him by Nancy Pelosi with the backing of a high-ranking military Junta in Washington, which has Joe Biden safely ensconced in a RING OF STEEL
Joe Biden has a Stalin complex, or a Hitler complex, two sides of one coin, or an Idi Amin complex, or a Saddam Hussein complex, or a Cromwellian complex that will not allow him to be less than a complete autocrat.
Joe is a hack politician who never really ever worked a day in his life, a college football brawler who suddenly came down with the worst case of asthma that you could ever imagine, which prevented Joe from fulfilling his dream to be a Marine platoon leader leading his screaming troops up some mountain in VEET NAM to root out an entrenched enemy battalion or two, so that Joe had to fall back on a career as a hack politician where he was a two-time loser in the race for the white house, and after holding the empty coat of Barack Obama for eight years, Joe now has the power, and like any bully, Joe is now going to use it, like Sulla the Roman tyrant, or Joe Stalin, to rid himself of his political enemies, which are us.
Paul Plante says
But let us have done with the bourgeois objections to Communism.
We have seen above, that the first step in the revolution by the working class is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class to win the battle of democracy.
The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible.
– Manifesto of the Communist Party, Chapter II. Proletarians and Communists
Paul Plante says
What Stuart Bell and others in this country have not yet realized and come to grips with is the fact that on 6 January 2021, they lost the “battle of democracy” to the Marxists, in what appears to be a repeat in this country of the events in Germany on March 23, 1933 when Adolph Hitler appeared in the German Reichstag as the newly-appointed Chancellor to announce his Enabling Act of 1933, to wit:
Ladies and Gentlemen of the German Reichstag!
By agreement with the Reich Government, today the National Socialist German Workers’ Party and the German National People’s Party have presented to you for resolution a notice of motion concerning a “Law for Removing the Distress of Volk and Reich.”
The reasons for this extraordinary measure are as follows: In November 1918, the Marxist organizations seized the executive power by means of a Revolution.
end quotes
When Hitler made reference to the “Marxist organization that seized the executive power by means of a Revolution,” which just happened again in this country on 6 January 2021, he was making reference to the Social Democratic Party of Germany.
Established in 1863, the SPD is by far the oldest existing political party represented in the Bundestag and was one of the first Marxist-influenced parties in the world.
From the 1890s through the early 20th century, the SPD was Europe’s largest Marxist party and was consistently the most popular party in Germany.
The SPD played a leading role in the German Revolution of 1918–1919 and was chiefly responsible for the foundation of the Weimar Republic.
SPD politician Friedrich Ebert served as the first President of Germany and the SPD was the strongest party until 1932.
After the rise of the Nazi Party to power, it was banned in 1933 and operated in exile as the Sopade.
end quotes
And now, in this country, they have exacted their long-sought after revenge, and in what is a stunning reversal of the tactics the Nazis used against the Communists with the Reichstag fire, believed set by the Nazis, but blamed on the Communists, the Marxists staged an “insurrection” at the Capitol on 6 January 2021 and blamed it on Trump and his supporters.
Very slick and very well orchestrated and now the Marxists own our national government!
And seriously, people, is there anyone out there over the age of 12 who is surprised at this?
Are there really people in America today who don’t know this history?
This is history that I learned as a five-year old AMERICAN citizen on the first day of Kindergarten after the close of WWII, and the reason this was being taught to us as children back then was to prepare us for what just occurred in Washington, D.C. on 6 January 2021 when we lost our Republic and became a Marxist democracy.
As it was explained to us back then, the struggle between those committed to communism and and those opposed to communism which played out in Europe before and during WWII was next going to appear here, for many reasons, starting out with the fact that of all the nations on the earth to overthrow, the United States was the prize of prizes.
Why?
Well, according to the communist game plan, for international communism to finally succeed, it was necessary for the United States to become a communist nation, and the overthrow, or take-over of the government of the United States has been discussed by the communists since the 1800’s, which is how long this power struggle has been going on.
Those words above from The Communist Manifesto about the first step in the revolution by the working class is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class to win the battle of democracy were written by Karl Marx and Fredrick Engels on June 24, 1872, just a few years after the insurrection and civil war of the Democrats in this country was crushed by the forces of the Republic that was just defeated by the Democrats (Marxists) on 6 January 2021.
And once again, can anyone possibly be surprised by any of this, which has never been any kind of secret?
Consider the THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR article on October 22, 2017 entitled “On Neo-Fascism in America today in the Guise of Progressivism” http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/paul-plante-on-neo-fascism-in-america-today-in-the-guise-of-progressivism/ or THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR article on October 14, 2018 titled “Op-Ed: Fighting for the Soul of America” http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/op-ed-fighting-for-the-soul-of-america/ or THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR article on July 24, 2016 entitled “On Alleged Progressivism In America in 2016” http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/paul-plante-on-alleged-progressivism-in-america/ wherein was clearly stated thusly:
In the name of “progressivism,” which it most assuredly is not, if brought into power in this up-coming presidential election, the Democratic Party in the United States of America intends to impose on these United States of America a tyranny not seen in this land since the time of the tyranny of King George III back in 1776, a tyranny similar to that now on-going in Turkey under Erdogan where Turkish society is being “purged” of Gulenist elements.
In support of that assertion, all I need do is to refer us to page 14 of a document, a manifesto, really, with manifesto being a public declaration of policy and aims, especially one issued before an election by a political party or candidate, titled the 2016 Democratic Party Platform, July 21, 2016, As Approved by the Democratic Platform Committee July 8-9, 2016 – Orlando, FL, where we find these following words of importance to us all in this nation: Ending Systemic Racism.
Systemic refers to something that is spread throughout, system-wide, affecting a group or system, such as a society as a whole.
In other words, in the words of the Democrat Manifesto for 2016, American society is sick from one end to the other, so that it is now time for the Democrat Party to take the law into its own hands to purge the United States of America of this “systemic racism” the way Turkey is being purged of Gulenism.
In that section of its manifesto, we are informed as follows:
Democrats will fight to end institutional and systemic racism in our society.
We will challenge and dismantle the structures that define lasting racial, economic, political, and social inequity.
end quote
Dismantle the structures.
Focus your thoughts on that for a moment if you will, people, especially the word “dismantle.”
The Democrats, who according to Gallup polling in 2010 constituted just 31% of Americans, have determined that they have the right to dismantle OUR nation and re-structure it the way they want it to be for them.
More to the point, that 31% of Americans have made a broad-brush accusation with that unsupported claim of theirs that there is systemic racism all throughout this land.
Where is their evidence?
The answer is they don’t have any and they don’t need any.
It is how they “feel,” and for them, that is all that is needed, and that is good enough.
Based on their “feelings,” our nation has to be “dismantled” and then re-structured in their image, because they alone know what is good for the rest of us in this nation.
end quotes
2021 – THEY WON!
Paul Plante says
The Communist Manifesto had, as its object, the proclamation of the inevitable impending dissolution of modern bourgeois property.
Now the question is: can the Russian obshchina, though greatly undermined, yet a form of primeval common ownership of land, pass directly to the higher form of Communist common ownership?
Or, on the contrary, must it first pass through the same process of dissolution such as constitutes the historical evolution of the West?
The only answer to that possible today is this: If the Russian Revolution becomes the signal for a proletarian revolution in the West, so that both complement each other, the present Russian common ownership of land may serve as the starting point for a communist development.
Karl Marx & Frederick Engels
January 21, 1882, London
Paul Plante says
The Communist League, an international association of workers, which could of course be only a secret one, under conditions obtaining at the time, commissioned us, the undersigned, at the Congress held in London in November 1847, to write for publication a detailed theoretical and practical programme for the Party.
Such was the origin of the following Manifesto, the manuscript of which travelled to London to be printed a few weeks before the February [French] Revolution [in 1848].
First published in German, it has been republished in that language in at least twelve different editions in Germany, England, and America.
It was published in English for the first time in 1850 in the Red Republican, London, translated by Miss Helen Macfarlane, and in 1871 in at least three different translations in America.
Karl Marx & Frederick Engels
June 24, 1872, London
Paul Plante says
Way back in 1966, perhaps before Stuart Bell was even born, not that it makes a difference one way or the other, there was a song that came out and caught people’s attention with its words, “There’s something happening here; what it is ain’t exactly clear; there’s a man with a gun over there, telling me I’ve got to beware.”
What caught people’s attention in 1966 was the implication to all of us of those words, because for a whole generation or more, words like that HAD NOT been heard here before.
A police state?
Is that what we are becoming, people started asking themselves?
And of course we are, was the easy and correct answer, and now, we are!
And what Stuart Bell has not yet grasped is that on 6 January 2021, he and all the other Americans who are now considered the “oppressor” class, lost their government to the Marxists in a very slick and very well orchestrated COUP, and they are not going to get it back, because America is now the Republic that is no more, and Joe Biden is very much a Stalinist dictator bent on totally eradicating any memory of his predecessor in office as we clearly see in the Business Insider article “Biden revoked a slew of Trump executive orders, including one restricting funds to ‘anarchist’ cities and one insisting on neoclassical architecture” by Mia Jankowicz on February 25, 2021, where we had as follows:
President Joe Biden on Wednesday undid a series of Trump-era executive orders and memoranda.
He’s cutting “anarchist” city designations and will stop championing neoclassical federal buildings.
It’s Biden’s latest move to undo his predecessor’s legacy, much of which he can do unilaterally.
end quotes
Now, think on those words in that last sentence for a moment, people, those of you are rational, lucid, capable of thinking for yourself as opposed to drinking Biden KOOL-AID, and able to employ critical thinking skills to you benefit as a citizen, and ask yourself this critical question, to wit:
IF THE AUTOCRAT JOE BIDEN IS UNDOING THE LEGACY OF DONALD TRUMP, ESPECIALLY WITH REGARD TO THE ANARCHIST CITIES THAT ARE NOW BEING REWARDED BY JOE BIDEN FOR HELPING HIM AND NANCY PELOSI CREATE THE NEEDED VIOLENT DIVERSION ON 6 JANUARY 2021 THAT PROPELLED JOE BIDEN INTO POWER, EXACTLY WHAT LEGACY IS HE REPLACING IT WITH, WHEN HE IS VERY OBVIOUSLY BEING QUITE PARTIAL TO THE ANARCHISTS WHO ARE INTENT ON BRINGING DOWN OUR GOVERNMENT AND REPLACING IT WITH ANARCHY, CHAOS AND VIOLENCE?
And that takes us to Wikipedia and a word I learned as a young American, that word being Proscription, which is, in current usage, a ‘decree of condemnation to death or banishment’ and can be used in a political context to refer to state-approved murder or banishment.
The term originated in Ancient Rome, where it included public identification and official condemnation of declared enemies of the state and it often involved confiscation of property.
Its usage has been significantly widened to describe governmental and political sanctions of varying severity on individuals and classes of people who have fallen into disfavor, from the en masse suppression of adherents of unorthodox ideologies to the suppression of political rivals or personal enemies.
end quotes
That is what Joe Biden is doing to Trump and the supporters of Trump.
Is there anyone out there who doubts that?
Paul Plante says
The 1888 English Edition of the Communist Manifesto, the Bible of Barack Obama, AOC, Bernie Sanders and BLACK LIVES MATTER:
The Manifesto was published as the platform of the Communist League, a working men’s association, first exclusively German, later on international, and under the political conditions of the Continent before 1848, unavoidably a secret society.
At a Congress of the League, held in November 1847, Marx and Engels were commissioned to prepare a complete theoretical and practical party programme.
Since 1850, the German text had been reprinted several times in Switzerland, England, and America.
In 1872, it (Communist Manifesto) was translated into English in New York, where the translation was published in Woodhull and Claflin’s Weekly.
From this English version, a French one was made in Le Socialiste of New York.
Thus the history of the Manifesto reflects the history of the modern working-class movement; at present, it is doubtless the most wide spread, the most international production of all socialist literature, the common platform acknowledged by millions of working men from Siberia to California.
The Manifesto being our joint production, I consider myself bound to state that the fundamental proposition which forms the nucleus belongs to Marx.
That proposition is: That in every historical epoch, the prevailing mode of economic production and exchange, and the social organization necessarily following from it, form the basis upon which is built up, and from which alone can be explained the political and intellectual history of that epoch; that consequently the whole history of mankind (since the dissolution of primitive tribal society, holding land in common ownership) has been a history of class struggles, contests between exploiting and exploited, ruling and oppressed classes; That the history of these class struggles forms a series of evolutions in which, nowadays, a stage has been reached where the exploited and oppressed class — the proletariat — cannot attain its emancipation from the sway of the exploiting and ruling class — the bourgeoisie — without, at the same time, and once and for all, emancipating society at large from all exploitation, oppression, class distinction, and class struggles.
This proposition, which, in my opinion, is destined to do for history what Darwin’ s theory has done for biology, we both of us, had been gradually approaching for some years before 1845.
– Frederick Engels
January 30, 1888, London
Paul Plante says
And before we develop this history of the long struggle between the Commies and non-Commies for control of the national government of the United States of America further, let us for the moment go to an article by Victor Davis Hanson entitled “Will a hard-left turn lead to pushback?” on February 6, 2021, where we have as follows:
The corruption of the Renaissance Church prompted the Reformation, which in turn sparked a Counter-Reformation of reformist, and more zealous, Catholics.
The cultural excesses and economic recklessness of the Roaring ’20s were followed by the bleak, dour and impoverished years of the Great Depression.
The 1960s counterculture led to Richard Nixon’s landslide victory in 1972, as “carefree hippies” turned into careerist “yuppies.”
So social, cultural, economic and political extremism prompt reactions — and sometimes counterreactions.
end quotes
Now, if one has bothered to study the history of so-called “Western Civilization,” which all in all isn’t very civilized, one finds that last sentence to be quite true – social, cultural, economic and political extremism such as what is now descending down on us since the COUP on 6 January 2021 do prompt reactions, although as I was told when young, once the lid is yanked or jerked off of Pandora’s Box, nobody knows what is coming next, which is where we are right now in the United States of America as “Papa Joe” Biden rewrites American history and OUR Constitution with a never-ending flurry of executive orders intended to excise the name of Donald Trump from the history books, as if his administration had never happened, which takes us back to that article , to wit:
The Bush-Clinton-Obama continuum of 24 years cemented the bipartisan fusion administrative state.
Donald Trump and his “Make America Great Again” agenda were its pushback.
The counterreaction to the populism of the Trump reset — or Trump himself — is as of yet unsure.
Joe Biden’s tenure may mark a return to business as usual of the Bush-Clinton years.
Or, more likely, it will accelerate the current hard-left trajectory.
end quotes
And it is that hard-left trajectory that is under discussion in here, as we go back to the original post wherein was stated So, yes, people in the United States of America, one single man, in that case, Lyndon Baines Johnson, can split the nation asunder and bring us to the brink of a civil war, which thought takes us to a Yahoo News article entitled “Joe Biden, now president-elect, declares it is ‘time to heal in America’” by David Knowles, Brittany Shepherd and Hunter Walker on November 7, 2020, where we had as follows:
In his first speech as president-elect on Saturday, Joe Biden said he hoped to unify the nation after an especially bitter campaign with President Trump, who has so far refused to concede defeat in the race.
end quotes
Now, when I read that part about Joe Biden of all people saying he hoped to “unify” the nation, my first thought was, yeah, right, Joe, and how exactly do you propose to do that after working so hard to divide it?
Yes, people, like Democrat Lyndon Baines Johnson before him, Joe Biden has done more to divide this nation than has Donald Trump, which proposition is before us in this essay.
end quotes
And again, let me make it incandescently clear that I am not a Trump supporter and never was, nor am I a Republican or Conservative; as quaint as it might sound, I am an AMERICAN CITIZEN, and not only Joe Biden, but his entire party, with its long history of criminal activity and political violence has done more to destroy this country internally than any other enemy we have on the face of this earth, which takes us back to that article, as follows:
Either way, it seems that Biden is intent on provoking just such a pushback by his record number of early and often radical executive orders — a tactic candidate Biden condemned.
On almost every issue — open borders, blanket amnesties, canceling the Keystone XL pipeline, promoting the Green New Deal and hard-left appointees — Biden is touting positions that likely do not earn 50 percent public support.
When Biden made a Faustian bargain with his party’s hard-left wing of Bernie Sanders, Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to win the election, he took on the commitment to absorb some of their agenda and to appoint their ideologues.
But he also soon became either unwilling or unable to stand up to them.
Now they — and the country — are in a revolutionary frenzy.
end quotes
And there are some words we LOYAL AMERICANS who are not Marxists or Democrats should pay some attention to, the revolutionary frenzy now sweeping America since the MARXIST REVOLUTION on 6 January 2021, that did away with so much of OUR Constitution as it pertained to how an American president was supposed to be SELECTED, based on MERIT, and instead turned it into a popularity contest, much like judging a dance competition between teenagers on American Bandstand, wherever the side that screeched its little hearts out the loudest was the winner, no matter how crappy they might have actually dances, because its about popularity, not quality or competence, so that now, whoever makes the most outrageous claims of what they are going to do as president, and how much government money they are going to reward their followers with becomes the next president, which takes us back to that article once more, as follows:
The San Francisco Board of Education has voted to rename more than 40 schools honoring the nation’s best — Washington, Jefferson and Lincoln — largely on racist grounds that they are dead, mostly white males.
Statues continue to fall.
Names change.
The iconic dates, origins and nature of America itself continue to be attacked to meet leftist demands.
And still, it is not enough for the new McCarthyites.
Social media are banning tens of thousands. Silicon Valley and Wall Street monopolies go after smaller upstart opponents.
A wrong word destroys a lifelong career.
Formerly sane pundits now call for curtailing the First Amendment.
Thousands of federal troops blanket a now-militarized Washington, D.C.
If Trump’s pushback tried to return to traditions ignored during the Obama years, Biden’s reset promises to become far more radical than Obama’s entire eight years.
Had Biden continued his moderate campaign veneer, the current left-wing radicalism might not have prompted a counterreaction.
Instead, Biden is now unapologetically leading the most radical left-wing movement in the nation’s history.
Pundits thought Biden’s prior hints of a single four-year term would make him a weak lame duck.
Instead, the idea of just one term has liberated the 78-year-old Biden.
We forget that septuagenarians can be as reckless as 20-year-olds.
Some old guys can feel their careers have only a few remaining years and might as well go out with a bang — and a legacy.
For now, Biden enjoys a congressional majority for the next 24 months.
He has no plans to run for re-election.
He sees both realities as a liberating blank check to accomplish what the much more heralded rock star Barack Obama never could.
Experts assured voters that Biden would work on a bipartisan consensus and bring back “normality.”
He would “unite” the country.
That will not happen.
How ironic that Biden will not just be pushed and pressured by the radicals whom he brought to power, but he may be leading them forward to cement an even harder-left legacy.
Will there be a reaction to this extremism?
The left is assured that radical changes in voting laws and demography, the fears of COVID-19, the antifa-Black Lives Matter uprising and anger at Trump over the Jan. 6 Capitol riot have all permanently changed the electorate — and pushed it further leftward.
If they are wrong, they have instead alienated and insulted the American people and will reap the whirlwind in 2022 of the wind they are now sowing.
Paul Plante says
The left believe, and not without reason, since nothing they do is by accident, that radical changes in voting laws and demography, the fears of COVID-19, the antifa-Black Lives Matter uprising and anger at Trump over the Jan. 6 Capitol riot have all permanently changed the electorate, and pushed it further leftward, and while they have indeed alienated and insulted the majority of the American people, there will be no whirlwind in 2022 for them to reap of the wind they are now sowing, because in four years, the majority of the American people will have become habituated to an American president being a third-world, banana republic tin-pot dictator who rules by fiat and executive orders from his heavily-defended and highly militarized “GREEN ZONE” where he is protected by his loyal DEMOCRAT GUARDS who have been carefully vetted to ensure that no one even remotely suspected of having a drop or ounce of “white” blood is a member of their ranks, which takes us to this quote from the past which has led to this present we have now descended into since our Republic fell on 6 January 2021 in the slickest COUP the world has ever seen, to wit:
“Lenin was the greatest man, second only to Hitler, and that the difference between communism and the Hitler faith was very slight.”
– Joseph Paul Goebbels, Nazi Propaganda Minister as quoted in The New York Times article, “HITLERITE RIOT IN BERLIN: Beer Glasses Fly When Speaker Compares Hitler and Lenin,” (Nov. 28, 1925) p. 4.
Paul Plante says
Pelosi Remarks Introducing President Biden at 2021 House Democratic Issues Conference
March 3, 2021
Press Release
Washington, D.C. – Speaker Nancy Pelosi introduced President Joe Biden at House Democrats’ 2021 Democratic Issues Conference.
Below are the Speaker’s remarks after being introduced by Congresswoman Angie Craig of Minnesota:
Speaker Pelosi. Thank you so much.
I’m so honored by your introduction.
This is a very special evening for me, my colleagues, to be introducing for the very first time Joe Biden as President of the United States.
And I could – my heart could not be filled with more joy to have that occasion marked by introducing him to our House Democratic Caucus.
That joy is also increased by being introduced by Angie Craig.
And I’m so glad she referenced her wife and her four sons, whom I love hearing about, and now in front of the President of the United States.
Thank you, Angie, for your leadership, your friendship and your very generous introduction.
You’ve made this evening very special to me.
A special evening.
First time, Mr. President, that I’m introducing you as President of the United States to my great House Democratic Caucus.
That makes it even better.
My colleagues, as you know, our nation is blessed with Joe Biden as President of the United States.
He is an extraordinary President.
He knows how to get the job done.
When our nation faced the Great Recession, it was Joe Biden who led the implementation and accountability of ARRA, helping to create and save millions of jobs.
That experience serves him well with the American Rescue Plan.
When the Democratic Caucus was passing the Affordable Care Act, Joe Biden was a partner for progress in the White House.
And that experience serves him well as we face the coronavirus crisis.
Joe Biden has been a voice of reason and resilience with a clear path to lead us out of this crisis.
On another front, I want to tell you about Joe Biden: the Joe Biden I’ve seen with parents of victims of gun violence, listening to them and offering them the empathy, grace and courage that he can give them as someone with a terrible understanding of a father who has shared their experience.
Continuing on the family front, Joe and Jill Biden have taken their experience as a boost to our family to help ensure that servicemembers, military families, and veterans have their service respected, the support that they need and the benefits they have earned.
He is our Commander in Chief.
And Joe Biden is the first president in 40 years to have a son who served in a war.
He knows what it’s like for military families of those who are deployed.
He knows the role that our hidden heroes and caregivers have for returning veterans.
And he’s so proud of Beau.
He’s concerned about other veterans who have suffered from cancer.
Men are at – many after being exposed to toxins in the burn pits of Iraq.
That is just one reason for his enthusiasm for the Cancer Moonshot, demonstrated as recently as today by a bipartisan meeting on cancer at the White House.
I’ve seen President Biden working behind the scenes, hammering out solutions for the American people.
He is a leader with the humility to seek expertise and science and the confidence to act upon it.
On the policy side, President Biden has been a longtime legislative partner, including for VAWA, for gun violence prevention, and of course, with his connection to America’s working families.
On the global front, President Biden is a distinguished world leader who commands the respect of the allies and adversaries alike.
I especially, personally enjoyed seeing – as a Catholic I enjoyed seeing him received at the Vatican when the Pope was inaugurated – when Pope Francis was inaugurated.
On the political front, Joe Biden has campaigned with or for many Members of Congress, almost everyone in this virtual setting.
Thank you, Mr. President, for being there and for – with us and for us.
My husband, Paul always says, ‘I just wonder how long into a speech it will be before Nancy starts talking about her grandchildren.’
Our grandchildren, my grandchildren, have for many, many years, been longtime friends of Joe Biden.
They have a range in age, but all of them love Joe Biden.
But let me tell you one story,
I think was like 2013, four and five year old, two of mine, Paul and Thomas.
We were at an event, the DCCC in New York, and Joe Biden was the keynote speaker.
They were so excited to see him because they’d heard so much about him from their cousins.
And they met him they talked about pets and things like that.
And afterward, after the luncheon was over, I took them got candy.
Don’t tell their mom.
I took them for candy at a place, Dylan’s in New York, where they have sort of like swinging doors.
You have to get through the doors from one part of the store to the next.
So, here they are, the place is packed and jammed.
Kids are making all this noise over there on the side.
And all of a sudden, I hear them pronounce, ‘In order to open these doors, we do not say open sesame, we say “Open Biden.”’
‘That’s our magic word.’
Open Biden?
I love it.
Now more than ever, we need a battle-tested, forward-looking leader who will fight For The People, a President with the values, experience and the strategic thinking to bring our nation together and to build a better, fairer world for our children.
As President, he is taking us to new heights of inclusion in the success of America.
President Biden is a leader who is the personification of hope and courage, values, authenticity and integrity.
Joe Biden is President – as President and with Democratic Majorities in the House and Senate, we will deliver bold progress For The People.
And now it is my privilege to present the [46th] President of the United States, as my children – grandchildren would say, ‘Open Biden,’ Mr. President.
end quotes
Open Biden?
Sounds pretty weird to me, but then, I am neither a Democrat nor a Pelosi KOOL-AID drinker, so I suppose it’s only natural that it would sound weird to me.
Paul Plante says
And talk about something absolutely bizarre, here is ditzy Nancy Pelosi on camera with her “We Open Biden, I love It” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_1DgV3NJ0ng .
People who have watched are gob-smacked and dumbfounded, and wonder if she is on some kind of drugs, or whether due to her advanced age, she is simply gone total loony-tunes.
And this is the woman who rules the United States of America as if she were Catherine the Great of Russia!
Scary!
Very, very scary!
What we need is a Constitutional amendment to deal with removing people of questionable sanity like her from office, because she is a clear and present danger to our nation.
Paul Plante says
According to a Reuters article on March 08, 2021, entitled “Biden Grants Temporary Protected Status to Venezuelans in US Who Fled Country’s Turmoil,” the Biden administration is granting temporary protected status to Venezuelan migrants living in the United States and is also working to coordinate international pressure against President Nicolas Maduro to hold free and fair elections, senior U.S. officials said on Monday.
Staying with that article, it goes on as follows:
The decision, which could aid an estimated 320,000 people, fulfills a promise that President Joe Biden made during the 2020 election campaign to give shelter to Venezuelans who left their homeland amid economic collapse, humanitarian crisis and political turmoil under Maduro.
The decision stems from “extraordinary temporary conditions” in Venezuela, including “widespread hunger and malnutrition, growing presence and influence of non-state armed groups, a crumbling infrastructure,” one official said.
“It is not safe for them to return,” the official added.
end quotes
And that in turn takes us back to 2016, and the document “Resistance Rising: Socialist Strategy in the Age of Political Revolution” on June 25, 2016, where we had as follows:
A summary of Democratic Socialists of America’s Strategy Document – June 2016
2016 was a game changing year for leftists and progressives.
We are finally reemerging as a vital and powerful force after an extended period of stagnation and demoralization, and we face a political landscape more favorable than perhaps at any time since the 1960s.
Insurgent Responses to Neoliberalism
Given the profound and sustained defeats suffered by the Left and progressive movements during this period, by the mid- 2000s socialists and progressives in the United States and Europe could boast of virtually no examples of successful resistance to neoliberalism.
Many turned their eyes to South America, which during this time was practically the only democratic leftist political stronghold in the world.
Challenges Facing the Left and Progressive Movements
While a new wave of social movement organizing appears to be underway, and while younger people especially are increasingly open to radical alternatives, the Left and progressive movements remain weak.
Today we celebrate more the possibility of political openings than the achievement of significant concrete gains.
As the life prospects of many white people in the 99% continue to decline, and as demographic tides shift steadily toward a United States in which people of color constitute a majority, this reactionary organizing is likely to grow ever more serious.
end quotes
Now, focus in on this particular sentence from that Manifesto that underlies the GREEN NEW DEAL of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) which is at the heart of the $1.9 TRILLION “American Rescue Plan” of Joe Biden and the Democrats, to wit:
“Many turned their eyes to South America, which during this time was practically the only democratic leftist political stronghold in the world.”
end quotes
That was in 2016 that statement was made by AOC’s Democratic Socialists about turning their eyes to South America, where all the ****hole nations are, outside of Africa, as theur mexample of what government in the United States of America should be like as the life prospects of many white people in the 99% continue to decline, and as demographic tides shift steadily toward a United States in which people of color constitute a majority.
And then fast-forward 5 years to today:
Venezuelans are leaving their homeland amid economic collapse, humanitarian crisis and political turmoil and the Biden decision to let them in here, so they can do the same thing to this country they did to Venezuela stems from “extraordinary temporary conditions” in Venezuela, including “widespread hunger and malnutrition, growing presence and influence of non-state armed groups, a crumbling infrastructure.”
“It is not safe for them to return,” the official added.
end quotes
Same old SOCIALIST ******* BULL****, different day.
Is there a country they haven’t ****** up with their socialist dreams of a Marxist UTOPIA for them?
And now the Socialist UTOPIA DREAM is here, and it is only going to cost us $1.9 TRILLION, which of course, will be borrowed money, because Socialists like AOC believe money grows on trees, which brings us to an article in the Albany, New York Times Union entitled “New York Legislature leans further left with socialist-backed candidates” by Amanda Fries on Nov. 5, 2020, where we have more Democratic Socialist BULL****, as follows:
ALBANY — Multiple state Legislature candidates who received or sought endorsement from the Democratic Socialists of America are poised to take office next year, and could shift New York policymaking further to the left.
Zohran K. Mamdani, who successfully defeated incumbent Assemblywoman Aravella Simotas in the Democratic primary for the 36th District in June and received the DSA endorsement, said the progressive group of incoming legislators hope to push for a socialist framework for policies and governing that they believe will protect and lift up working and middle-class families.
end quotes
Ah, yes, indeed, and let us turn OUR eyes to South America and Venezuela for our inspiration for that socialist framework, because it has done wonders for them, which takes us back to the article as follows, keeping in mind that New York State “Luv Guv” Andy Cuomo mwas a Biden/Harris elector who helped to put them in power, to wit:
That agenda includes pushing for health care for all, raising taxes on the wealthiest New Yorkers, pushing for a state “Green New Deal” and overall policy decisions focused on the constituency rather than corporate interests.
“The reality is we have a popular agenda, and now it’s up to us to explain it and spread the word about it across the state,” Mamdani said.
“I think there has definitely been a shift and this electoral result is evidence of that.”
“Two years ago … there was a shift of the culture and make-up of the state Senate, and I would argue that this is something that is comparative in the Assembly.”
Sumathy Kumar, co-chair of the New York City Democratic Socialists of America, said their platform is simple: put people’s needs first.
“So that’s why our priorities are health care for all, cancelling rent and making sure people aren’t going to be evicted in the middle of a global pandemic and flu season,” she said of the legislative wins.
“I think it’s really simple and people really respond to it.”
end quotes
Ah, yes, people, let’s cancel all rents!
That’s it!
There’s the solution, alright!
Getting back to it:
Another four legislative candidates who sought the Democratic Socialists endorsement also are set to take seats in the state Assembly, including Jessica González-Rojas, who is a member of the DSA.
González-Rojas, who defeated Democratic incumbent Assemblyman Michael G. DenDekker for the 34th District in June, described the need for new voices in the Legislature as a “mandate,” with socialists seeking policies and governing that works for everyone.
“To me, the idea of Democratic socialism is about that universality, and a vision that everyone has an opportunity to live, work and thrive in this country and be able to raise their families with dignity,” she said.
She also noted that her election marks the first woman and person of color to represent the district, which covers the Jackson Heights neighborhood in Queens.
González-Rojas said that area is 88 percent people of color.
Assembly Minority Leader Will Barclay expressed concern over the incoming progressive legislators pursuing “extreme governing,” the likes of which he described to be support of criminal justice reforms and higher taxes.
“I think it puts the speaker and other Democratic leaders in a very difficult spot,” he said.
“It’s going to be harder to govern when you have these radical policies.”
end quotes
Welcome to the NEW WORLD, people.
Whether you asked for it or not, it is now here!
And it don’t look pretty!
Paul Plante says
“I find hope in knowing that our nation is blessed with Joe Biden and Kamala Harris as President and Vice President.”
“They are extraordinary, and they know how to get the job – how to get the job done.”
– Transcript of Telephone Town Hall on the American Rescue Plan and Coronavirus Pandemic
March 8, 2021
Press Release
Washington, D.C. – Speaker Nancy Pelosi joined San Francisco Mayor London Breed and Acting San Francisco Health Officer Dr. Susan Philip for a telephone town hall as part of House Democrats’ Day of Action on the American Rescue Plan, highlighting the momentous step the legislation will take to put vaccines in people’s arms, money in workers’ pockets, children safely back in school and people back in work.
Paul Plante says
So here we are.
It is March 10, 2021, sixty-three (63) days after the 6 January 2021 COUP, an unprecedented assault on democracy if there ever was one, that toppled the regime of Donald Trump and propelled Joe Biden into office as this nation’s chief executive magistrate, and according to an AP NEWS story entitled “Pentagon approves extending Guard deployment at Capitol” by Lolita C. Baldor on 10 March 2021, the massive military presence that surrounds Joe Biden as if he were a hated dictator like Saddam Hussein to protect him from the American people, will continue far into the future, making Washington. D.C. an armed camp as well as a WAR ZONE, similar to what it was, a fortified city, back during the GREAT DEMOCRAT INSURRECTION against America between April 12, 1861 – May 9, 1865, which takes us to that story, to wit:
WASHINGTON (AP) — Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin has formally approved an extension of the National Guard deployment at the U.S. Capitol for about two more months as possible threats of violence remain, the Pentagon said Tuesday.
end quotes
Threats of violence?
From whom?
The GREAT HEATHEN ARMY of Ivar the Boneless and Halfdan Ragnarson that is said to be lurking around the mouth of the Potomac with some 600 Skeids, with more than 60 oars each, maybe a thousand smaller Snekkjur, and more Knarrs than could be counted, waiting for the omens to be favorable for a mass attack on Washington, D.C. so they could kill the Democrats?
Because outside of them, I am at a loss as to who out there can actually pose a threat to Washington that requires a massive military presence to counter it?
Is it Bobby Lee, perhaps, and J.E.B. Stuart?
Have they come back from the dead to attack Washington anew?
Is Lloyd Austin another McClellan who regardless of the number of troops he had at his dispo9sal, they were never enough as he kept inflating the size of the threat he faced, which seems to be the case here all over again?
Getting back to that story:
According to a statement issued by the department, close to 2,300 Guard troops will continue to provide security in Washington until May 23, at the request of the Capitol Police.
There are currently about 5,100 Guard troops in Washington, and they were scheduled to leave this weekend.
The decision to keep Guard members in the city underscores concerns about security at the Capitol, two months after rioters breached the building in an attack that left five people dead.
end quotes
And there we are with the BULL**** again, because three people died of natural causes that day, so the “attack” did not leave five people dead.
Getting back to that story:
Law enforcement has remained in a heightened security posture in response to intelligence suggesting possible threats to the Capitol by militia groups.
end quotes
Militia groups?
Like the Sunni militias of Muqtada al-Sadr with their M-1 Abrams tanks?
And how in the hell did they get over here?
Or is it more likely an excuse to get the American people used to the fact that from this point on, Washington is a militarized zone where the dictator of America is protected from his subjects by highly lethal modern military force?
Getting back to the article:
The Guard’s deployment to the Capitol has been troubled.
Early on, Guard members were briefly forced to take rest breaks and meals in a nearby cold garage, sparking outrage within the Biden administration.
Officials quickly found new spaces within congressional buildings for the on-duty breaks.
In addition, Guard members complained of bad food, and some said they became sick.
end quotes
Complained of bad food?
How Joe Biden that sounds!
So how much does this massive military presence to shield Joe Biden from the American people cost?
According to that article, we have as follows:
U.S. military officials have said the cost of deploying about 26,000 Guard troops to the U.S. Capitol from shortly after the Jan. 6 riot to this Friday is close to $500 million.
No cost estimate for the next two months has been released.
The costs include housing, transportation, salaries, benefits and other essentials.
end quotes
And that takes us in its turn to a REUTERS article entitled, not at all surprisingly, given the 6 January 2021 COUP, “U.S. faces ‘unprecedented assault on democracy,’ White House says, backing election reform bill” by Trevor Hunnicutt on March 1, 2021, where we have as follows:
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The Biden administration backed Democrats’ efforts to overhaul voting rules and turn over the process of drawing congressional districts to independent commissions on Monday, weighing in on a political fight that is likely to dominate Washington in coming years.
The United States is facing an “an unprecedented assault on our democracy, a never before seen effort to ignore, undermine, and undo the will of the people, and a newly aggressive attack on voting rights taking place right now all across the country,” President Joe Biden’s Office of Management and Budget said in a statement.
end quotes
FEAR MONGERING!
OMG – be scared, be very scared, people – it’s an unprecedented assault on our democracy, a never before seen effort to ignore, undermine, and undo the will of the people, and a newly aggressive attack on voting rights taking place right now all across the country!
Which is so much ignorant BULL**** it isn’t funny, given the lengthy history of the efforts of the Democrats going back to before the Civil War to subvert elections through the use of voter intimidation and election fraud, which were clearly efforts to ignore, undermine, and undo the will of the people, as well as any aggressive attack on voting rights across the country!
And we are going to be having that **** jammed in our heads day after day after day now, to keep us sacred, afraid and unable to think, which will make us ideal subjects of the Biden DEMOCRATIC DICTATORSHIP in America, and four years from today, people in America will never know it was ever anything different.
Getting back to that story:
Democrats have been fighting to expand access to the polls through early voting, vote-by-mail and other measures, efforts that expanded as the novel coronavirus pandemic raged.
Biden beat Trump by more than 7 million votes in the Nov. 2020 presidential election.
end quotes
Which is immaterial and meaningless.
Joe Biden is president because out of 330 MILLION, only 306 people called “Biden electors,” including Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton and Andy Cuomo, elected him, which takes us to this sentence from that article, to wit:
Democrats enjoy an advantage over Republicans in voter party affiliation.
end quotes
And they just picked up 320,000 more with those illegals from Venezuela Joe Biden just granted immunity to for being here illegally.
So what is the bottom line here?
For one, presidential elections in this country are now a joke that favors Democrats.
And with total control of the national government the Democrats now have, they will be able to further rig the system in their favor with the MASSIVE GRAFT they are going to reap from this $1.9 TRILLION Biden money grab and all the PATRONAGE that is going to come with it with which to reward the Democrat party followers to maintain their loyalty.
Which means that the likelihood is that from now on, the only party that we will have in this country will be the Democrats, and every president from here on out will be a Democrat!
And that is what Joe Biden and the Democrats call “their” democracy!
Why?
Because for them, it works so well and that is the way they are going to keep it, with help from Lloyd Austin, who is presently occupying Washington, D.C. with superior military force to keep the dictator Joe Biden in power.
Welcome to the THIRD-WORLD, because America now is just another banana republic ****hole ruled by one more tin-pot dictator who if not propped up by a JUNTA of complaint generals who don’t mind using military force against their own people, like they do in Myanmar would be a nothing at alo, just a flyspeck on the bottom of a page in the book of world history!
Paul Plante says
And as we keep hearing about “NO DEMOCRAT VOTER FRAUD” in the 2020 presidential election that propelled two-time loser Joe Biden into the white house, because everybody knows Democrats are as pure as the driven snow and would never even think of committing voter fraud, let alone actually committing it, I am reminded of California state Sen. Roderick D. Wright who was the star of a GOVERNING article entitled “California State Senator Found Guilty of Perjury, Voter Fraud” by Caroline Cournoyer on January 29, 2014, where we had as follows:
A Los Angeles jury Tuesday found state Sen. Roderick D. Wright, a fixture in area Democratic politics, guilty on eight felony counts of perjury and voter fraud.
Prosecutors said Wright, the first member of the Legislature to be convicted of a felony since the Shrimpscam sting of the 1990s, could face more than eight years behind bars and be banned for life from holding other elective office.
It is unclear whether he must forfeit his Senate seat.
end quotes
And I suppose that here we would hear from the Democrats that this dude is atypical and that all other Democrats would never think of committing voter fraud themselves, because, well, everybody knows Democrats are just too honest to do that, which takes us back to that story, as follows:
California law requires that candidates for the state Legislature live in the district they seek to represent when they take out papers to run.
Wright’s racially diverse jury of nine women and three men deliberated less than two full days before finding that he had lied about his address on voter registration and candidacy documents in 2007 and 2008, as he prepared to seek the Senate seat he holds.
He also voted fraudulently in five elections in 2008 and 2009, the jurors found.
end quotes
But forget about him, because outside of him, no other Democrat in the history of the Democrat party ever engaged in voter fraud, because hey, people, they are Democrats and everybody knows that Democrats never ever do that kind of stuff because it is wrong to do, which is why they don’t do it, because everybody knows the Democrats are very big on telling what is right from what is wrong while the rest of us can only guess.
Paul Plante says
And while we are studying the very skillful use of the “BIG LIE” by the Democrats in here, and before we go forward with respect to the highly-polished Democrat party art form of rigging elections, a skill set the Democrats have been honing since before the Civil War, for some essential background, let’s go back to an NBC NEWS article entitled “After Electoral College cements win, Biden unleashes scathing attack on Trump’s refusal to concede – The president-elect castigated the president with a ferociousness not seen since Election Day” by Rebecca Shabad, Dareh Gregorian and Dartunorro Clark on Dec. 14, 2020, where we had as follows:
WASHINGTON — President-elect Joe Biden on Monday gave his most scathing indictment yet of the attempts by President Donald Trump and his allies to overturn November’s election, hours after the Electoral College officially sealed Biden’s victory.
end quotes
Now, as our very own highly-loved AOC says, not only do words have a lot of letters in them but they have meaning, too, which I agree with, since both are true, so let’s examine that statement in this NBC NEWS article and ask ourselves this essential question from a Seventh grade civics test that apparently and not surprisingly Joe Biden, Rebecca Shabad, Dareh Gregorian and Dartunorro Clark all failed, to wit:
On 14 December 2020, did the Electoral College officially seal Biden’s victory?
end quotes
And it’s a YES or NO answer, people.
On 14 December 2020, did the Electoral College “officially seal” Joe Biden’s “victory,” as NBC and Joe would have us believe?
Or is that just a pile of bull****?
To answer that question, let’s go to a government document from the government of the United States of America, the country whose election Joe thinks he had “sealed” for him on 14 December 2020, the Congressional Research Service, to be exact, which document in question is entitled “Counting Electoral Votes: An Overview of Procedures at the Joint Session, Including Objections by Members of Congress,” updated December 8, 2020, where we have as follows:
Summary
The Constitution and federal law establish a detailed timetable following the presidential election during which time the members of the electoral college convene in the 50 state capitals and in the District of Columbia, cast their votes for President and Vice President, and submit their votes through state officials to both houses of Congress.
The electoral votes are scheduled to be opened before a joint session of Congress on January 6, 2021.
Federal law specifies the procedures for this session and for challenges to the validity of an electoral vote.
This report describes the steps in the process and precedents set in prior presidential elections governing the actions of the House and Senate in certifying the electoral vote and in responding to challenges of the validity of electoral votes.
This report has been revised and will be updated on a periodic basis to provide the dates for the relevant joint session of Congress and to reflect any new, relevant precedents or practices.
end quotes
Now, I have to say that anymore, and especially after this last election, I find myself doubting what is said in government documents about what the law says or the Constitution says about anything, because frankly, I seem to be the only person in America who believes any of that stuff, anymore, and case in point is right here, but what the heck, in for a penny, in for a pound, so let’s go back to this particular sentence from above, to wit, because this is what never happened, thanks to Nancy Pelosi and her Democrat faction in the House of Representatives, to wit:
This report describes the steps in the process and precedents set in prior presidential elections governing the actions of the House and Senate in certifying the electoral vote and in responding to CHALLENGES OF THE VALIDITY of electoral votes.
end quotes
Going back to that Report, even though it really doesn’t mean anything anymore, because the Democrats and Joe Biden and NBC NEWS are in charge of America now, and they have their own Democrat way of doing things that is totally independent of OUR Constitution, which the Democrats rejected in or about 1861, when they left OUR Union to form their own country where they could have Negros for their slaves, and OUR laws, which they choose not to abide by, we have as follows:
The House and Senate are scheduled to convene in joint session on January 6, 2021, for the purpose of opening the 2020 presidential election electoral votes submitted by state government officials, certifying their validity, counting them, and declaring the official result of the election for President and Vice President.
end quotes
Now, people, if that were really true, that the House and Senate were scheduled to convene in joint session on January 6, 2021, for the purpose of opening the 2020 presidential election electoral votes submitted by state government officials to certify their validity, count them, and then declare the official result of the election for President and Vice President, how is it that Joe Biden and NBC NEWS were reporting on 14 December 2020 that the Electoral College officially sealed Biden’s victory?
A bit premature, was it not?
But that is only if OUR Constitution and OUR laws governed the process, and people, whether they ever did, after this last election, they don’t anymore, but let’s go back to that Report for more, to se what it is we see, to wit:
This report describes the steps that precede the joint session,and the procedures set forth in the Constitution and federal statute by which the House and Senate jointly certify the results of the electoral vote.
It also discusses the procedures set in law governing challenges to the validity of an electoral vote.
Much of what follows in this report is based on the United States Constitution (particularly Article II, Section 1, and Amendment 12) and on the Electoral Count Act of 1887, which was originally enacted in 1887 and, in 1948, was both amended and codified in Title 3 of the United States Code.
end quotes
But after this last election, which gave the Democrats total control over OUR national government, is any of that really valid anymore, or has it all been jettisoned by the Democrats who now have their own way of selecting American presidents to make sure that whomever it is, they will be a LOYAL DEMOCRAT, not a LOYAL AMERICAN?
Specifically, are the procedures set in law governing challenges to the validity of an electoral vote themselves still valid?
And given that both NBC NEWS and Joe Biden were already claiming victory TWENTY-THREE (23) days early on 14 December 2020, we would have to say, NO, despite what any law might say, and who believes in laws, anyway, which again takes us back to that Report tomestqablish a timeline here, to wit:
Actions Leading Up to the Joint Session
Appointment of Electors: Election Day
The Constitution provides that each state “shall appoint” electors for President and Vice President in the manner directed by its state legislature (Article II, Section 1, clause 2), on the day determined by Congress (Article II, Section 1, clause 3).
Congress has determined in federal law that the “electors of President and Vice President shall be appointed, in each State” on Election Day, that is, the “Tuesday next after the first Monday in November” every fourth year (on November 3, 2020) (3 U.S.C. §1).
end quotes
So, following right along here, we can see that before Election Day, in this case, 3 November 2020, FORTY-ONE (41) days before NBC NEWS and Joe Biden were declaring victory on 14 December 2021, there was no such thing as the Electoral College, which only came into being on 3 November 2020.
Getting back to the Report, here we are going to come to the fatal flaw in the system which resulted in Joe Biden being president of the United States of America on 14 December 2020, as opposed to 6 January 2021, to wit:
Final State Determination of Election Contests and Controversies: “Safe Harbor”
Congress has, since 1887, sought to place the responsibility for resolving presidential election contests and challenges on the states.
Federal law, in what is known as the “safe harbor”provision, provides that if a state, under its established statutory procedure, has made a “final determination of any controversy or contest” relative to the presidential election in the state, and if that determination is completed under this procedure at least six days before the electors are to meet to vote, such determination is to be considered “conclusive” as to which electors were appointed on election day (3 U.S.C. §5).
As explained below, the electors vote on December 14, 2020, so the last day for making a final determination was December 8, 2020.
end quotes
First of all, there we see the significance of the date of 14 December 2020, the day Joe Biden declared himself the president – that was the date FIVE HUNDRED THIRTY-EIGHT (538) individual electors cast their votes for president and vice president, so did the Electoral College really seal Joe’s victory on that date?
If the Constitution and the law meant anything at all, and I am now forced to have to admit that they don’t, the answer would clearly be no, because according to law, on 14 December 2020, NOBODY would know who the 538 individual electors had voted for, which is the significance of the 6 January 2021 date, when by law, the votes were to be opened and counted, which takes us back to that Report, as follows:
Certification by the Governor
The governor of each state is required by federal law to send to the Archivist of the United States, by registered mail and under state seal, “a certificate of such ascertainment of the electors appointed,” including the names and numbers of votes for each person for whose appointment as elector any votes were given (3 U.S.C. §6).
Governors must send certificates “as soon as practicable” after the “final ascertainment” of the appointment of the electors, or “as soon as practicable” after the “final determination of any controversy or contest” concerning such election under its statutory procedure for election contests.
Duplicate Certificates to Electors
On or before December 14, 2020, the governor of each state is required to deliver to the electors of the state six duplicate-originals of the certificate sent to the Archivist of the United States under state seal (3 U.S.C. §6).
Meetings of Electors to Cast Votes
The electors of each state meet at the place designated by that state on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December (December 14, 2020) to cast their votes for President and Vice President of the United States (U.S.Constitution, Amendment 12; 3 U.S.C. §§7-8).
Electors’ Certifications of Votes
After the electors have voted in each state, they make and sign six certificates of their votes containing two distinct lists, one being the votes for President and the other the votes for Vice President.
The law instructs the electors to attach to these lists a certificate furnished to them by the governor; to seal those certificates and to certify on them that these are all of the votes for President and Vice President; and then to send one certificate to the President of the Senate and two certificates to the secretary of state of their state (one to be held subject to the order of the President of the Senate).
On the day after their meeting (December 15, 2020), the electors are to forward by registered mail two of the certificates to the Archivist of the United States (one to be held subject to the order of the President of the Senate), and one to the federal judge in the district where the electors have assembled (3 U.S.C. §§9-11).
Archivist’s Transmittal of Certificates to Congress
At the first meeting of Congress, set for January 3, 2021, the Archivist of the United States is required to transmit to the two houses every certificate received from the governors of the states (3 U.S.C. §6).
Date for Counting Electoral Votes
The date for counting the electoral votes is fixed by law as January 6 following each presidential election (3 U.S.C. §15), unless the date is changed by law.
Providing for the Joint Session
Venue for Counting Electoral Votes
The electoral votes are counted at a joint session of the Senate and the House of Representatives, meeting in the House chamber.
The joint session convenes at 1:00 p.m. on that day.
The President of the Senate is the presiding officer (3 U.S.C. §15).
Opening of the Votes
Section 15 provides that the President of the Senate open and present the certificates of the electoral votes of the states and the District of Columbia in alphabetical order.
(As discussed above, under 3 U.S.C. §§9-10, the electors in each state, having voted, are to sign, seal, and certify the certificates. Under §11 of the same title, they are to mail one such certificate to the President of the Senate and mail two others to the Archivist of the United States.)
Reading of the Votes by House and Senate Tellers
The certificate, or an equivalent document, from each state and the District of Columbia is to be read then by tellers previously appointed from among the membership of the House and Senate.
Before the joint session convenes, each chamber appoints two of its Members to be the tellers.
(The appointments are made by the presiding officers of the respective chambers, based on recommendations made to them by the leaders of the two major parties.)
The appointed tellers are often members of the House Administration and Senate Rules and Administration Committees, the panels in each chamber having jurisdiction over matters relating to the election of the President and Vice President.
Counting the Votes and Announcing the Result
After the votes of each state and the District of Columbia have been read, the tellers record and count them.
When this process has been completed, the presiding officer announces whether any candidates have received the required majority votes for President and Vice President.
If so, that “announcement shall be deemed a sufficient declaration of the persons, if any, elected President and Vice President of the United States” (3 U.S.C. §15).
end quotes
So do the math there, people!
If the law says we were not to know who won the election until 6 January 2021, then how come NBC NEWS and Joe Biden were declaring him the winner on 14 December, 2020?
Paul Plante says
And before we go forward in here, let’s for a moment go back to the NBC NEWS article entitled “After Electoral College cements win, Biden unleashes scathing attack on Trump’s refusal to concede – The president-elect castigated the president with a ferociousness not seen since Election Day” by Rebecca Shabad, Dareh Gregorian and Dartunorro Clark on Dec. 14, 2020, where we had as follows:
WASHINGTON — President-elect Joe Biden on Monday gave his most scathing indictment yet of the attempts by President Donald Trump and his allies to overturn November’s election, hours after the Electoral College officially sealed Biden’s victory.
end quotes
And then let us ask ourselves this essential question, to wit: WHO THE HELL WAS JOE BIDEN ON 14 DECEMBER 2020 TO BE CASTIGATING A SITTING AMERICAN PRESIDENT WITH A FEROCIOUSNESS NOT SEEN SINCE ELECTION DAY BECAUSE THE SITTING AMERICAN PRESIDENT WOULD NOT CONCEDE THAT IT WAS JOE BIDEN AND NOT HE WHO WAS REALLY THE PRESIDENT?
And the answer, the only answer, is that on 14 December 2020, Joe Biden was nothing more than just another American citizen, and thus, a sitting American president was under no duty to concede anything at all to Joe Biden and it was arrogant in the extreme for Joe Biden to think otherwise, that he had the power to order a sitting American president around because Joe thought he was the president, instead.
But that not true, anymore.
There’s a new way of doing things now, regardless of what OUR Constitution and OUR Laws might once have said, and let me say that OUR Constitution and OUR laws were put in place to protect We, the American people from them excesses of designing people like Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi, not to give them license to ignore OUR Constitution and OUR laws as was the case here with this 2020 presidential election, which interestingly takes us back to an opinion article in The Detroit News entitled “Opinion: Nancy Pelosi is already attacking legitimacy of the 2020 election” by David Harsanyi, a senior writer at National Review, on 26 November 2019, where we had as follows:
Last week, President Donald Trump tweeted: “Nancy Pelosi just stated that ‘it is dangerous to let the voters decide Trump’s fate.'”
“@FoxNews”
“In other words, she thinks I’m going to win and doesn’t want to take a chance on letting the voters decide.”
“Like Al Green, she wants to change our voting system.”
“Wow, she’s CRAZY!”
end quotes
Except while Nancy Pelosi is very devious and designing and untrustworthy to a high degree, she wasn’t crazy as Trump said, and the proof of that just occurred when in fact, on 6 January 2021, Nancy Pelosi did in fact change our voting system right before our very eyes, distracting us while she did so with a masterful assault on the Capitol building that has been blamed on Trump.
Getting back to that opinion piece, it goes on as follows:
Trump’s tweet quotes a Fox News reporter summarizing Pelosi’s position, not the speaker’s statement verbatim.
Left-wing Twitterverse, of course, immediately jumped all over the president’s clumsy wording and acted as if the substance of his contention was wholly untrue.
It wasn’t.
In her “Dear Colleague” letter pushing back against Republican anti-impeachment talking points, Pelosi wrote this: “The weak response to these hearings has been, ‘Let the election decide.'”
“That dangerous position only adds to the urgency of our action, because the President is jeopardizing the integrity of the 2020 elections.”
end quotes
Now, here, with Nancy Pelosi of all people playing the gullibility of the American people like a Stradivarius, telling the American people in November of 2019 that it was Trump who was jeopardizing the integrity of the 2020 elections, which he had absolutely no power to do so as president, as opposed to Nancy Pelosi, the true “ENEMY WITHIN,” jeopardizing the integrity of the 2020 election, which she did, let me give praise to the Democrats for how much BULL**** they can pump out on any given day without their supply of yet more BULL*** to spew ever running out, and getting diminished in any way, which has people exclaiming that the Democrats have finally found the secret of creating a genuine perpetual motion machine.
Getting back to the opinion piece:
If a Republican had suggested that a presidential election was a “dangerous” notion, he would have triggered around-the-clock panic-stricken coverage on CNN and a series of deep dives in The Atlantic lamenting the conservative turn against our sacred democratic ideals.
What Pelosi has done is even more cynical.
She’s arguing that if Democrats fail in their efforts to impeach Trump — and, I assume, remove him from office — then the very legitimacy of the 2020 election will be in question before any votes are cast.
end quotes
And how ******* stupid do you have to be to believe that BULL****?
And yet, people still fell for it, hook, line and sinker, which does not bode well for the future of this nation when such a lousy liar as Nancy Pelosi can so easily pull the wool over people’s eyes like that, which again takes us back to the opinion piece, to wit:
Though most liberals have long declared the 2016 contest contaminated, as far as we know, absolutely nothing — not even the most successful foreign efforts in “interference” or “meddling” — damaged the integrity of the election results.
Notwithstanding the belief of more than 60% of Democrats, precipitated by breathless and often misleading media coverage, not one vote was altered by Putin, nor was a single person’s free will purloined by a Russian Twitter bot or Facebook ad.
And, contra Pelosi’s implication, whatever you make of Trump’s request from Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy to investigate Joe Biden’s shady son, not one voter will be restricted from casting a ballot for whomever they please in 2020.
In truth, voters will know more about the inner workings of Trump’s presidency than they have about any other administration in memory.
Maybe they care, maybe they don’t, but that’s not up to Pelosi.
Rather than safeguarding the integrity of our elections, Democrats have corroded trust in them.
end quotes
Amen to that and in 2020, whatever shreds of trust in the “integrity” of our elections that might have been left are now corroded away to nothing, at all, just dust.
Getting back to it:
Post-2016 calls for increased control over speech on the internet, for instance, pose a far greater danger to American freedoms than anything our enemies at the Kremlin could cook up.
And if the contention is that the only truly legitimate election is one that is free of any attempts to mislead voters, as seems to be the case, then we might as well close up shop.
The presence of unregulated political rhetoric is a feature of a free and open society.
We will never be able to, nor should we aspire to, limit discourse.
It shouldn’t be forgotten, either, that this habit of injecting doubt into the electoral process is nothing new.
For the past 20 years (at least), Democrats have shown a destructive inability to accept the fact that a bunch of voters simply disagree with them.
If it’s not “dark money” boring into their souls, it’s gerrymandering, special interests, confusing ballots, voter suppression, crafty Ruskies or the Electoral College.
Democrats can’t lose on the merits.
Someone, somewhere, has fooled the proles into making bad decisions.
All that said, it is Pelosi’s constitutional prerogative to try to impeach Trump for any reason she sees fit, even if her goal is only to weaken the political prospects of her opponent.
No, it isn’t a “coup,” but it’s certainly not a constitutional imperative, either.
It’s a political choice.
In the end, the presidency happens to be one of the things we do decide via elections.
That will almost surely be the case when it comes Trump, and Pelosi knows it.
And if Trump isn’t removed by the Senate, and if the results don’t go the way Pelosi hopes, she’s preemptively given Democrats a reason to question the legitimacy of yet another election.
end quotes
And here we are today with that prophecy come almost true!
Except it’s everybody in America who is not a Democrat who is doing the questioning!
Paul Plante says
And going back to November 18, 2019 and the Press Release from Nancy Pelosi, “THE ENEMY WITHIN,” entitled “Dear Colleague on Latest Developments on For The People Agenda and the House’s Impeachment Inquiry,” we have from her own pen in relevant part as follows:
Dear Democratic Colleague,
At the same time we legislate, we continue to investigate and litigate, as the impeachment inquiry proceeds.
The facts are uncontested: that the President abused his power for his own personal, political benefit, at the expense of our national security interests.
The weak response to these hearings has been, “Let the election decide.”
That dangerous position only adds to the urgency of our action, because the President is jeopardizing the integrity of the 2020 elections.
****
None of us comes to Congress to impeach a President, but rather to make progress for America’s working families.
However, our first order of business is our oath to support and defend the Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic.
As such, we are custodians of the Constitution and, For The People, defenders of our democracy.
Thank you for your patriotic leadership.
end quotes
So, isn’t it indeed ironic, people, that the same party that rejected OUR Constitution beginning on December 20, 1860, when the Democrats seceded from OUR Union to form their own confederation with a different Constitution than ours, now think they are the “custodians” of OUR Constitution?
But are they?
Or is that all just more copious outpourings of pure HOG**** from out the mouth of Nancy Pelosi?
If a custodian is defined as “a person who has responsibility for or looks after something,” then are the Democrats really the “custodians” of OUR Constitution?
The first question before us, of course, would be, from whence comes the authority of the Democrat party to be the “custodian” of OUR Constitution?
And that answer is either from out of thin air, or from out the *** of Nancy Pelosi, because OUR Constitution is intended to restrain Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats from infringing on OUR liberty, not to give them liberty to ignore OUR Constitution and trample on our rights and liberties, which is why WE, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE who are not Democrats have a Constitution, to protect us from the Democrats.
That they even think they are is why they are properly called “THE ENEMY WITHIN!”
So with that Pelosi BULL**** about the Democrats under her control being custodians of OUR Constitution being disposed of as the rank BULL**** that it is, let us move to the question of how Donald Trump, or any other president for that matter, could “jeopardize” the “integrity” of the 2020 presidential election, given that Trump had absolutely no control whatsoever over the 2020 election, other than as a candidate making claims and promises, just like Joe Biden was making claims and promises, especially with respect to his “stimulus” package, and just as every other candidate for president has made claims and promises, including Hussein Obama.
First of all, the elections themselves are NOT in the control of the president of the United States of America.
The elections are under the control of the STATES which have their own election laws.
For example, the Virginia Board of Elections has this on its website, to wit:
The State Board of Elections is authorized to prescribe standard forms for voter registration and elections, and to supervise, coordinate, and adopt regulations governing the work of local electoral boards, registrars, and officers of election.
The Department of Elections is authorized to establish and maintain a statewide automated voter registration system to include procedures for ascertaining current addresses of registrants; to require cancellation of records for registrants no longer qualified; to provide electronic application for voter registration and absentee ballots; and to provide electronic delivery of absentee ballots to eligible military and overseas voters.
https://www.elections.virginia.gov/election-law/
Then there is Virginia Code Title 24.2. Elections, which includes the following sections:
Chapter 1 – General Provisions and Administration [§§ 24.2-100 through 24.2-124]
Chapter 2 – Federal, Commonwealth, and Local Officers [§§ 24.2-200 through 24.2-238]
Chapter 3 – Election Districts, Precincts, and Polling Places [§§ 24.2-300 through 24.2-314]
Chapter 4 – Voter Registration [§§ 24.2-400 through 24.2-447]
Chapter 4.1 – Uniform Military and Overseas Voters Act [§§ 24.2-451 through 24.2-470]
Chapter 5 – Candidates for Office [§§ 24.2-500 through 24.2-545]
Chapter 6 – The Election [§§ 24.2-600 through 24.2-687]
Chapter 7 – Absentee Voting [§§ 24.2-700 through 24.2-713]
Chapter 8 – Recounts and Contested Elections [§§ 24.2-800 through 24.2-814]
Chapter 9 – Campaign Finance Disclosure Act [Repealed] [§ 24.2-900]
Chapter 9.1 – Campaign Fundraising; Legislative Sessions [Repealed] [§ 24.2-940]
Chapter 9.3 – Campaign Finance Disclosure Act of 2006 [§§ 24.2-945 through 24.2-953.5]
Chapter 9.4 – Campaign Fundraising; Legislative Sessions [§ 24.2-954]
Chapter 9.5 – Political Campaign Advertisements [§§ 24.2-955 through 24.2-960]
Chapter 10 – Election Offenses Generally; Penalties [§§ 24.2-1000 through 24.2-1019]
https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title24.2/
So, given that, how was Donald Trump going to jeopardize the integrity of the 2020 election?
Paul Plante says
And to see the dangerous game being played here by the Democrats, let’s go back to the NBC NEWS article entitled “After Electoral College cements win, Biden unleashes scathing attack on Trump’s refusal to concede – The president-elect castigated the president with a ferociousness not seen since Election Day” by Rebecca Shabad, a congressional reporter for NBC News, based in Washington; Dareh Gregorian, a politics reporter for NBC News, and Dartunorro Clark, also a politics reporter for NBC News. on Dec. 14, 2020, where we had this essential background to what is yet to come, to wit:
Biden called the election, which Trump and his supporters have tried to overturn with scores of failed legal challenges, “honest, free and fair.”
And he called attacks on the election and election officials “simply unconscionable” and Trump’s attempts to overturn the election an “abuse of power.”
end quotes
And what a stinking, steaming pile of pure HORSE**** that is, people, because challenging the outcome of an election in the United States of America is not an attempt to overturn an election, and challenging the outcome of an election is not “an abuse of power,” and only a ******* idiot like Joe Biden would say it was, and challenging the outcome of an election in the United States of America is hardly “unconscionable,” given that OUR laws specifically provide for challenges to elections to preserve their integrity.
And while we are on the subject of protecting the integrity of our elections from Democrat voter fraud, let’s take a side trip here to a POLITICO article entitled “Former congressman indicted on voter fraud, bribery charges – The news from the Justice Department comes amid a national debate over mail-in voting during a pandemic” by Quint Forgey on 07/23/2020, where we had as follows concernin g time-tested Democrat methods of engaging in voter fraud, to wit:
The Justice Department announced Thursday that federal prosecutors had charged a disgraced former Democratic congressman from Philadelphia with perpetrating a variety of voting-related crimes in recent years.
Michael “Ozzie” Myers was indicted earlier this week on charges of “conspiring to violate voting rights by fraudulently stuffing the ballot boxes for specific candidates in the 2014, 2015, and 2016 primary elections, bribery of an election official, falsification of records, voting more than once in federal elections, and obstruction of justice,” according to a Justice Department statement.
end quotes
Talk about the quintessential (representing the most perfect or typical example of a quality or class as in “he was the quintessential Democrat—as crooked as they come”), you got to love this dude who was hitting all the bases there, especially with stuffing ballot boxes, something mthe Democrats have been doing since before the Civil War, and voting more than once in a federal election, another Democrat specialty that has been well honed over the years by the Democrats who have that as an art form now, which takes us back to that story for more, as follows:
During an exchange with an undercover agent posing as an intermediary for a fictional Arab sheikh, Myers was infamously recorded saying, “Money talks in this business and bullshit walks.”
He was subsequently convicted of bribery and conspiracy charges, and sentenced to serve three years in prison in 1981.
Myers is now charged “with conspiring with and bribing” former Philadelphia Judge of Elections Domenick Demuro, who pleaded guilty in March and was convicted in May for “his role in accepting bribes to cast fraudulent ballots and certifying false voting results during the 2014, 2015, and 2016 primary elections” in the city, according to the Justice Department.
end quotes
Which takes us back to goofy old Joe Biden in that Dec. 14, 2020 NBC NEWS article, to wit:
“In America, politicians don’t take power — the people grant it to them,” he said.
end quotes
So, uh, Joe, dude, is that what was happening with Democrat Michael “Ozzie” Myers – he wasn’t taking power, the “people” were granting it to him?
What BULL****!
Democrats have been stealing power from the people since before the Civil War!
Getting back to the NBC article:
“The flame of democracy was lit in this nation a long time ago.”
“And we now know that nothing, not even a pandemic — or an abuse of power — can extinguish that flame.
“In this battle for the soul of America, democracy prevailed,” Biden added.
“We the people voted.”
“Faith in our institutions held.”
“The integrity of our elections remains intact.”
“And so, now it is time to turn the page.”
“To unite.”
“To heal.”
end quotes
Joe is kidding, there, right?
“Faith” in our “institutions” held?
Not hardly, Joe!
The “integrity” of our elections remains intact?
That is absolute HOG****!
More like the integrity of our elections is a FARCE, which takes us back to that NBC article, to wit:
All 538 electors met Monday in their respective states to cast their votes for president based on the election results that were recently certified by all 50 states and Washington, D.C.
Biden, however, was deemed president-elect on Nov. 7, four days after the election, once he surpassed the 270 electoral votes needed to win the presidency.
end quotes
So, now we have a new date min this game of the Democrats making it up as they go – 7 Nov. 2020, Joe Biden was deemed the president-elect!
But was he truly?
When Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, is quoted in that same article on 14 December 2020 as saying, “(T)he orderly transfer of power is a hallmark of our democracy, and although I supported President Trump, the Electoral College vote today makes clear that Joe Biden is now President-elect,” is he speaking the factual truth?
Or is he sounding like an ignorant A-HOLE when he talks about the “Electoral College vote today (14 Dec. 2020) makes clear that Joe Biden is now President-elect?”
IF the orderly transfer of power is a hallmark of our democracy, and it should be, to be considered “orderly,” wouldn’t it have to be in the strictest conformity with the provisions of CHAPTER 1—PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS AND VACANCIES (§§ 1 – 21) of U.S. Code: Title 3, the provisions of which Chapter are as follows:
§ 1. Time of appointing electors
§ 2. Failure to make choice on prescribed day
§ 3. Number of electors
§ 4. Vacancies in electoral college
§ 5. Determination of controversy as to appointment of electors
§ 6. Credentials of electors; transmission to Archivist of the United States and to Congress; public inspection
§ 7. Meeting and vote of electors
§ 8. Manner of voting
§ 9. Certificates of votes for President and Vice President
§ 10. Sealing and endorsing certificates
§ 11. Disposition of certificates
§ 12. Failure of certificates of electors to reach President of the Senate or Archivist of the United States; demand on State for certificate
§ 13. Same; demand on district judge for certificate
§ 14. Forfeiture for messenger’s neglect of duty
§ 15. Counting electoral votes in Congress
§ 16. Same; seats for officers and Members of two Houses in joint meeting
§ 17. Same; limit of debate in each House
§ 18. Same; parliamentary procedure at joint meeting
§ 19. Vacancy in offices of both President and Vice President; officers eligible to act
§ 20. Resignation or refusal of office
§ 21. Definitions
And when Sen. Mike Braun, R-Ind., was quoted in that article as saying that he was “disappointed by the results of the Electoral College vote” but that “we must put aside politics and respect the constitutional process that determines the winner of our presidential election,” is he also talking like an ignorant A-HOLE?
And of course he is, precisely because the constitutional process that determines the winner of our presidential elections is embodied in CHAPTER 1—PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS AND VACANCIES (§§ 1 – 21) of U.S. Code: Title 3, and if WE, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE who are neither Democrats nor Republicans are going to respect that constitutional process, it can only be because the law was followed to the letter, and it wasn’t!
In fact, it wasn’t followed at all!
But hey, people, this is America, and that is how things are done here in this lawless nation where as was just proven with this FARCE of a presidential election in 2020, the concept of RULE OF LAW is a big ******* joke, because 3 U.S. Code § 15 – Counting electoral votes in Congress makes it patently clear that the Electoral College vote isn’t known until 6 January, not 7 November, and not 14 December, and that challenges to the electoral college votes are subject to challenge, to wit:
Upon such reading of any such certificate or paper, the President of the Senate shall call for objections, if any.
Every objection shall be made in writing, and shall state clearly and concisely, and without argument, the ground thereof, and shall be signed by at least one Senator and one Member of the House of Representatives before the same shall be received.
No votes or papers from any other State shall be acted upon until the objections previously made to the votes or papers from any State shall have been finally disposed of.
end quotes
And as we all know, that never happened because on 3 January 2021, three days before the electoral college votes were actually counted pursuant to the law as written, which is the law disregarded, Nancy Pelosi was already guaranteeing the outcome, and as we are going to see, now, challenges to OUR presidential elections are considered “seditious,” which is to say, inciting or causing people to rebel against the authority of a state or monarch, which is about mas stupid as stupid can possibly get, but people, we are talking Democrats here, so there is no limit whatsoever to just how low they can really go, so stay tuned, and when we come back, it will be to discuss the ramifications of Texas v. Pennsylvania, 592 U.S. ___ (2020), the lawsuit filed at the United States Supreme Court as a motion to contest the administration of the 2020 presidential election in certain states, in which Joe Biden defeated incumbent Donald Trump.
Paul Plante says
And before we go further in here, I want to make it incandescently clear that I am in here as an AMERICAN CITIZEN who is not a Republican, not a Democrat, not a Trump supporter, and not a Biden supporter who is speaking for ALL the LOYAL AMERICANS who are NOT Republicans, and don’t want to be, and who similarly are NOT Democrats, and don’t wish to be, nor are they or I in any way associated with Trump and all his zany goings-on.
I am speaking for those of us who have been totally shut out of the electoral process for president in this last presidential election in 2020 between Joe Biden, Donald Trump, and Kanye West by the actions of Democrat Nancy Pelosi, which takes us to Case 2:20-cr-00210-PD Document 1 Filed 07/21/20 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 20cr210 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA CRIMINAL NO: 7/21/20 v. DATE FILED: MICHAEL “OZZIE” MYERS VIOLATIONS: 18 U.S.C. § 241 (conspiracy to deprive persons of civil rights -1 count) 18 U.S.C. § 1952 (Travel Act -2 counts) 18 U.S.C. § 1519 (falsification of records -2 counts) 52 U.S.C. § 10307(e) (voting more than once in federal election -1 count) 52 U.S.C. § 10307(c) (conspiring to illegally vote in federal election -1 count) 18 U.S.C. § 1512(b )(3) (obstruction -1 count) 18 U.S.C. § 2 (aiding and abetting), where we have as follows:
From at least in or about April 2014 through at least in or about June 2016, in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, and elsewhere, defendant MICHAEL “OZZIE” MYERS conspired and agreed with Domenick J..Demuro, and others known and unknown to the grand jury, while acting under color of law, to willfully injure, impede, impair, and oppress certain legally qualified electors of the United States, being all voters of the 39th Ward, 36th Division, in the City of Philadelphia, in the free exercise and enjoyment of their right and privilege, secured under the Constitution and laws of the United States, of exercising their right to vote in primary elections for candidates for federal, state, and local offices undiluted by false and fraudulent ballots and tallies in the 39th Ward, 36th Division, in the City of Philadelphia.
end quotes
That is the violation of 18 U.S. Code § 241 – Conspiracy against rights, which states thusly:
“If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same …. They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both …”
Which raises the question of whether by not following the law as written with respect to the Electoral College, Nancy Pelosi violated our rights for which she should be indicted as a common criminal.
Which in turn takes us back to the NBC NEWS article entitled “After Electoral College cements win, Biden unleashes scathing attack on Trump’s refusal to concede – The president-elect castigated the president with a ferociousness not seen since Election Day” by Rebecca Shabad, a congressional reporter for NBC News, based in Washington; Dareh Gregorian, a politics reporter for NBC News, and Dartunorro Clark, also a politics reporter for NBC News. on Dec. 14, 2020, where we had this from “president-elect” Joe Biden, and incidentally, “president-elect” is a made-up term made up by the media, to wit:
Biden called the election, which Trump and his supporters have tried to overturn with scores of failed legal challenges, “honest, free and fair.”
end quotes
And Joe has absolutely no evidence whatsoever to back up that claim, just as Trump had no evidence to prove they weren’t “honest, free, and fair,” and that takes us back to the formal indictment of Micheal “Ozzie” Myers for a rare look at exactly how it is the Democrats play “the inside game” to rig elections, a Democrat party art form honed and polished over the years since before the Civil War, to wit:
MANNER AND MEANS
It was part ofthe conspiracy that:
11. Defendant MICHAEL “OZZIE” MYERS would solicit monetary payments from his clients, candidates for elective office, in the form of cash or checks as “consulting fees.”
Defendant MYERS would then take portions of these funds from his clients and make payments to Election Board Officials, including Domenick J. Demuro, in return for Demuro and other Election Board officials tampering with the election results.
12. After receiving payments ranging from between $300 to $5,000 per election from defendant MICHAEL “OZZIE” MYERS, Domenick J. Demuro would add fraudulent votes – also known as “ringing up” votes – for defendant MYERS’ clients and preferred candidates in the 39th Ward, 36th Division, thereby diluting the ballots cast by actual voters.
13. Defendant MICHAEL “OZZIE” MYERS would relay instructions to Domenick J. Demuro via cellular telephones capable of interstate transmissions regarding which candidates defendant Demuro should “ring up” or add :fraudulent votes to their totals during Election Day in the 39th Ward, 36th Division.
14. After the polls closed on Election Day, Domenick J. Demuro would falsely certify the Voting Machine results from the 39th Ward, 36th Division, by attesting to the accuracy of the paper results receipt placed in the Cartridge-Results Bag with the memory cartridge from each Voting Machine for delivery to the City Commissioners.
15. Defendant MICHAEL “OZZIE” MYERS protected the scheme from detection and prosecution by law enforcement officials as well as from exposure by political candidates and the news media, through means that included the falsification of documents and obstruction of justice.
end quotes
So when Joe Biden tells us through the agency of NBC NEWS that the election of 2020 was honest, free, and fair, given the INSIDE GAME the Democrats play to not only RIG elections, but to keep the RIGGING from being exposed by political candidates and the news media, should we believe him?
Paul Plante says
And as Joe Biden tries to feed us a real BULL**** line that Democrats don’t engage in voter fraud, perish the thought, that’s seditious to even think so, and this 2020 election was the purest and most pristine presidential election there ever was anywhere, including here, in all the years there have been presidential elections anywhere on earth, including here, because, well, hey, Democrats are honest people who would never think of rigging an election, nor would they even know how, let’s go back to the RECIPE or COOKBOOK of the DEMOCRAT INSIDE GAME to rig elections in their favor which is the Indictment of Michael “Ozzie” Myers, Case 2:20-cr-00210-PD Document 1 Filed 07/21/20, which Indictment was returned by a GRAND JURY of our FELLOW AMERICANS who finally uncovered this Democrat election wrong-doing that was so skillfully buried by the Democrats it took some years, not mere days, to uncover, just as is the case with the 2020 election, where we have the game being played by the Democrats, and this is a LEGACY, not something “Ozzie” cooked up on the spur of the moment, but rather, something he inherited, which is how the DEMOCRAT INSIDE GAME is played, to wit:
OVERT ACTS
In furtherance of this conspiracy, defendant :MICHAEL “OZZIE” MYERS, along with Domenick J. Demuro and others, committed the following overt acts, among others, in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania:
1. On or about May 20, 2014, Domenick J. Demuro, and others known and unknown to the grand jury, added 27 fraudulent ballots during the primary election in the 39th Ward, 36th Division, on behalf of defendant MICHAEL “OZZIE” MYERS’ preferred candidates running for election to federal, state, local, and party offices.
end quotes
But of course, they would never think of doing the same thing all over again to get Joe Biden, a former two-time loser, into the white house, now would they?
Getting back to the “Ozzie” scheme, which is a damn good one, which you would expect of a Democrat, we have:
2. On or about May 20, 2014, Domenick J. Demuro, and others known to the grand jury, falsely certified the results receipt documenting 118 ballots cast during the primary election in the 39th Ward, 36th Division, even though only 91 voters physically appeared at the polling station to cast ballots.
end quotes
How that makes me chuckle, because it is just so Democrat of them to do something like that – change the vote tally – which proves the old adage that when it comes to election fraud in the United States of America, NOBODY but NOBODY can hold a candle to a Democrat because they are the masters of the game, which takes us back to “Ozzie” for more of how the Democrats play the election rigging game, to wit:
3. On or about May 20, 2014, after the polls closed, Domenick J. Demuro, and others known to the grand jury, turned in to the office of the Philadelphia City Commissioners the results receipts from voting Machine #021873 and Machine #021874 documenting 118 ballots cast during the primary election in the 3 9th Ward, 36th Division, even though only 91 voters physically appeared at the polling station to cast ballots.
end quotes
As an aside, this is fascinating stuff, is it not!
Getting back to the Indictment:
4. In May of 2015, defendant MICHAEL “OZZIE” MYERS gave Domenick J. Demuro approximately $1000 in cash in exchange for Demuro adding fraudulent votes during the primary election in the 39th Ward, 36th Division, on behalf of Judicial Candidate #1 running for Judge of the Court of Common Pleas in the First Judicial District of Pennsylvania.
end quotes
A cardinal rule of crooked Democrat politics is that if you want to be successful at being crooked as a Democrat politician, it is essential that you own as many judges as possible.
Getting back to it:
5. In May of 2015, defendant MICHAEL “OZZIE” MYERS gave Domenick J. Demuro approximately $500 in exchange for Demuro adding fraudulent votes during the primary election in the 39th Ward, 36th Division, on behalf of Judicial Candidate #2 running for Judge of the Court of Common Pleas in the First Judicial District of Pennsylvania.
6. In May of 2015, defendant MICHAEL “OZZIE” MYERS gave Domenick J. Demuro approximately $1000 in exchange for Demuro adding fraudulent votes during the primary election in the 39th Ward, 36th Division, on behalf of Judicial Candidate #3 running for Judge of the Court of Common Pleas in the First Judicial District of Pennsylvania.
7. On or about May 19, 2015, defendant MICHAEL “OZZIE” MYERS called Domenick J. Demuro immediately prior to the opening of the polls on primary Election Day to discuss their plans to add fraudulent votes.
8. On or about May 19, 2015, Domenick J. Demuro, and others known and unknown to the grand jury, added 40 fraudulent ballots during the primary election in the 39th Ward, 36th Division, on behalf of defendant MICHAEL “OZZIE” MYERS’ client candidates running for Judge of the Court of Common Pleas in the First Judicial District of Pennsylvania, and on behalf of defendant MICHAEL “OZZIE” MYERS’ preferred candidates for other state and local offices.
9. On or about May 19, 2015, defendant MICHAEL “OZZIE” MYERS called Domenick J. Demuro shortly after the polls closed on primary Election Day to confirm that fraudulent votes had been added to support defendant MYERS’ clients and preferred candidates.
end quotes
And there, people is a very good example of what is called “A GOOD DEMOCRAT” – once bribed, they not only stay bribed, but they go that one step beyond to guarantee the results of the bribe, so the bribe is not simply money wasted – hey, rigging elections is a bidness, afterall, and there have to be standards or people will lose faith in the system and simply stop paying bribes, and then the whole thing collapses and everybody, or well, pretty much everybody who counts, anyway, loses, which takes us back for more, to wit:
10. On or about May 19, 2015, after the polls closed, Domenick J. Demuro, and others known to the grand jury, turned in to the office of the Philadelphia City Commissioners the results receipts from voting Machine #021873 and Machine #021874 documenting 259 ballots cast during the primary election in the 39th Ward, 36th Divisipn, even though only 219 voters physically appeared at the polling station to cast ballots.
11. On or about April 26, 2016, defendant MICHAEL “OZZIE” MYERS called Domenick J. Demuro soon after the opening of the polls on primary Election Day to discuss their plans to add fraudulent votes.
12. On or about April 26, 2016, Domenick J. Demuro, and others known and unknown to the Grand Jury, added 46 fraudulent ballots during the primary election in the 39th Ward, 36th Division, on behalf of defendant MICHAEL “OZZIE” MYERS’ preferred candidates running for election to federal, state, and local offices.
13. On or about April 26, 2016, defendant MICHAEL “OZZIE” MYERS called Domenick J. Demuro multiple times shortly after the polls closed on primary Election Day to confirm that fraudulent votes had been added to support defendant MYBRS’ clients and preferred candidates.
14. On or about April 26, 2016, after the polls closed, Domenick J. Demuro, and others known to the grand jury, turned in to the office ofthe Philadelphia City Commissioners the results receipts from voting Machine #021873 and Machine #021874 documenting 266 ballots cast during the primary election in the 39th Ward, 36th Division, even though only 220 voters physically appeared at the polling station to cast ballots.
All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 241.
end quotes
Stay tuned, because when it came to voter fraud, our Democrat “Ozzie” was quite prolific, so there is more to come of what Joe Biden wants us to believe never happens, because Joe wants us to believe the Democrats are as pure as the driven snow, as opposed to experienced election fraudsters, so that any election they are involved with as a result has to be considered honest, free and fair, even when they aren’t, and in that case, it is the fault of Putin and the Russians and the Republicans.
Paul Plante says
Speaking of Putin and the Russians, the latest theory coming out of Joe Biden’s intelligence section is that Trump lost to Joe Biden, not because Joe was the better candidate, but because Putin’s support for Trump in this election was lackluster and half-hearted, which indicates Putin prefers Joe to Trump, and that thought takes us back to the RECIPE or COOKBOOK of the DEMOCRAT INSIDE GAME to rig elections in their favor which is the Indictment of Michael “Ozzie” Myers, Case 2:20-cr-00210-PD Document 1 Filed 07/21/20, where we have more of how the election-rigging game is played by the Democrats, who are the acknowledged masters of the game, to wit:
COUNT TWO
THE GRAND JURY FURTHER CHARGES THAT:
1. Paragraphs 1 through 9 and 11 through 15 and Overt Acts 1 through 10 of Count One are incorporated herein by reference.
2. The laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, specifically, 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 4701, provide that bribery is a violation of the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
3. On or about May 19, 2015, in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and elsewhere, defendant MICHAEL “OZZIE” MYERS, aided and abetted by Domenick J. Demuro and others, known and unknown to the grand jury, used a facility in interstate and foreign commerce, namely a cellular telephone, with the intent to promote, manage, establish, carry on, and facilitate the promotion, management, establishment, and carrying on, of an unlawful activity, that is, bribery in violation of 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 4701, and thereafter committed and attempted to commit an act of bribery by fraudulently adding votes in a primary election in exchange for money to further such unlawful activity.
In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1952(a)(3), and Title 18, United States Code, Section 2.
18 U.S. Code § 1952 is entitled “Interstate and foreign travel or transportation in aid of racketeering enterprises,” and section (a)(3) provides that “(W)hoever travels in interstate or foreign commerce or uses the mail or any facility in interstate or foreign commerce, with intent to) otherwise promote, manage, establish, carry on, or facilitate the promotion, management, establishment, or carrying on, of any unlawful activity, and thereafter performs or attempts to perform (A) an act described in paragraph (1) or (3) shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.
18 U.S. Code § 2, entitled “Principals,” states thusly:
(a) Whoever commits an offense against the United States or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures its commission, is punishable as a principal.
(b) Whoever willfully causes an act to be done which if directly performed by him or another would be an offense against the United States, is punishable as a principal.
Hey, if you are going to be a criminal Democrat, go big!
Getting back to how the Democrats play the election rigging game, which as we see here with “Ozzie,” they do very well, we have:
COUNT THREE
THE GRAND JURY FURTHER CHARGES THAT:
1. Paragraphs 1 through 9 and 11 through 15 and Overt Acts 1 through 10 of Count One are incorporated herein by reference.
2. On or about May 19, 2015, in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and elsewhere, defendant MICHAEL “OZZIE” MYERS, aided and abetted by Domenick J. Demuro, and others known and unknown to the grand jury, knowingly concealed, covered up, falsified, and made false entries in documents and records, specifically, the results receipts from voting Machine #021873 and Machine #021874 documenting 259 ballots cast during the primary election in the 39th Ward, 36th Division, with the intent to impede, obstruct, and influence the investigation and proper administration of a matter, and in relation to and contemplation of such matter, which was within the jurisdiction of a department and agency of the United States, specifically, the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”).
In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1519, and Title 18, United States Code, Section 2.
18 U.S. Code § 1519 is entitled “Destruction, alteration, or falsification of records in Federal investigations and bankruptcy” and states thusly:
Whoever knowingly alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, covers up, falsifies, or makes a false entry in any record, document, or tangible object with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation or proper administration of any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States or any case filed under title 11, or in relation to or contemplation of any such matter or case, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.
end quotes
And that takes us back to all these BULL**** statements in the media about how Trump and his team of moron lawyers were unable to document fraud in the 2020 election, and Christopher Wray being quoted in an NPR article entitled “Wray Stresses Role Of Right-Wing Extremism In Hearing About Jan. 6 Riot” by Brian Naylor and Ryan Lucas on Mar, 02 2021, thusly, to wit:
He also said the FBI is “not aware of any widespread evidence of voter fraud” in the November election, “much less that would have affected the outcome in the presidential election,” rebutting false claims by former President Trump and other Republicans that the election was “stolen” by Democrats.
end quotes
But did he really “rebut false claims” by Trump?
Or is that just more HORSE**** being heaped on us by National Propaganda Radio (NPR)?
Given how well “Ozzie” the Democrat was able to hide his fraud so the venerated FBI couldn’t find it, why would we believe a political appointee like Christopher Wray telling us there was no fraud in the 2020 election, just because he is unaware of it?
Getting back to the “Ozzie” Indictment, we have:
COUNT FOUR
THE GRAND JURY FURTHER CHARGES THAT:
1. Paragraphs 1 through 9 and 11 through 15 and Overt Acts 1 through 14 of Count One and Paragraph 2 of Count Two are incorporated herein by reference.
2. On or about April 26, 2016, in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and elsewhere, defendant MICHAEL “OZZIE” MYERS, aided and abetted by Domenick J. Demuro and others, known and unknown to the grand jury, used a facility in interstate and foreign commerce, namely a cellular telephone, with the intent to promote, manage, establish, carry on, and facilitate the promotion, management, establishment, and carrying on, of an unlawful activity, that is, bribery in violation of 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 4701, and thereafter committed and attempted to commit an act of bribery by fraudulently adding votes in a primary election in exchange for money to further such unlawful activity. In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1952(a)(3), and Title 18, United States Code, Section 2.
COUNT FIVE
THE GRAND JURY FURTHER CHARGES THAT:
1. Paragraphs 1 through 9 and 11 through 15 and Overt Acts 1 through 14 of Count One are incorporated herein by reference.
2. On or about April 26, 2016, in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and elsewhere, defendant MICHAEL “OZZIE” MYERS, aided and abetted by Domenick J. Demuro, and others known and unknown to the grand jury, knowingly concealed, covered up, falsified, and made false entries in documents and records, specifically, the results receipts from voting Machine #021873 and Machine #021874 documenting 266 ballots cast during the primary election in the 39th Ward, 36th Division, with the intent to impede, obstruct, and influence the investigation and proper administration of a matter, and in relation to and contemplation of such matter, which was within the jurisdiction of a department and agency of the United States, specifically, the DOJ and the FBI.
In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1519, and Title 18, United States Code, Section 2.
end quotes
So again, people, if the FBI and the DOJ didn’t know “Ozzie” was pulling off this election fraud, and it took them some time to find out, why on earth would we believe that they can say conclusively there was no election fraud in the 2020 election, given, as “Ozzie” the Democrat proved, it is easy to cover up and almost impossible to uncover and then prove?
Getting back to the Indictment:
COUNT SIX
THE GRAND JURY FURTHER CHARGES THAT:
1. Paragraphs 1 through 9 and 11 through 15 and Overt Acts 1 through 14 of Count One are incorporated herein by reference.
2. In 2016, the primary election ballot in the 39th Ward, 36th Division contained candidates for the office of President, Vice President, presidential elector, Member of the United States Senate, and Member of the United States House of Representatives.
3. On or about April 26, 2016, in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and elsewhere, defendant MICHAEL “OZZIE” MYERS, aided and abetted by Domenick J. Demuro, and others known and unknown to the grand jury, voted more than once in a primary election held solely or in part for the purpose of selecting and electing any candidate for the office of Member of the United States House of Representatives.
In violation of Title 52, United States Code, Section 10307(e), and Title 18, United States Code, Section 2.
52 USC 10307, entitled “Prohibited acts,” is from Title 52-VOTING AND ELECTIONS, Subtitle I-Voting Rights, CHAPTER 103-ENFORCEMENT OF VOTING RIGHTS, and states thusly:
Prohibited acts
e) Voting more than once
(1) Whoever votes more than once in an election referred to in paragraph (2) shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
(2) The prohibition of this subsection applies with respect to any general, special, or primary election held solely or in part for the purpose of selecting or electing any candidate for the office of President, Vice President, presidential elector, Member of the United States Senate, Member of the United States House of Representatives, Delegate from the District of Columbia, Guam, or the Virgin Islands, or Resident Commissioner of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
end quotes
So here we have a clear-cut case of a Democrat engaging in crimes to influence an election for the House of Representatives, which stands as proof that yes, Democrats do engage in election fraud to influence federal elections.
Going back to the “Ozzie” Indictment, it continues as follows:
COUNT SEVEN
THE GRAND JURY FURTHER CHARGES THAT:
1. Paragraphs 1 through 9 and 11 through 15 and Overt Acts 1 through 14 of Count One and Paragraph 2 of Count Six are incorporated herein by reference.
2. On or about April 26, 2016, in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and elsewhere, defendant MICHAEL “OZZIE” MYERS, conspired with Domenick J. Demuro, and others known and unknown to the grand jury, to illegally vote more than once in a primary election held solely or in part for the purpose of selecting and electing any candidate for the office of Member of the United States House of Representatives.
In violation of Title 52, United States Code, Section 10307(c), and Title 18, United States Code, Section 2. 15
COUNT EIGHT
THE GRAND JURY FURTHER CHARGES THAT:
1. Paragraphs 1 through 9 and 11 through 15 and Overt Acts 1 through 14 of Count One are incorporated herein by reference.
2. From on or about April 12, 2017 through on or about May 8, 2017, in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and elsewhere, defendant MICHAEL “OZZIE” MYERS, knowingly engaged in misleading behavior towards another person with the intent to hinder, delay, and prevent the communication to law enforcement officers, that is, agents of the FBI, information relating to the commission and possible commission of a federal offense, and attempted to do so, by among other things:
a. Instructing Domenick J. Demuro not to discuss the “ballot stuffing” over the telephone;
b. Advising Domenick J. Demuro to conceal the receipt of bribes by providing fictitious names to be listed as the payee on checks drawn on the campaign accounts of defendant MYERS’ preferred candidates and unwitting clients by telling Demuro, “I’m gonna get you a couple checks there’s no question about that.”
“If you want to give me a – a different name than Domenick Demuro that’s your business ….”
c. Advising Domenick J. Demuro that defendant MYERS would hand Demuro bribe payments in the form of checks after the deadline for the last campaign finance report prior to the May 2017 primary election because, “you don’t wanna – you don’t wanna be on any [candidate’s campaign finance] report May 7th when the election is May 16th;”
d. Having Domenick J. Demuro sign receipts for bribe payments in the form of cash and instructing Demuro that “if there was ever a question Dom … you know you’d say well I gave the money out Election Day [to get out the vote];”
e. Providing a check to Domenick J. Demuro drawn on the campaign account of defendant MYERS’ client candidate and made payable to Demuro’ s spouse and later falsely characterized on the unwitting candidate’s campaign finance report as supporting a “get out the vote” effort.
In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1512(b)(3) and Title 18, United States Code, Section 2.
end quotes
And there we have it, people, the BLUEPRINT as to how the Democrats expertly commit election fraud, and then just as expertly cover it over so good that even the vaunted FBI cannot find it.
And to conclude, if you are elected based on election fraud, and the fraud is uncovered after you are elected, regardless of how you got there, you remain elected.
Such is DEMOCRACY in America.
Paul Plante says
A 2019 YouGov poll found that 7 out of 10 millennials in the United States would vote for a socialist presidential candidate and 36% had a favorable view of communism.
Paul Plante says
And having had the election-rigging scheme employed by the Democrats since the 1850’s, the “repeat” voting and “stuffing the ballot boxes,” fully exposed for us here by a GRAND JURY of AMERICAN CITIZENS, not hack politicians trying to cover over how the election-rigging game is carried on by those on the “INSIDE,” which is where you have to be to successfully rig an election, let’s for a moment go back to FBI Director Christopher Wray being quoted in an NPR article entitled “Wray Stresses Role Of Right-Wing Extremism In Hearing About Jan. 6 Riot” by Brian Naylor and Ryan Lucas on Mar. 02, 2021, where we had, to wit:
He also said the FBI is “not aware of any widespread evidence of voter fraud” in the November election, “much less that would have affected the outcome in the presidential election,” rebutting false claims by former President Trump and other Republicans that the election was “stolen” by Democrats.
end quotes
So, people, let’s read that sentence very carefully to see what it is Christopher Wray, a political appointee answerable on 2 Mar. 2021 to Joe Biden really said, which is as follows:
1) The FBI is “not aware of any widespread evidence of voter fraud” in the November election; and
2) The voter fraud that the FBI knew was not widespread would not have affected the outcome in the presidential election.
end quotes
So the FBI was aware of the usual Democrat voter fraud, but also knew that it was not enough to worry about, which is ******* BULL****!
And given what we have learned about the FBI and presidential politics over the last four or more years, what with OPERATION CROSSFIRE HURRICANE and the obvious hatred of Trump, does anyone think that Christopher Wray would blow the whistle if he knew for certain that Democrat voter fraud did get Joe the votes he needed to win the popular vote by a seeming huge majority?
Which takes us to the FBI’s own website where we LOYAL AMERICAN PEOPLE have as follows, to wit:
Election Crimes and Security
Fair elections are the foundation of our democracy, and the FBI is committed to protecting the rights of all Americans to vote.
The U.S. government only works when legal votes are counted and when campaigns follow the law.
When the legitimacy of elections is corrupted, our democracy is threatened.
While individual states run elections, the FBI plays an important role in protecting federal interests and preventing violations of your constitutional rights.
end quotes
Now, first focus in on the words, “(W)hile individual states run elections …”
And then let’s go to a Gothamist article entitled “Election 2020 Results: Biden Wins New York & New Jersey, Max Rose Won’t Concede” by Ben Yakas, David Cruz and Sydney Pereira on Nov. 4, 2020 @ 2:00 a.m., not even one day after Election Day 2020, where we have as follows:
Update 1:30 a.m. Joe Biden addressed his supporters early Wednesday morning, and offered a message of optimism while urging patience.
“We feel good about where we are, we really do,” he said.
“I’m here to tell you tonight we believe we’re on track to win this election.”
“We knew because of the unprecedented early vote and the mail-in vote that it was going to take awhile, that we’re going to have to be patient until the hard work of tallying the votes is finished—and it ain’t over until every ballot is counted.”
As of 1 a.m., Biden has 224 electoral votes to Donald Trump’s 213.
end quotes
So, regardless of what the federal law has to say in the provisions of CHAPTER 1—PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS AND VACANCIES (§§ 1 – 21) of U.S. Code: Title 3 § 15 – Counting electoral votes in Congress. which makes it patently clear that the Electoral College vote isn’t known until 6 January, not 4 November, and that electoral college votes are subject to challenge, Joe claimed those electoral votes on 4 November 2020, which totally negates the law, as written, and this from a man running for an office where he is to “take care that the laws are faithfully enforced!”
What a JOKE, Joe!
And that takes us to a YouTube video entitled “New York City Erupts in Cheers After Biden Declared Winner of 2020 Election” on 7 November 2020 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cHDKjqa8w6E , and a KTLA5 article entitled “Joe Biden wins presidential race in California” by Associated Press on Nov 3, 2020 / 08:12 PM PST / Updated: Nov 3, 2020 / 10:33 PM PST, where we had as follows:
Joe Biden won California and its 55 electoral votes Tuesday, tightening the Democrats’ grip on the nation’s most populous state.
Biden had more than 68% of the vote, with more than 10 million ballots counted so far.
California has voted for the Democratic presidential nominee in every election since 1992.
Hillary Clinton trounced Trump by more than 4 million votes in 2016, and a similar result this year is expected to inflate Biden’s numbers in the popular vote.
It was a strong rebuke of Trump by a state that has prided itself on being a bulwark against his policies, including filing more than 100 legal actions against his administration since he took office.
end quotes
So, people, when exactly was it that the FBI looked for any election fraud in any of those races?
And who was going to challenge those elections?
Which question finally takes us challenges to OUR presidential elections now being considered “seditious,” which is to say, inciting or causing people to rebel against the authority of a state or monarch, which is about as stupid as stupid can possibly get, but people, we are talking Democrats here, so there is no limit whatsoever to just how low they can really go, and the ramifications of Texas v. Pennsylvania, 592 U.S. ___ (2020), the lawsuit filed at the United States Supreme Court as a motion to contest the administration of the 2020 presidential election in certain states, in which Joe Biden defeated incumbent Donald Trump, and the National Propaganda Radio (NPR) article “Supreme Court Rejects Texas’ Lawsuit Over Election Results” on December 11, 2020, Heard on All Things Considered with Nina Totenberg at NPR headquarters in Washington, D.C., to wit:
The Supreme Court has rejected a lawsuit brought by Republican-led states alleging election fraud, ending one of the last legal challenges to the 2020 presidential election.
AUDIE CORNISH, HOST: The U.S. Supreme Court tonight shut down President Trump’s 11th-hour attempt to block Joe Biden’s election as president.
Trump’s hopes hinged on a lawsuit brought by Texas that sought to invalidate the election results in four key states – Georgia, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan.
But in a three-sentence order, the court said Texas has no legal standing to sue another state on these grounds.
Joining us now is NPR legal affairs correspondent Nina Totenberg.
And, Nina, can you start with those three sentences?
What did they say?
NINA TOTENBERG, BYLINE: The court said that Texas has no legal grounds to complain about how another state conducts its elections.
And the justices therefore said essentially, you can’t even come here with this suit.
In other words, in this country, election laws are governed by state and local laws unless there’s some federal exception.
And so the court said that Texas had not suffered any injury.
After all, Texas and all the states that were supporting it, the Republican-controlled states that were supporting it, they got to cast their votes the way they wanted, and they couldn’t complain about how another state conducted its elections in Georgia, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin or Michigan.
end quotes
And here I will pause to let that all sink in, because what the Supreme Court is really saying is that IF a state thinks election fraud is okay in their state, then okay with the Supreme Court it is, and that’s the end of the story!
So please, stay tuned!
Paul Plante says
How the “favorable view” of communism, a system where you don’t have to do a ******* thing for yourself because it is the responsibility of the “government” to care for you and feed you cradle to grave as embraced by the ignorant youth of America and the Democrats, came to be here in the first place:
Now, we’re opening the gates, so to speak, and exchanging delegations; delegations of the socialists and union activists from capitalist countries.
What are they going to talk about?
They are, of course, going to look for such things as the kind of armaments we have.
But, especially at housing conditions, medical services, salaries — this is the main problem, and we can’t avoid it.
It should be distinguished from other problems, because our worker should not live in worse conditions then those workers in capitalist countries.
Otherwise, we wouldn’t be able to attract the worker to our side.
– March 20, 1956 Speech by Comrade Khrushchev at the 6th PUWP CC Plenum, Warsaw
Paul Plante says
How the Commies make their inroads into and win the minds of American youth through the policies of the Democrat party which is a stalking horse and running dog of the Commies:
Resistance Rising: Socialist Strategy in the Age of Political Revolution
June 25, 2016
A summary of Democratic Socialists of America’s Strategy Document – June 2016
Organizing in Higher Education
Free public higher education is a key example of what we might call a “transformative” reform that helps to popularize the idea of socialism and to make further, more dramatic reforms possible in the future.
Free public higher education would mean taking what should be a universal public good out of the marketplace, putting it under democratic control and guaranteeing it as a right to all citizens — and funding it by a truly progressive tax system that makes the wealthy and corporations pay their fair share of government revenue.
Beyond its inherent benefits, such a campaign would also show people that socialist policies are both desirable and achievable.
Gaining free public higher education could serve as a crucial step in making democratic socialist politics more attractive to a wider cross-section of the U.S. public.
Electoral Organizing
Achieving our goals will require grassroots organizing and “street heat,” but it will also require a critical mass of political office holders to implement them.
Although elections in and of themselves will not bring about major political, economic or social reforms — let alone establish a pathway to socialism — it is difficult to imagine how we could achieve any of our objectives in the United States without taking part in the electoral process.
In the short term, we need to engage in electoral activity for several important reasons: to defend existing rights; to put forth new demands for social and economic justice that could change public conversations and thereby create openings for more fundamental structural reforms down the road; to attract new members to DSA and thereby build our capacity as an organization; and to build and sustain non-electoral activism.
The nature of our electoral activism will vary based on local political conditions.
But it will include supporting progressive and socialist candidates running for office, usually in Democratic primaries or as Democrats in general elections but also in support of independent socialist and other third-party campaigns outside the Democratic Party.
Paul Plante says
Getting back to National Propaganda Radio, whose show “All Things Considered” should really be named “Most Things Not Considered,” and the ramifications of Texas v. Pennsylvania, 592 U.S. ___ (2020), the lawsuit filed at the United States Supreme Court as a motion to contest the administration of the 2020 presidential election in certain states, in which Joe Biden defeated incumbent Donald Trump, to see what the motion was really all about, which we will never hear from National Propaganda Radio, let’s go directly to the filing itself, where we have as follows, and let me say here that the motion was as accessible to NPR as it was to me, where we have as follows:
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE BILL OF COMPLAINT
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1251(a) and this Court’s Rule 17, the State of Texas respectfully seeks leave to file the accompanying Bill of Complaint against the States of Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (collectively, the “Defendant States”) challenging their administration of the 2020 presidential election.
As set forth in the accompanying brief and complaint, the 2020 election suffered from significant and unconstitutional irregularities in the Defendant States:
• Non-legislative actors’ purported amendments to States’ duly enacted election laws, in violation of the Electors Clause’s vesting State legislatures with plenary authority regarding the appointment of presidential electors.
• Intrastate differences in the treatment of voters, with more favorable allotted to voters – whether lawful or unlawful – in areas administered by local government under Democrat control and with populations with higher ratios of Democrat voters than other areas of Defendant States.
• The appearance of voting irregularities in the Defendant States that would be consistent with the unconstitutional relaxation of ballot-integrity protections in those States’ election laws.
All these flaws – even the violations of state election law – violate one or more of the federal requirements for elections (i.e., equal protection, due process, and the Electors Clause) and thus arise under federal law. See Bush v Gore, 531 U.S. 98, 113 (2000) (“significant departure from the legislative scheme for appointing Presidential electors presents a federal constitutional question”)
(Rehnquist, C.J., concurring).
Plaintiff State respectfully submits that the foregoing types of electoral irregularities exceed the hanging-chad saga of the 2000 election in their degree of departure from both state and federal law.
Moreover, these flaws cumulatively preclude knowing who legitimately won the 2020 election and threaten to cloud all future elections.
Taken together, these flaws affect an outcome-determinative numbers of popular votes in a group of States that cast outcome-determinative numbers of electoral votes.
This Court should grant leave to file the complaint and, ultimately, enjoin the use of unlawful election results without review and ratification by the Defendant States’ legislatures and remand to the Defendant States’ respective legislatures to appoint Presidential Electors in a manner consistent with the Electors Clause and pursuant to 3 U.S.C. § 2.
December 7, 2020
Respectfully submitted,
Ken Paxton*Attorney General of Texas
Brent Webster First Assistant Attorney General of Texas
Lawrence Joseph Special Counsel to the Attorney General of Texas
Office of the Attorney General
P.O.Box 12548 (MC 059)Austin, TX 78711-2548
kenneth.paxton@oag.texas.gov
(512) 936-1414
* Counsel of Record
end quotes
And there, people, is exactly what a SEDITIOUS CHALLENGE to the election of Joe Biden as president looks like in real life!
Paul Plante says
And in response to the question of where on earth I am getting the absurd and idiotic idea that asking the United States Supreme Court to uphold the provisions of the United States Constitution as written is a SEDITIOUS ACTIVITY, that answer is really quite simple – from the POWERFUL BULL**** PUMP that National Propaganda Radio (NPR) has become since Mark Zuckerburg of FACEBOOK started dumping money into it to make it the ORGAN of DISSEMINATION of POLITICAL PROPAGANDA it has become, as we see from the NPR story “Supreme Court Dismisses Texas Lawsuit Aiming To Overturn Election Results” Heard on Weekend Edition Saturday with Miles Parks on December 12, 2020, where we had as follows:
The Supreme Court rejected a Texas lawsuit challenging the election results in fours swing states.
It was a long-shot attempt by President Trump’s allies to overturn President-elect Biden’s victory.
SCOTT SIMON, HOST: The U.S. Supreme Court last night rejected a lawsuit that tried yet again to overturn the election results.
This one was brought by Texas and 17 other Republican-run states alleging election fraud in four states won by Joe Biden.
It was another reverse to Republican attempts to change what happened, which, to be clear, is that Joe Biden won 306 electoral votes to Donald Trump’s 232.
President-elect Biden also won the popular vote by more than seven million.
We’re joined now by NPR voting reporter Miles Parks.
Miles, thanks so much for being with us.
MILES PARKS, BYLINE: Hey.
Good morning.
SIMON: The court was short and direct last night, weren’t they?
PARKS: They were, indeed.
A three-sentence order which said they were denying the complaint that was brought by Texas for, quote, “lack of standing.”
Basically, Texas had said that the way other states vote was hurting them.
But the court didn’t buy it.
The way voting in the U.S. works is that every state runs their own elections.
And they all do it slightly differently.
The court said Texas had not demonstrated an interest in how other states conduct their elections and that Texas had basically not suffered any injury here.
SIMON: And, Miles, refresh our recollection.
What was at the heart of Texas’s argument about results in other states?
PARKS: Sure.
So on Tuesday, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton sued four states Biden won, Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.
He was joined by 17 other states, all won by Trump.
Paxton claimed that changes the four states made to election procedures because of the pandemic, things like increasing vote by mail, violated federal law.
And he also alleged, without evidence, that the changes enabled voter fraud to occur.
We should add that U.S. Attorney General William Barr has said the Justice Department has not found any evidence of widespread voter fraud in this year’s election.
SIMON: And this court decision has set off a moment of national unity?
PARKS: (Laughing) Not – I wouldn’t go that far.
President Trump has already come out saying he’s not happy about this.
He’d been saying for months that the Supreme Court was kind of his secret weapon, the thing that was going to come in and save the election for him.
Last night, he tweeted, the decision was a legal disgrace and an embarrassment to the United States.
There has been, from other sides of the country, some celebration and relief from those who opposed the lawsuit.
Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro said the court, quote, “saw through this seditious abuse of our electoral process.”
And he said he hoped it would make anyone trying to attack the election think twice.
end quotes
And there we have it right there from NPR and Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro – requesting the United States Supreme Court to uphold the Constitution is a “seditious abuse of our electoral process,” which takes us back to the Motion that is a seditious abuse of our electoral process, where we have what sedition looks like in black and white, to wit:
BILL OF COMPLAINT
Our Country stands at an important crossroads.
Either the Constitution matters and must be followed, even when some officials consider it inconvenient or out of date, or it is simply a piece of parchment on display at the National Archives.
We ask the Court to choose the former.
Lawful elections are at the heart of our constitutional democracy.
The public, and indeed the candidates themselves, have a compelling interest in ensuring that the selection of a President — any President — is legitimate.
If that trust is lost, the American Experiment will founder.
A dark cloud hangs over the 2020 Presidential election.
Here is what we know.
Using the COVID-19 pandemic as a justification, government officials in the defendant states of Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin, and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (collectively, “Defendant States”), usurped their legislatures’ authority and unconstitutionally revised their state’s election statutes.
They accomplished these statutory revisions through executive fiat or friendly lawsuits, thereby weakening ballot integrity.
Finally, these same government officials flooded the Defendant States with millions of ballots to be sent through the mails, or placed in drop boxes, with little or no chain of custody 1 and, at the same time, weakened the strongest security measures protecting the integrity of the vote — signature verification and witness requirements.
Presently, evidence of material illegality in the 2020 general elections held in Defendant States grows daily.
And, to be sure, the two presidential candidates who have garnered the most votes have an interest in assuming the duties of the Office of President without a taint of impropriety threatening the perceived legitimacy of their election.
However, 3 U.S.C. §7 requires that presidential electors be appointed on December 14, 2020.
That deadline, however, should not cement a potentially illegitimate election result in the middle of this storm — a storm that is of the Defendant States’ own making by virtue of their own unconstitutional actions.
This Court is the only forum that can delay the deadline for the appointment of presidential electors under 3 U.S.C. §§ 5, 7.
To safeguard public legitimacy at this unprecedented moment and restore public trust in the presidential election, this Court should extend the December 14, 2020 deadline for Defendant States’ certification of presidential electors to allow these investigations to be completed.
Should one of the two leading candidates receive an absolute majority of the presidential electors’ votes to be cast on December 14, this would finalize the selection of our President.
The only date that is mandated under the Constitution, however, is January 20, 2021.
U.S. CONST. amend. XX.
1 Seehttps://georgiastarnews.com/2020/12/05/dekalb-county-cannot-find-chain-of-custody-records-for-absentee-ballots-deposited-in-drop-boxes-it-has-not-been-determined-if-responsive-records-to-your-request-exist/
end quotes
And there we have it, people – SEDITION!
SCREECH, SCREECH, SCREECH – Somebody call the FBI, real quick!
SEDITION is a serious crime against the Democrats in America!
To protect them we need to put Texas in federal prison as an example to anyone else who would dare to question how a Democrat became the United States president!
Maybe even physically annihilate them as Joe Stalin would have done!
That would teach them a lesson, alright – DO NOT QUESTION HOW JOE BIDEN BECAME PRESIDENT, OR YOU WILL BE MADE TO WISH YOU DIDN’T!
Paul Plante says
And before we go back to the National Propaganda Radio (NPR) article “Supreme Court Rejects Texas’ Lawsuit Over Election Results” on December 11, 2020, Heard on All Things Considered with Nina Totenberg at NPR headquarters in Washington, D.C., let us focus on these words from what was actually filed with the Supreme Court by the State of Texas, to wit:
BILL OF COMPLAINT
Our Country stands at an important crossroads.
Either the Constitution matters and must be followed, even when some officials consider it inconvenient or out of date, or it is simply a piece of parchment on display at the National Archives.
We ask the Court to choose the former.
Lawful elections are at the heart of our constitutional democracy.
The public, and indeed the candidates themselves, have a compelling interest in ensuring that the selection of a President — any President — is legitimate.
If that trust is lost, the American Experiment will founder.
end quotes
Now, that has not a ******* thing to do with Donald Trump, period!
He is just a bit player in this drama, which takes us back to NPR and “Not Much Considered And That Only Superficially,” where we have from them as follows, to wit:
CORNISH: Did any of the justices dissent?
TOTENBERG: Well, Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito said that for procedural reasons, they thought that Texas should be able to at least file its suit in the Supreme Court.
But beyond that, they wouldn’t have given Texas anything else that it wanted.
CORNISH: Nina, if this was such a slam dunk that it took the Supreme Court about a day to decide to do nothing, why did Texas file the suit?
And why did 17 Republican attorneys general file a supporting brief?
And I guess I should also follow with, why did more than half the Republican members of Congress do the same thing?
end quotes
And talk about a comprehension deficit, here we are looking at the real thing – a GENUINE MADE-IN-AMERICA ******* IDIOT!
Obviously, this AUDIE CORNISH, HOST, is brain-dead if she cannot read those opening words from the Texas BILL OF COMPLAINT that either the Constitution matters and must be followed, even when some officials consider it inconvenient or out of date, or it is simply a piece of parchment on display at the National Archives, and understand the implications to those of us who are LOYAL AMERICAN CITIZENS, not Democrats, not Republicans, not Trump supporters, not boys who are proud of being boys, although in reality, they are PROPAGANDISTS, so mnthis is the stupid **** we can expect from them, which takes us back to the Transcript as follows:
TOTENBERG: Well, let’s start with Attorney General Paxton, Ken Paxton of Texas.
There’s been a lot of speculation because he’s under indictment for securities fraud, is being investigated by the FBI on other charges that perhaps he is looking for a pardon because interestingly, the solicitor general of Texas who signs all of Texas’s briefs to the Supreme Court, usually – the solicitor general of the state did not sign this brief.
As to the other attorneys general, we know from a variety of reports that President Trump talked to several of them because they were all meeting in Washington, trying to get them to support this brief.
In addition to that, you know, attorneys general frequently are going to run for another office.
They may want to be governor someday.
So this was good politics.
And that’s probably the same reason that the majority of the Republican members of the House of Representatives did the same thing.
end quotes
And here, all I can do is to shake my head at just how ******* stupid people in this country have to he to believe that ****!
IT’S ABOUT OUR CONSTITUTION, NINA, YOU IDIOT, NOT KEN PAXTON!
Getting back to the propaganda:
CORNISH: What happens next?
TOTENBERG: Well, the Constitution tells us what happens next.
The members of – the delegates of the Electoral College meet from every state and in every state to cast their ballots as they were voted upon by the people of that state.
end quotes
“Delegates” of the Electoral College?
THEY ARE CALLED “ELECTORS,” NINA!
In FEDERALIST No. 68, “The Mode of Electing the President,” from the New York Packet to the People of the State of New York on Friday, March 14, 1788, Alexander Hamilton spoke of them thusly:
It was desirable that the sense of the people should operate in the choice of the person to whom so important a trust was to be confided.
This end will be answered by committing the right of making it, not to any preestablished body, but to men chosen by the people for the special purpose, and at the particular conjuncture.
It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice.
A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations.
It was also peculiarly desirable to afford as little opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder.
This evil was not least to be dreaded in the election of a magistrate, who was to have so important an agency in the administration of the government as the President of the United States.
But the precautions which have been so happily concerted in the system under consideration, promise an effectual security against this mischief.
The choice of SEVERAL, to form an intermediate body of electors, will be much less apt to convulse the community with any extraordinary or violent movements, than the choice of ONE who was himself to be the final object of the public wishes.
And as the electors, chosen in each State, are to assemble and vote in the State in which they are chosen, this detached and divided situation will expose them much less to heats and ferments, which might be communicated from them to the people, than if they were all to be convened at one time, in one place.
Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption.
These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one quarter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils.
How could they better gratify this, than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union?
But the convention have guarded against all danger of this sort, with the most provident and judicious attention.
They have not made the appointment of the President to depend on any preexisting bodies of men, who might be tampered with beforehand to prostitute their votes; but they have referred it in the first instance to an immediate act of the people of America, to be exerted in the choice of persons for the temporary and sole purpose of making the appointment.
And they have excluded from eligibility to this trust, all those who from situation might be suspected of too great devotion to the President in office.
end quotes
Getting back to the stupid propaganda spew from Mark Zuckerburg’s NPR, it goes on as follows:
TOTENBERG: And one would have to note that the – in these four states, not only was there a recount in every one of these states, there were audits.
There were dozens of challenges in court, none of which came to fruition in any way and that the attorney general of the United States, Mr. Trump’s own attorney general, said there was no evidence of any kind of massive fraud.
So they will meet – all of them – on Monday.
And they will cast their votes, and Joe Biden will become the president-elect formally of the United States.
And he will then be sworn into office on January 20.
Now, of course, this is Trump land.
We – you never know what could happen next.
So I’m not going to say never.
CORNISH: That’s OK.
TOTENBERG: Never say never when it comes to Trump.
CORNISH: Yes.
That’s NPR legal affairs correspondent Nina Totenberg.
end quotes
Yes, people, it was!
And this is not Trump-Land – it’s the United States of America!
Or used to be, anyway.
Paul Plante says
And before we go back for a more detailed look at FEDERALIST No. 68, “The Mode of Electing the President,” from the New York Packet to the People of the State of New York on Friday, March 14, 1788, where Alexander Hamilton told WE, THE LOYAL AMERICAN PEOPLE, that when it came to selecting the best person this nation had to offer from among its many talented citizens to be its Chief Magistrate tasked with taking care that the laws, OUR laws, be faithfully enforced, it was thought desirable by the Founders that the sense of the people should operate in the choice of the person to whom so important a trust was to be confided, which end was to be answered by committing the right of making it, not to any preestablished body, but to men chosen by the people for the special purpose, and at the particular conjuncture, and it was equally desirable that the immediate election of the Chief Magistrate should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice, for which purpose a small number of persons, selected by us, their fellow-citizens, from the general mass, would be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations, let us first go back to the National Propaganda Radio (NPR) article “Supreme Court Rejects Texas’ Lawsuit Over Election Results” on December 11, 2020, Heard on All Things Considered with Nina Totenberg at NPR headquarters in Washington, D.C., to wit:
CORNISH: What happens next?
TOTENBERG: Well, the Constitution tells us what happens next.
The members of – the delegates of the Electoral College meet from every state and in every state to cast their ballots as they were voted upon by the people of that state.
end quotes
Applying some logic here that will not be applied by National Propaganda Radio (NPR) which is peddling a narrative, IF as Nina Totenberg tells Audie Cornish on 11 December 2020, the “delegates” of the Electoral College meet from every state and in every state to cast their ballots as they were voted upon by the people of that state, then it has to logically follow that the immediate election of the Chief Magistrate in 2020 WAS NOT made by men or women most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station who would be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations, because there were no such complicated investigations, period – to the contrary, the so-called “delegates” to the electoral college in 2020 were simply mindless drones there to act as rubber stamps.
Whatever the people want, they should get, and it is no business of the delegates to the electoral college to challenge that or to substitute their judgment for that of the howling mob, which takes us back to FEDERALIST No. 68, “The Mode of Electing the President,” from the New York Packet to the People of the State of New York on Friday, March 14, 1788, by Alexander Hamilton, to wit:
It was also peculiarly desirable to afford as little opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder.
This evil was not least to be dreaded in the election of a magistrate, who was to have so important an agency in the administration of the government as the President of the United States.
But the precautions which have been so happily concerted in the system under consideration, promise an effectual security against this mischief.
The choice of SEVERAL, to form an intermediate body of electors, will be much less apt to convulse the community with any extraordinary or violent movements, than the choice of ONE who was himself to be the final object of the public wishes.
end quotes
Except as was proven conclusively in 2020, where Joe Biden was claiming to be the president on 7 November 2020, thirty-four (34) days before the 11 December 2020 NPR article, that “effectual security” is now non-existent, which takes us back to the NBC NEWS article entitled “After Electoral College cements win, Biden unleashes scathing attack on Trump’s refusal to concede – The president-elect castigated the president with a ferociousness not seen since Election Day” by Rebecca Shabad, a congressional reporter for NBC News, based in Washington; Dareh Gregorian, a politics reporter for NBC News, and Dartunorro Clark, also a politics reporter for NBC News, on Dec. 14, 2020, to wit:
Biden called the election, which Trump and his supporters have tried to overturn with scores of failed legal challenges, “honest, free and fair.”
And he called attacks on the election and election officials “simply unconscionable” and Trump’s attempts to overturn the election an “abuse of power.”
“In America, politicians don’t take power — the people grant it to them,” he said.
“The flame of democracy was lit in this nation a long time ago.”
“And we now know that nothing, not even a pandemic — or an abuse of power — can extinguish that flame.
“In this battle for the soul of America, democracy prevailed,” Biden added.
“We the people voted.”
“Faith in our institutions held.”
“The integrity of our elections remains intact.”
“And so, now it is time to turn the page.”
“To unite.”
“To heal.”
All 538 electors met Monday in their respective states to cast their votes for president based on the election results that were recently certified by all 50 states and Washington, D.C.
Biden, however, was deemed president-elect on Nov. 7, four days after the election, once he surpassed the 270 electoral votes needed to win the presidency.
end quotes
So, people, regardless of anything to the contrary in FEDERALIST No. 68, “The Mode of Electing the President,” from the New York Packet to the People of the State of New York on Friday, March 14, 1788, by Alexander Hamilton, on 7 Nov. 2020, Joe Biden was deemed the president-elect, which takes us back to FEDERALIST No. 68, to wit:
And as the electors, chosen in each State, are to assemble and vote in the State in which they are chosen, this detached and divided situation will expose them much less to heats and ferments, which might be communicated from them to the people, than if they were all to be convened at one time, in one place.
end quotes
In this case, the heats and ferments of the people where communicated to these so-called “delegates” of the electoral college, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Andy Cuomo, and Kathy Sheehan of Albany, New York who has told WE, THE LOYAL AMERICAN PEOPLE that we have to embrace BLACK LIVES MATTER, and by extension, the Marxist ideology BLACK LIVES MATTER is based on, and these so-called “delegates” as stated above, were merely rubber stamps, which takes us back to FEDERALIST No. 68 for this, to wit:.
Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption.
end quotes
And nice try, Al, but as we can clearly see from what happened in 2020, every practicable obstacle you saw as being opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption was easily swept aside by the Democrats so that now, all we do have is cabal, intrigue and corruption galore.
Getting back to FEDERALIST No. 68:
These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one quarter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils.
But the convention have guarded against all danger of this sort, with the most provident and judicious attention.
They have not made the appointment of the President to depend on any preexisting bodies of men, who might be tampered with beforehand to prostitute their votes; but they have referred it in the first instance to an immediate act of the people of America, to be exerted in the choice of persons for the temporary and sole purpose of making the appointment.
end quotes
And given the reality of who these “delegates” really are, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Andy Cuomo, and Kathy Sheehan, all of whom have been trusted beforehand to prostitute their votes or they would not have been selected by the Democrats in the first place, clearly the people of America DID NOT select these “delegates,” only the Democrats did.
So the will of the American people really has been thwarted, as we see by going back to FEDERALIST No. 68, to wit:
Thus without corrupting the body of the people, the immediate agents in the election will at least enter upon the task free from any sinister bias.
end quotes
Free from any sinister bias?
Bill Clinton?
Hillary Clinton who was quoted in The Daily Caller article “Hillary Tells Black Church White People Must End ‘Systemic Racism’” by Alex Pfeiffer, White House Correspondent, on April 20, 2016 as saying it is the “responsibility of white people” to end systemic racism and “(W)e have to be honest about systemic racism and particularly the responsibility of white people, not just people in public life but all of us,” and “(W)e all have implicit biases, they are almost in the DNA going back probably millennia, and what we need to do is be more honest about that and surface them,” adding, “I don’t have the answers, I’m not a behavioral psychologist or anything, but I think that needs to be done in every community kind of setting we can find that is open to doing it?”
Andy Cuomo?
Kathy Sheehan?
Yeah, right, Al, because that is about as BULL**** as BULL**** can possibly get, which again takes us back to FEDERALIST No. 68, to wit:
The business of corruption, when it is to embrace so considerable a number of men, requires time as well as means.
end quotes
And as to the business of corruption, time as well as means are what the Democrats have had plenty of going back to at least the 1850’s, so that all of the safeguards against cabal, intrigue, and especially corruption in the selection of an American president promised to the American people by Al Hamilton in FEDERALIST No. 68 are nothing more than a fence made out of moonbeams and fairy dust.
Paul Plante says
And here we need to go back to the National Propaganda Radio (NPR) story “Supreme Court Dismisses Texas Lawsuit Aiming To Overturn Election Results” Heard on Weekend Edition Saturday with Miles Parks on December 12, 2020, for a moment, to see the spin being put on this story by the propagandists as they pump out their poison, to wit:
MILES PARKS, BYLINE: I talked to University of Pennsylvania law professor Claire Finkelstein about all of the various lawsuits that the Trump campaign has brought over the past month.
She said she was confident this was how the court would rule.
And she’s been, in general, encouraged by how the legal system has held up through all this.
But she was still worried about the fact that it had to deal with these sorts of cases, you know, fraud without evidence cases at all.
CLAIRE FINKELSTEIN: It’s a very problematic state of affairs because it tests our ability to engage in peaceful transition of power to the utmost.
So our system is being stress tested.
I think on the whole, we’re coming out OK.
end quotes
What infantile BULL****!
Our system is being “stress-tested?”
But isn’t that why the “system” exists in the first place, at least in a country that purports to have “honest, free and fair” elections conducted pursuant to RULE OF LAW?
But there has been a REVOLUTION in America along the lines of the German Revolution of 1918-19, and we are now a socialist “People’s Democracy” with a new constitution being written as we speak and imposed on us by FIAT, no longer a Republic of, by, and for the People, so all bets are now off, as the system is re-invented before our eyes, which takes us back to NPR once again. to wit:
SIMON: Miles, are there any legal challenges left to the election results?
PARKS: Legal experts seem to think this is basically the end of the road.
You know, Trump had, as I mentioned, pinned his hopes on the Supreme Court.
And that obviously has not worked out.
The Electoral College meets in all 50 states and D.C. on Monday to cast votes, solidifying Biden’s victory.
Trump had previously said he would accept the Electoral College’s decision.
But, obviously, a statement like that is not binding.
President Trump has been known to say something and do something else.
So we’ll see.
He says he’s going to continue fighting the election results.
The question is, what form does that take?
SIMON: NPR’s Miles Parks, thanks so much.
PARKS: Thanks, Scott.
end quotes
And against that set of infantile comments by University of Pennsylvania law professor Claire Finkelstein about these Constitutional challenges to HOW the 2020 presidential election was actually conducted being “a very problematic state of affairs because it tests our ability to engage in peaceful transition of power to the utmost,” let’s go back to the actual Texas lawsuit, to wit:
Against that background, the State of Texas (“Plaintiff State”) brings this action against Defendant States based on the following allegations:
NATURE OF THE ACTION
1. Plaintiff State challenges Defendant States’ administration of the 2020 election under the Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2, and the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
2. This case presents a question of law: Did Defendant States violate the Electors Clause (or, in the alternative, the Fourteenth Amendment) by taking — or allowing — non-legislative actions to change the election rules that would govern the appointment of presidential electors?
end quotes
And right there, people is what Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro is calling a “seditious abuse of our electoral process,” while University of Pennsylvania law professor Claire Finkelstein calls it “a very problematic state of affairs because it tests our ability to engage in peaceful transition of power to the utmost,” the state of Texas asking the United States Supreme Court to rule on a QUESTION OF LAW – did the Defendant States violate the Electors Clause or, in the alternative, the Fourteenth Amendment by taking or allowing non-legislative actions to change the election rules that would govern the appointment of presidential electors?
And it really is a very simple question, so the answers to concomitant questions of exactly how that could possibly be a “seditious abuse of our electoral process,” or “a very problematic state of affairs because it tests our ability to engage in peaceful transition of power to the utmost” remain quite elusive, which takes us back to the Texas lawsuit, to wit:
3. Those unconstitutional changes opened the door to election irregularities in various forms.
end quotes
Of course, they did – they just invented a new way of electing American presidents, which was what the exercise was all about in the first place as those states simply rejected our old Constitution and tossed it into the trashbin of history, to replace it with their new version, which from here on out, will be the way all future presidential elections are held to ensure that only a Democrat will be president, which takes us back to the lawsuit, to wit:
Plaintiff State alleges that each of the Defendant States flagrantly violated constitutional rules governing the appointment of presidential electors.
end quotes
Except they didn’t “flagrantly violate constitutional rules governing the appointment of presidential electors” – they flagrantly tossed those constitutional rules governing the appointment of presidential electors right into the trash where they feel they belong.
Getting back to the lawsuit:
In doing so, seeds of deep distrust have been sown across the country.
In the spirit of Marbury v. Madison, this Court’s attention is profoundly needed to declare what the law is and to restore public trust in this election.
4. As Justice Gorsuch observed recently, “Government is not free to disregard the [Constitution] in times of crisis.”
“… Yet recently, during the COVID pandemic, certain States seem to have ignored these long-settled principles.” Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn, New York v. Cuomo, 592 U.S. ____ (2020) (Gorsuch, J., concurring).
This case is no different.
5. Each of Defendant States acted in a common pattern.
State officials, sometimes through pending litigation (e.g., settling “friendly” suits) and sometimes unilaterally by executive fiat, announced new rules for the conduct of the 2020 election that were inconsistent with existing state statutes defining what constitutes a lawful vote.
end quotes
And that is how you do it, people – if you are a public official and you want to change the rules or the Constitution, you simply do it, which thought takes us back to November 8, 1787 and the Centinel III political essay by Centinel, to wit:
A comparison of the authority under which the convention acted, and their form of government will shew that they have despised their delegated power, and assumed sovereignty; that they have entirely annihilated the old confederation …. and yet as blind upon the understandings of the people, they have continued the forms of the particular governments, and termed the whole a confederation of the United States, pursuant to the sentiments of that profound, but corrupt politician Machiavel, who advises any one who would change the constitution of a state, to keep as much as possible to the old forms; for then the people seeing the same officers, the same formalities, courts of justice and other outward appearances, are insensible of the alteration, and believe themselves in possession of their old government.
Thus Caesar, when he seized the Roman liberties, caused himself to be chosen dictator (which was an ancient office) continued the senate, the consuls, the tribunes, the censors, and all other offices and forms of the commonwealth; and yet changed Rome from the most free, to the most tyrannical government in the world.
Paul Plante says
What the bourgeoisie therefore produces, above all, are its own grave-diggers.
Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable.
– Manifesto of the Communist Party, Chapter I. Bourgeois and Proletarians
Paul Plante says
And that thought from Chapter I of the Manifesto of the Communist Party about the bourgeoisie (Republicans) producing its own grave-diggers so that its fall and the victory of the proletariat (Democrats) are equally inevitable, all of which just happened with the un-Constitutional ascension of Joe Biden into the white house where he can now rule by executive decree as a dictator like Caesar, takes us back for a moment to the National Propaganda Radio (NPR) article “Supreme Court Rejects Texas’ Lawsuit Over Election Results” on December 11, 2020, Heard on All Things Considered with Nina Totenberg at NPR headquarters in Washington, D.C., to wit:
CORNISH: Nina, if this was such a slam dunk that it took the Supreme Court about a day to decide to do nothing, why did Texas file the suit?
end quotes
As to why Texas filed the suit, one would think that Audie Cornish, if she was really interested in the answer, would have contacted Texas directly and put that very question to them for an answer, and since I wasn’t in on any of the planning, I will not venture a guess, but as to why the Supreme Court DID NOT take up the motion, I think we can glean some information on that subject from ROMAN CATHOLIC DIOCESE OF BROOKLYN, NEW YORK v. ANDREW M. CUOMO, GOVERNOR OF NEW YORK ON APPLICATION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF [November 25, 2020], JUSTICE GORSUCH, concurring.
And here we have to note that this case was about the First Amendment, not specifically voting, or electing a United States president, but that does not have any affect on why the Supreme Court does not take up politically-charged cases like this one, as we see from the following:
What could justify so radical a departure from the First Amendment’s terms and long-settled rules about its application?
Our colleagues offer two possible answers.
Initially, some point to a solo concurrence in South Bay Pentecostal Church v. Newsom, 590 U.S. ___ (2020), in which THE CHIEF JUSTICE expressed willingness to defer to executive orders in the pandemic’s early stages based on the newness of the emergency and how little was then known about the disease.
end quotes
Note that language: THE CHIEF JUSTICE expressed willingness to defer to executive orders in the pandemic’s early stages!
That is executive orders in the plural, which means ALL COVID-related executive orders.
So having established that precedent, one could come to the logical conclusion that the Supreme Court was going to stay with that same precedent in this case.
Getting back to that concurrence:
Why have some mistaken this Court’s modest decision in Jacobson for a towering authority that overshadows the Constitution during a pandemic?
In the end, I can only surmise that much of the answer lies in a particular judicial impulse to stay out of the way in times of crisis.
But if that impulse may be understandable or even admirable in other concurring circumstances, we may not shelter in place when the Constitution is under attack.
Things never go well when we do.
end quotes
But shelter in place they did, and the rest is now another chapter in the book of American history titled “The Decline and Fall of the United States of America Republic,” which now is no more.
Paul Plante says
And while we continue to consider the ramifications of Texas v. Pennsylvania, 592 U.S. ___ (2020), the lawsuit filed at the United States Supreme Court as a motion to contest the administration of the 2020 presidential election in certain states, in which Joe Biden defeated incumbent Donald Trump, let us make it patently clear that when the Court rules someone has no STANDING, that ruling in no way, shape or manner can be construed as a ruling on the merits, or lack thereof.
So Texas not having STANDING to sue is vastly different from Texas not having a leg to stand on, which is the SPIN the propagandists at National Propaganda Radio (NPR) who pump their political poison into the minds of the gullible and easily misled in America are trying to put on it, as if it were a frivolous suit.
Standing is a legal term which determines whether the party bringing the lawsuit has the right to do so.
Standing is not about the issues, it’s about who is bringing the lawsuit and whether they a legal right to sue.
But being propagandists who do spread poison in the minds of the gullible in America and the easily misled, the propagandists at National Propaganda Radio are going to continue to conflate lack of standing with lack of merit, just as they are still bleating about an “insurrection” on 6 January 2021, as if there actually had been one, which there wasn’t, just as there was no “official” proceeding to obstruct on 6 January 2021, because on 11 December, 2020, the Supreme Court had already declared that Joe Biden was the president and they were not going to interfere in the matter, and that was the end of it, which was the subject of a New York Times article entitled “Supreme Court Rejects Texas Suit Seeking to Subvert Election” by Adam Liptak published Dec. 11, 2020, to wit:
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Friday rejected a lawsuit by Texas that had asked the court to throw out the election results in four battleground states that President Trump lost in November, ending any prospect that a brazen attempt to use the courts to reverse his defeat at the polls would succeed.
It was plain that the justices had no patience for Texas’ attempt to enlist the court in an effort to tell other states how to run their elections.
Mike Gwin, a spokesman for the Biden campaign, said the Supreme Court had “decisively and speedily rejected the latest of Donald Trump and his allies’ attacks on the democratic process.”
“President-elect Biden’s clear and commanding victory will be ratified by the Electoral College on Monday, and he will be sworn in on Jan. 20,” Mr. Gwin said.
In invoking the Supreme Court’s “original jurisdiction,” Texas asked the justices to act as a trial court to settle a dispute between states, a procedure theoretically possible under the Constitution but employed sparingly, typically in cases concerning water rights or boundary disputes.
In a series of briefs filed Thursday, the four states that Texas sought to sue condemned the effort.
“The court should not abide this seditious abuse of the judicial process, and should send a clear and unmistakable signal that such abuse must never be replicated,” a brief for Pennsylvania said.
On Friday morning, Texas’ attorney general, Ken Paxton, responded with his own brief.
“Whatever Pennsylvania’s definition of sedition,” he wrote, “moving this court to cure grave threats to Texas’ right of suffrage in the Senate and its citizens’ rights of suffrage in presidential elections upholds the Constitution, which is the very opposite of sedition.”
Mr. Trump and his allies switched tactics after the election, filing a barrage of suits in Nevada, Arizona, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota and Georgia claiming that all manner of fraud had compromised the vote results.
While some of these claims were supported by sworn statements from witnesses, judge after judge in case after case ruled that the evidence was not persuasive, credible or anywhere near enough to give Mr. Trump the extraordinary relief he requested: a judicial order overturning the results of an election.
end quotes
So the bottom line is that lack of standing is not lack of merit, but so what?
Which takes us back to that filing once more, to see what the NEW WAY of conducting presidential elections in the United States of America will now look like in the future since the Supreme Court in essence just ruled our Constitution a dead letter with respect to how presidential elections are now to be conducted in Democrat-controlled states while at the same time revoking our constitutional protections to have honest, free and fair elections for those of us who are not Democrats, to wit:
6. Defendant States also failed to segregate ballots in a manner that would permit accurate analysis to determine which ballots were cast in conformity with the legislatively set rules and which were not.
This is especially true of the mail-in ballots in these States.
By waiving, lowering, and otherwise failing to follow the state statutory requirements for signature validation and other processes for ballot security, the entire body of such ballots is now constitutionally suspect and may not be legitimately used to determine allocation of the Defendant States’ presidential electors.
7. The rampant lawlessness arising out of Defendant States’ unconstitutional acts is described in a number of currently pending lawsuits in Defendant States or in public view including:
• Dozens of witnesses testifying under oath about: the physical blocking and kicking out of Republican poll challengers; thousands of the same ballots run multiple times through tabulators; mysterious late night dumps of thousands of ballots at tabulation centers; illegally backdating thousands of ballots; signature verification procedures ignored; more than 173,000 ballots in the Wayne County, MI center that cannot be tied to a registered voter;
• Videos of: poll workers erupting in cheers as poll challengers are removed from vote counting centers; poll watchers being blocked from entering vote counting centers — despite even having a court order to enter; suitcases full of ballots being pulled out from underneath tables after poll watchers were told to leave.
• Facts for which no independently verified reasonable explanation yet exists: On October 1, 2020, in Pennsylvania a laptop and several USB drives, used to program Pennsylvania’s Dominion voting machines, were mysteriously stolen from a warehouse in Philadelphia.
The laptop and the USB drives were the only items taken, and potentially could be used to alter vote tallies; In Michigan, which also employed the same Dominion voting system, on November 4, 2020, Michigan election officials have admitted that a purported “glitch” caused 6,000 votes for President Trump to be wrongly switched to Democrat Candidate Biden.
A flash drive containing tens of thousands of votes was left unattended in the Milwaukee tabulations center in the early morning hours of Nov. 4, 2020, without anyone aware it was not in a proper chain of custody.
All exhibits cited in this Complaint are in the Appendix to the Plaintiff State’s forthcoming motion to expedite (“App. 1a-151a”).
8. Nor was this Court immune from the blatant disregard for the rule of law.
Pennsylvania itself played fast and loose with its promise to this Court.
In a classic bait and switch, Pennsylvania used guidance from its Secretary of State to argue that this Court should not expedite review because the State would segregate potentially unlawful ballots.
A court of law would reasonably rely on such a representation.
Remarkably, before the ink was dry on the Court’s 4-4 decision, Pennsylvania changed that guidance, breaking the State’s promise to this Court.
Compare Republican Party of Pa. v. Boockvar, No. 20-542, 2020 U.S. LEXIS 5188, at *5-6 (Oct. 28, 2020) (“we have been informed by the Pennsylvania Attorney General that the Secretary of the Commonwealth issued guidance today directing county boards of elections to segregate [late-arriving] ballots”) (Alito, J., concurring) with Republican Party v. Boockvar, No. 20A84, 2020 U.S. LEXIS 5345, at *1 (Nov. 6, 2020) (“this Court was not informed that the guidance issued on October 28, which had an important bearing on the question whether to order special treatment of the ballots in question, had been modified”) (Alito, J., Circuit Justice).
******
13. By purporting to waive or otherwise modify the existing state law in a manner that was wholly ultra vires and not adopted by each state’s legislature, Defendant States violated not only the Electors Clause, U.S. CONST. art. II, § 1, cl. 2, but also the Elections Clause, id. art. I, § 4 (to the extent that the Article I Elections Clause textually applies to the Article II process of selecting presidential electors).
14. Plaintiff States and their voters are entitled to a presidential election in which the votes from each of the states are counted only if the ballots are cast and counted in a manner that complies with the pre-existing laws of each state. See Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780, 795 (1983) (“for the President and the Vice President of the United States are the only elected officials who represent all the voters in the Nation.”).
Voters who cast lawful ballots cannot have their votes diminished by states that administered their 2020 presidential elections in a manner where it is impossible to distinguish a lawful ballot from an unlawful ballot.
******
16. In addition to injunctive relief for this election, Plaintiff State seeks declaratory relief for all presidential elections in the future.
This problem is clearly capable of repetition yet evading review.
The integrity of our constitutional democracy requires that states conduct presidential elections in accordance with the rule of law and federal constitutional guarantees.
end quotes
Except as we are clearly seeing here, not only did the Supreme Court disagree with that, but so did the New York Times and NPR and the Democrats, which takes us back to the days after the Civil War when the Democrats were using their terror gangs like the Red Shirts and White League to intimidate Republican voters to deny them suffrage, this time with the imprimatur of the United States Supreme Court, itself!
Paul Plante says
Members of this Court are vested with the authority to interpret the law; we possess neither the expertise nor the prerogative to make policy judgments.
Those decisions are entrusted to our Nation’s elected leaders, who can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with them.
It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.
– UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT – OCTOBER TERM, 2011
NATIONAL FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT BUSINESS ET AL. v. SEBELIUS, SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, ET AL.
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-393. Argued March 26, 27, 28, 2012 – Decided June 28, 2012
ROBERTS, C. J., announced the judgment of the Court and delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, II, and IIIC, in which GINSBURG, BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN, JJ., joined; an opinion with respect to Part IV, in which BREYER and KAGAN, JJ., joined; and an opinion with respect to Parts IIIA, IIIB, and IIID.
Paul Plante says
Resolving this controversy requires us to examine both the limits of the Government’s power, and our own limited role in policing those boundaries.
– UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT – OCTOBER TERM, 2011
NATIONAL FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT BUSINESS ET AL. v. SEBELIUS, SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, ET AL.
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-393. Argued March 26, 27, 28, 2012 – Decided June 28, 2012
ROBERTS, C. J., announced the judgment of the Court and delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, II, and IIIC, in which GINSBURG, BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN, JJ., joined; an opinion with respect to Part IV, in which BREYER and KAGAN, JJ., joined; and an opinion with respect to Parts IIIA, IIIB, and IIID.
Paul Plante says
And we continue to ponder the ramifications of Texas v. Pennsylvania, 592 U.S. ___ (2020), the lawsuit filed at the United States Supreme Court as a motion to contest the administration of the 2020 presidential election in certain states, in which Joe Biden defeated incumbent Donald Trump, which serves to take us back to the days after the Civil War when the Democrats were using their terror gangs like the Red Shirts and White League to intimidate Republican voters to deny them suffrage, this time with the imprimatur of the United States Supreme Court, itself, let us go back to this New York Times article entitled “Supreme Court Rejects Texas Suit Seeking to Subvert Election” by Adam Liptak published Dec. 11, 2020, for a moment, to wit:
Mike Gwin, a spokesman for the Biden campaign, said the Supreme Court had “decisively and speedily rejected the latest of Donald Trump and his allies’ attacks on the democratic process.”
end quotes
Except that is FALSE – the Supreme Court said nothing at all about the so-called “democratic process, a subject covered by the U.S. Supreme Court in Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780 (1983), No. 81-1635, Argued December 6, 1982, Decided April 19, 1983, where we had as follows:
An Ohio statute requires an independent candidate for President to file a statement of candidacy and nominating petition in March in order to appear on the general election ballot in November.
On April 24, 1980, petitioner Anderson announced that he was an independent candidate for President.
Thereafter, on May 16, 1980, his supporters tendered a nominating petition and statement of candidacy, satisfying the substantive requirements for ballot eligibility, to respondent Ohio Secretary of State.
Respondent refused to accept the documents because they had not been filed within the time required by the Ohio statute.
Anderson and petitioner voters then filed an action in Federal District Court, challenging the constitutionality of the statute.
The District Court granted summary judgment for petitioners and ordered respondent to place Anderson’s name on the general election ballot, holding that the statutory deadline was unconstitutional under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the early deadline served the State’s interest in voter education by giving voters a longer opportunity to see how Presidential candidates withstand the close scrutiny of a political campaign.
Held: Ohio’s early filing deadline places an unconstitutional burden on the voting and associational rights of petitioner Anderson’s supporters.
end quotes
Now, there, unlike here, we do see the Supreme Court upholding the rights of LOYAL AMERICAN CITIZENS like myself who are political independents, people who don’t drink the KOOL-AID of either the Republicans or the Democrats.
Going back to that decision, it continues as follows:
(a) In resolving constitutional challenges to a State’s election laws, a court must first consider the character and magnitude of the asserted injury to the rights protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments that the plaintiff seeks to vindicate.
It must then identify and evaluate the interests asserted by the State to justify the burden imposed by its rule.
In passing judgment, the Court must not only determine the legitimacy and strength of each of these interests, it must also consider the extent to which those interests make it necessary to burden the plaintiff’s rights.
Only after weighing all these factors is the court in a position to decide whether the challenged provision is unconstitutional.
(b) The Ohio filing deadline not only burdens the associational rights of independent voters and candidates, it also places a significant state-imposed restriction on a nationwide electoral process.
A burden that falls unequally on independent candidates or on new or small political parties impinges, by its very nature, on associational choices protected by the First Amendment, and discriminates against those candidates and voters whose political preferences lie outside the existing political parties.
end quotes
And that is some 42 percent of the voters in America who essentially were disenfranchised in this 2020 presidential election in the sense that our votes count for nothing when the so-called “electors” in the so-called “electoral college” are nothing more than mindless drones who must vote exactly as the “state” that appointed them orders them to vote, for either a Republican or a Democrat.
Getting back to that decision:
And in the context of a Presidential election, state-imposed restrictions implicate a uniquely important national interest, because the President and Vice President are the only elected officials who represent all the voters in the Nation, and the impact of the votes cast in each State affects the votes cast in other States.
end quotes
Except the president and vice-president we now have DO NOT represent all the voters in the nation, and it is patently ridiculous to think they do, after the president has dismissed American voters as “DREGS OF SOCIETY” to be placed in Democrat Hillary Clinton’s “BASKET OF DEPLORABLES.”
And that statement of the Supreme Court in 1983 about the impact of the votes cast in each State affecting the votes cast in other States applies directly to the 2020 election, but when confronted with the opportunity to develop that thought further, as we have witnessed, the Supreme Court made a political decision to take a pass, which takes us back to that decision from 1983, to wit:
(c) None of the three interests that Ohio seeks to further by its early filing deadline justifies that deadline.
As to the State’s asserted interest in voter education, it is unrealistic in the modern world to suggest that it takes more than seven months to inform the electorate about the qualifications of a particular candidate simply because he lacks a partisan label.
Moreover, it is not self-evident that the interest in voter education is served at all by the early filing deadline.
The State’s asserted interest in equal treatment for partisan and independent candidates is not achieved by imposing the early filing deadline on both, since, although a candidate participating in a primary election must declare his candidacy on the same date as an independent, both the burdens and benefits of the respective requirements are materially different, and the reasons for early filing for a primary candidate are inapplicable to independent candidates in the general election.
And the State’s asserted interest in political stability amounts to a desire to protect existing political parties from competition generated by independent candidates who have previously been affiliated with a party, an interest that conflicts with First Amendment values.
STEVENS, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BURGER, C.J., and BRENNAN, MARSHALL, and BLACKMUN, JJ., joined. REHNQUIST, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which WHITE, POWELL, and O’CONNOR, JJ., joined, post, p. 460 U. S. 806.
end quotes
There is the real democratic process outlined, not this FARCE that put Joe Bioden into the white house, but truthfully, expecting this Mike Gwin, a spokesman for the Biden campaign, to understand that is a pipe dream.
Paul Plante says
And while we are examining these various statements in the media about the motives behind or underlying the Supreme Court’s political decision to not get involved in Texas v. Pennsylvania, 592 U.S. ___ (2020), the lawsuit filed at the United States Supreme Court as a motion to contest the administration of the 2020 presidential election in certain states, in which Joe Biden defeated incumbent Donald Trump, which political decision by the Supreme Court serves to take us back to the days after the Civil War when the Democrats were using their terror gangs like the Red Shirts and White League to intimidate Republican voters to deny them suffrage, this time with the imprimatur of the United States Supreme Court, itself, let us go to a New York Times article entitled “Supreme Court Won’t Hear Pennsylvania Election Case on Mailed Ballots” by Adam Liptak on Feb. 22, 2021, seventy-three (73) after it declined to involve itself in any political disputes concerning the 2020 election, to see if we can glean any further thinking of the Justices on election matters such as was the case with Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780 (1983), No. 81-1635, Argued December 6, 1982, Decided April 19, 1983, to wit:
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court announced on Monday that it would not hear an appeal from Pennsylvania Republicans who sought to disqualify mailed ballots in the 2020 presidential election that arrived after Election Day.
The court’s brief order gave no reasons for turning down the case, which as a practical matter marked the end of Supreme Court litigation over the election.
Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Neil M. Gorsuch dissented, saying the court should have used it to provide guidance in future elections.
end quotes
And there is one sentence we should focus our attention on as LAW-ABIDING LOYAL AMERICAN CITIZENS – the abject failure of the Supreme Court to make any effort, no matter how slight, to uphold the provisions of the United States Constitution, or to put in place legal safeguards to ensure the Constitution is not violated when it comes to suffrage being equally available and accessible to those of us who aren’t card-carrying, dues paying Democrats and don’t want to be.
Getting back to that story:
The dissenting justices acknowledged that the number of ballots at issue in the case was too small to affect President Biden’s victory in the state.
end quotes
So in the end, and us older Americans have known this for a long time now, fraud in our elections is tolerated by the courts, who in actuality are powerless to prevent it, and equally powerless to punish it, especially with the Constitutional system of ensuring integrity in presidential elections having been previously gutted by the two main-stream political parties with the connivance of the courts, the judges of which are themselves political appointees of one or the other of those two parties, which takes us back to that particular case, to wit:
But the legal question the case presented — about the power of state courts to revise election laws — was, they said, a significant one that should be resolved without the pressure of an impending election.
end quotes
And there is another statement we should all take heed of – the reality that when it comes to election disputes of a presidential election, do not count on the Supreme Court to be there for you as an American citizen to uphold your rights to an honest, free and fair election, because they won’t be – presidential elections being in the political arena where the Justices of the Supreme Court do not venture.
Getting back to that story:
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled in September that ballots sent before Election Day could be counted if they arrived up to three days after.
On two occasions before the election, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to intervene in the case, though several justices expressed doubts about the state court’s power to override the State Legislature, which had set an Election Day deadline for receiving mailed ballots.
On Monday, Justice Thomas wrote that the time was now right to take up the case.
“At first blush,” he wrote, “it may seem reasonable to address this question when it next arises.”
“After all, the 2020 election is now over, and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision was not outcome determinative for any federal election.”
“But whatever force that argument has in other contexts, it fails in the context of elections.”
“Because the judicial system is not well suited to address these kinds of questions in the short time period available immediately after an election,” Justice Thomas wrote, “we ought to use available cases outside that truncated context to address these admittedly important questions.”
end quotes
So right there, people, despite any ignorant horse**** we are being fed by Mark Zuckerberg’s National Propaganda Radio (NPR) and the main-stream media which pumps out pure ignorance in such torrents that they have managed to turn this whole nation into a huge pack of morons and idiots and fools, is the real reason that the Supreme Court made yet another political decision, as that one clearly was, to stay clear out of Texas v. Pennsylvania, 592 U.S. ___ (2020), the lawsuit filed at the United States Supreme Court as a motion to contest the administration of the 2020 presidential election in certain states, in which Joe Biden defeated incumbent Donald Trump, which political decision by the Supreme Court serves to take us back to the days after the Civil War when the Democrats were using their terror gangs like the Red Shirts and White League to intimidate Republican voters to deny them suffrage, this time with the imprimatur of the United States Supreme Court, itself, which takes us back to that story once more, as follows:
In a separate dissent, Justice Alito, joined by Justice Gorsuch, agreed that “our review at this time would be greatly beneficial.”
“A decision in these cases would not have any implications regarding the 2020 election,” Justice Alito wrote.
“But a decision would provide invaluable guidance for future elections.”
On Oct. 19, before Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined the court, the justices deadlocked, 4 to 4, on an emergency application in the case.
Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch and Brett M. Kavanaugh said they would have granted a stay blocking the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision.
On the other side were Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and the court’s three-member liberal wing: Justices Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.
Later that month, the justices refused a plea from Republicans in the state to fast-track a decision on whether the Pennsylvania Supreme Court had acted lawfully.
In a statement issued at the time, Justice Alito, joined by Justices Thomas and Gorsuch, criticized the court’s treatment of the matter, which he said had “needlessly created conditions that could lead to serious postelection problems.”
“The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has issued a decree that squarely alters an important statutory provision enacted by the Pennsylvania Legislature pursuant to its authority under the Constitution of the United States to make rules governing the conduct of elections for federal office,” Justice Alito wrote, adding that he regretted that the election would be “conducted under a cloud.”
“It would be highly desirable to issue a ruling on the constitutionality of the State Supreme Court’s decision before the election,” Justice Alito wrote.
“That question has national importance, and there is a strong likelihood that the State Supreme Court decision violates the federal Constitution.”
But there was not enough time, he wrote.
Still, Justice Alito left little doubt about where he stood on the question in the case.
“The provisions of the federal Constitution conferring on state legislatures, not state courts, the authority to make rules governing federal elections would be meaningless,” he wrote, “if a state court could override the rules adopted by the legislature simply by claiming that a state constitutional provision gave the courts the authority to make whatever rules it thought appropriate for the conduct of a fair election.”
Even after the election, Pennsylvania Republicans continued to seek Supreme Court review in the case, Republican Party of Pennsylvania v. Boockvar, No. 20-542, saying the justices should address the issue it presented in an orderly way.
“By resolving the important and recurring questions now, the court can provide desperately needed guidance to state legislatures and courts across the country outside the context of a hotly disputed election and before the next election,” their brief said.
“The alternative is for the court to leave legislatures and courts with a lack of advance guidance and clarity regarding the controlling law — only to be drawn into answering these questions in future after-the-fact litigation over a contested election, with the accompanying time pressures and perceptions of partisan interest.”
On Monday, Justice Thomas wrote that the court had missed an opportunity.
“One wonders what this court waits for,” he wrote.
“We failed to settle this dispute before the election, and thus provide clear rules.”
“Now we again fail to provide clear rules for future elections.”
“The decision to leave election law hidden beneath a shroud of doubt is baffling,” Justice Thomas wrote.
“By doing nothing, we invite further confusion and erosion of voter confidence.”
“Our fellow citizens deserve better and expect more of us.”
end quotes
And because they are political, we are never going to get it, and thank you, Justice Thomas, for making that all incandescently clear!
And thank you as well to the Cape Charles Mirror for making sure that that message gets transmitted to all of those in America who turn to the Cape Charles Mirror for their news as opposed to the New York Times.
Paul Plante says
And to see exactly how it is we ended up with this total BULL**** system that put a two-time loser like Joe Biden into office as this nation’s chief magistrate, as opposed to the system as it was supposed to be as was outlined by Alexander Hamilton in FEDERALIST No. 68, “The Mode of Electing the President,” from the New York Packet to the People of the State of New York on Friday, March 14, 1788, where Alexander Hamilton told WE, THE LAW-ABIDING LOYAL AMERICAN PEOPLE that when it came to selecting the best person this nation had to offer from among its many talented citizens to be its Chief Magistrate charged by THE PEOPLE with taking care that the laws, OUR laws, be faithfully enforced, it was thought desirable by the Founders that the sense of the people should operate in the choice of the person to whom so important a trust was to be confided, which end was to be answered by committing the right of making it, not to any preestablished body, but to men chosen by the people for the special purpose, and at the particular conjuncture, and it was equally desirable that the immediate election of the Chief Magistrate should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice, for which purpose a small number of persons, selected by us, their fellow-citizens, from the general mass, would be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations, let’s go to the source itself, that being the United States Supreme Court in CHIAFALO ET AL. v. WASHINGTON, CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF WASHINGTON No. 19–465, Argued May 13, 2020—Decided July 6, 2020, where we have as follows, including absolutely no mention whatsoever of either Hamilton of Federalist No. 68, to wit:
JUSTICE KAGAN delivered the opinion of the Court.
Our Constitution’s method of picking Presidents emerged from an eleventh-hour compromise.
end quotes
That is what the Supreme Court says, but that is not what Federalist No. 68 says.
Getting back to the Supreme Court’s politicized version of history that gives power to the Republican and Democrat parties and takes it clean away from those who are members of either faction, essentially rendering their elective franchise totally worthless, we have:
The issue, one delegate to the Convention remarked, was “the most difficult of all [that] we have had to decide.”
2 Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, p. 501 (M. Farrand rev. 1966) (Farrand).
Despite long debate and many votes, the delegates could not reach an agreement.
See generally N. Peirce & L. Longley,The People’s President 19–22 (rev. 1981).
In the dying days of summer, they referred the matter to the so-called Committee of Eleven to devise a solution.
The Committee returned with a proposal for the Electoral College.
end quotes
For the record, the Constitutional Convention took place from May 14 to September 17, 1787, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and Federalist No. 68 was published by Hamilton on Friday, March 14, 1788, at least six (6) months later, and again, Federalist No. 68 makes no mention of any such compromises, but maybe the Supreme Court knows more about what really did happen than did Alexander Hamilton, who co-wrote the Federalist Papers with James Madison, who did know the inside story as well as living Supreme Court Justice alive today.
Going back to it:
Just two days later, the delegates accepted the recommendation with but a few tweaks.
James Madison later wrote to a friend that the “difficulty of finding an unexceptionable [selection] process” was “deeply felt by the Convention.”
Letter to G. Hay (Aug. 23, 1823), in 3 Farrand 458.
Because “the final arrangement of it took place in the latter stage of the Session,” Madison continued, “it was not exempt from a degree of the hurrying influence produced by fatigue and impatience in all such Bodies: tho’ the degree was much less than usually prevails in them.” Ibid.
Whether less or not, the delegates soon finished their work and departed for home.
The provision they approved about presidential electors is fairly slim.
Article II, §1, cl. 2 says: “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.”
The next clause (but don’t get attached: it will soon be superseded) set out the procedures the electors were to follow in casting their votes.
In brief, each member of the College would cast votes for two candidates in the presidential field.
The candidate with the greatest number of votes, assuming he had a majority, would become President.
The runner-up would become Vice President.
If no one had a majority, the House of Representatives would take over and decide the winner.
That plan failed to anticipate the rise of political parties, and soon proved unworkable.
end quotes
And that statement about the plan laid out by Hamilton in Federalist No. 68 failed to anticipate the rise of political parties is pure BULL**** when one considers that in FEDERALIST No. 10, “The Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic Faction and Insurrection,” from the New York Packet to the People of the State of New York on Friday, November 23, 1787 James Madison himself stated thusly:
AMONG the numerous advantages promised by a well constructed Union, none deserves to be more accurately developed than its tendency to break and control the violence of faction.
end quotes
Political parties are factions!
Our union as a Republic was supposed to break and control the violence of those factions, not surrender our future as a nation and as a people to them, but nonetheless, with the aid of the Supreme Court itself, a very political body riven by faction, that is exactly what happened, which takes us back to Madison in Federalist No. 10, to wit:
The friend of popular governments never finds himself so much alarmed for their character and fate, as when he contemplates their propensity to this dangerous vice.
That statement alone makes ludicrous the thought that the plan of electing presidents as outlined by Hamilton in Federalist No. 68 failed to anticipate the rise of political parties, where in Federalist No. 68, Hamilton states thusly, to wit:
Another and no less important desideratum was, that the Executive should be independent for his continuance in office on all but the people themselves.
He might otherwise be tempted to sacrifice his duty to his complaisance for those whose favor was necessary to the duration of his official consequence.
end quotes
That right there is a direct reference to relationship between the chief executive and any and all political factions in this country, which takes us back to Federalist No. 68, to wit:
This advantage will also be secured, by making his re-election to depend on a special body of representatives, deputed by the society for the single purpose of making the important choice.
end quotes
“Deputed by the society” DOES NOT mean deputed by only the Republican party or Democrat party.
Getting back to Federalist No. 68:
All these advantages will happily combine in the plan devised by the convention; which is, that the people of each State shall choose a number of persons as electors, equal to the number of senators and representatives of such State in the national government, who shall assemble within the State, and vote for some fit person as President.
end quotes
And note right there the words, “(A)ll these advantages will happily combine in the plan devised by the convention,” which makes it seem very much as if in CHIAFALO ET AL. v. WASHINGTON, Justice Kagan was blowing smoke up our collective ***** when she wrote thought that the plan of electing presidents as outlined by Hamilton in Federalist No. 68 failed to anticipate the rise of political parties.
And there for the moment I will rest, to let that all get absorbed before going further into this analysis of the total BULL**** system that rewarded us with a two-time loser like Joe Biden as out chief executive officer.
Paul Plante says
So, yes, people – factions!
Two warring factions control our national politics, starting with who will be the chief magistrate.
Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan herself, who was nominated by Hussein Obama on May 10, 2010, is a member or product of a faction, and so it should come as no surprise to those of us who are LAW-ABIDING LOYAL AMERICAN CITIZENS who are not members of a faction that she would defend that system by which the factions effectively stripped us of a choice when it comes to who will be the next U.S. President, which takes us back to FEDERALIST No. 10, “The Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic Faction and Insurrection,” from the New York Packet to the People of the State of New York on Friday, November 23, 1787, where James Madison stated thusly:
The instability, injustice, and confusion introduced into the public councils, have, in truth, been the mortal diseases under which popular governments have everywhere perished; as they continue to be the favorite and fruitful topics from which the adversaries to liberty derive their most specious declamations.
end quotes
Despite the fact that those words about the instability, injustice, and confusion introduced into the public councils, have, in truth, been the mortal diseases under which popular governments have everywhere perished were published in 1787, in our times today, and especially after this FARCE of an election in November of 2020, they are still so very true, which takes us back to Jemmy, as follows:
Complaints are everywhere heard from our most considerate and virtuous citizens, equally the friends of public and private faith, and of public and personal liberty, that our governments are too unstable, that the public good is disregarded in the conflicts of rival parties, and that measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority.
end quotes
And that statement by James Madison in 1787 about the public good being disregarded in the conflicts of rival parties makes it quite clear that when Elena Kagan tells us in CHIAFALO ET AL. v. WASHINGTON that the plan for electing U.S. presidents outlined by Alexander Hamilton in Federalist No. 68 failed to anticipate the rise of political parties, she is full of **** and is making up American history by pulling it out of her ***, because in 1787, the parties or factions obviously already existed, or James Madison would not have made mention of them in Federalist No. 10, to wit:
However anxiously we may wish that these complaints had no foundation, the evidence, of known facts will not permit us to deny that they are in some degree true.
It will be found, indeed, on a candid review of our situation, that some of the distresses under which we labor have been erroneously charged on the operation of our governments; but it will be found, at the same time, that other causes will not alone account for many of our heaviest misfortunes; and, particularly, for that prevailing and increasing distrust of public engagements, and alarm for private rights, which are echoed from one end of the continent to the other.
These must be chiefly, if not wholly, effects of the unsteadiness and injustice with which a factious spirit has tainted our public administrations.
By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.
end quotes
By that definition, a number of citizens who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, and to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community, James Madison is talking about the Democrat party today, which takes us back to Justice Kagan in CHIAFALO ET AL. v. WASHINGTON, to wit:
The Nation’s first contested presidential election occurred in 1796, after George Washington’s retirement.
John Adams came in first among the candidates, and Thomas Jefferson second.
That meant the leaders of the era’s two warring political parties — the Federalists and the Republicans — became President and Vice President respectively.
(One might think of this as fodder for a new season of Veep.)
Four years later, a different problem arose.
Jefferson and Aaron Burr ran that year as a Republican Party ticket, with the former meant to be President and the latter meant to be Vice.
For that plan to succeed, Jefferson had to come in first and Burr just behind him.
Instead, Jefferson came in first and Burr . . . did too.
Every elector who voted for Jefferson also voted for Burr, producing a tie.
That threw the election into the House of Representatives, which took no fewer than 36 ballots to elect Jefferson.
(Alexander Hamilton secured his place on the Broadway stage — but possibly in the cemetery too — by lobbying Federalists in the House to tip the election to Jefferson, whom he loathed but viewed as less of an existential threat to the Republic.)
By then, everyone had had enough of the Electoral College’s original voting rules.
The result was the Twelfth Amendment, whose main part provided that electors would vote separately for President and Vice President.
The Amendment, ratified in 1804, says: “The Electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President . . .; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to [Congress, where] the votes shall then be counted.”
end quotes
And once again, let me pause here to let that all sink in.
Paul Plante says
The Communists have not invented the intervention of society in education; they do but seek to alter the character of that intervention, and to rescue education from the influence of the ruling class.
– Manifesto of the Communist Party, Chapter II. Proletarians and Communists
Paul Plante says
Which thought takes us back to Alexander Hamilton and Federalist No. 68, to wit:
The business of corruption, when it is to embrace so considerable a number of men, requires time as well as means.
end quotes
And when we stop to consider what Justice Kagan is saying about Alexander Hamilton in Federalist No. 68 failing to anticipate the rise of political parties, we can readily discern that when it comes to the business of corruption, the Democrats have been practicing and perfecting the art now since the 1800’s, and their means of doing so comes from their party structure, which not only keeps the art of the business of corruption alive, but insures that is is continually passed down to the younger generations, for the good of the party, of course, which takes us back to Federalist No. 68, to wit:
Nor would it be found easy suddenly to embark them, dispersed as they would be over thirteen States, in any combinations founded upon motives, which though they could not properly be denominated corrupt, might yet be of a nature to mislead them from their duty.
end quotes
And here we, the LAW-ABIDING LOYAL AMERICAN citizens who are not Democrats and don’t wish to have to be in order to have equal Constitutional rights under the law need to focus on these words, to wit: “in any combinations founded upon motives, which though they could not properly be denominated corrupt, might yet be of a nature to mislead them from their duty,” where “DUTY” is defined as a moral or legal obligation; a responsibility, and that responsibility was supposed to be to We, the American People, not the Democrat party, which is a textbook example of a combination founded upon motives that properly could be denominated corrupt and of a nature to mislead the electors from their duty to We, the American People.
Getting back to Federalist No. 68, it goes on as follows:
The process of election affords a moral certainty, that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications.
end quotes
Which today is pure hogwash, given that Joe Biden is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications to be the leader of a free people who believe in RULE OF LAW.
Getting back to Federalist No. 68, to wit:
Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity, may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors in a single State; but it will require other talents, and a different kind of merit, to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole Union, or of so considerable a portion of it as would be necessary to make him a successful candidate for the distinguished office of President of the United States.
It will not be too strong to say, that there will be a constant probability of seeing the station filled by characters pre-eminent for ability and virtue.
And this will be thought no inconsiderable recommendation of the Constitution, by those who are able to estimate the share which the executive in every government must necessarily have in its good or ill administration.
end quotes
But as Justice Kagan makes incandescently clear in CHIAFALO ET AL. v. WASHINGTON, that system which was to ensure that there would be a constant probability of seeing the station of chief magistrate filled by characters pre-eminent for ability and virtue, has been thoroughly defeat5ted by the Democrats, so that now it is only the talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity that alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors of the United States of America and to make him a successful candidate for the distinguished office of President of the United States.
And once again, our sincere thanks to the Cape Charles Mirror for giving us this opportunity to see how it is that we have had stripped from us that which was promised by Alexander Hamilton in Federalist No. 68.
Paul Plante says
And while we are on the subject of it now being only the talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity that alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors of the United States of America and to make him a successful candidate for the distinguished office of President of the United States, as we just witnessed in the case of Joe Biden, let us go to The Washington Examiner article “Biden now claims that Michael Brown was a victim of systemic racism” by Becket Adams, Commentary Writer, on August 10, 2020, for a prime example of what a talent for low intrigue looks like in real life, to wit:
Joe Biden this weekend tied the 2014 shooting death of Ferguson, Missouri, resident Michael Brown to the need to tackle “systemic racism” and corrupt law enforcement.
end quotes
Corrupt law enforcement?
That, people, is a very dangerous statement and a real serious charge coming from someone running for the office of chief magistrate of the United States of America with a constitutional duty to ALL Americans to take care that OUR laws are faithfully enforced, given that the death of Michael Brown had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with “corrupt law enforcement, and given that Joe Biden was the vice president when the Justice Department concluded its investigation, that was a willfully false statement by Joe Biden as he exercised his considerable talent for low intrigue as he pandered for Black votes to put him into the white house, even if he had to lie through his teeth to get himself there through the little arts of popularity that alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors of the United States of America and to make him a successful candidate for the distinguished office of President of the United States, which takes us back to the Washington Examiner article, to wit:
It is puzzling that he would link the one to the others, considering the Department of Justice under his boss, former President Barack Obama, concluded that Brown was no victim.
Rather, the 18-year-old black man was killed in the act of attacking a police officer and trying to take away his gun.
end quotes
But when we stop to consider that the road to the white house for a Democrat like Joe Biden depends on him being a master of the talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity that alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors of the United States of America and to make him a successful candidate for the distinguished office of President of the United States, it is not puzzling at all that Joe Biden would seek to demonize the police and law and order by blaming the death of Michael Brown on “corrupt law enforcement,” even though Joe has NO EVIDENCE to back up that FALSE claim, and even though all the evidence that does exist makes it plain that when he made that claim, Joe was intentionally and purposefully lying through his teeth, with impunity, which again takes us back to the Washington Examiner, to wit:
Again, Obama’s Justice Department found that there was no credible evidence to support the claim that the white officer, Darren Wilson, had done anything illegal when he shot and killed Brown.
Rather, its independent investigation found Wilson had acted in self-defense.
end quotes
But when pandering for the Black vote, Joe Biden couldn’t be seen or heard spreading that message that it was Michael Brown who was in the wrong, not “corrupt law enforcement,” and so Joe simply fell back on habit and willfully lied, instead, and by so doing, Joe Biden painted targets of white law enforcement officers all over America, which takes us to a Marketwatch article entitled “Justice Department finds no evidence for ‘Hands Up, Don’t Shoot’” by Steve Goldstein published Mar. 4, 2015, which article lays out the actual facts of the matter that in 2020 Joe Biden chose to ignore in his valiant effort to make the police the criminals, as follows:
WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) – “Hands Up, Don’t Shoot” became a rallying cry in protests last year over racially motivated police brutality – but a Justice Department report released Wednesday says the facts don’t support the alleged incident at its heart.
The Justice Department released a report on the shooting death of 18-year-old Michael Brown by Ferguson, Mo., police officer Darren Wilson.
To be sure, the report finds “widespread racial bias” in the department and unreasonable use of force, as well as a focus on revenue over public safety.
But it did not back the narrative that helped spur the protests in the city and around the country – namely, that Brown had effectively surrendered peacefully to Wilson.
As the report states: “Although there are several individuals who have stated that Brown held his hands up in an unambiguous sign of surrender prior to Wilson shooting him dead, their accounts do not support a prosecution of Wilson.”
“As detailed throughout this report, some of those accounts are inaccurate because they are inconsistent with the physical and forensic evidence; some of those accounts are materially inconsistent with that witness’s own prior statements with no explanation, credible for otherwise, as to why those accounts changed over time.”
“Certain other witnesses who originally stated Brown had his hands up in surrender recanted their original accounts, admitting that they did not witness the shooting or parts of it, despite what they initially reported either to federal or local law enforcement or to the media.”
While some witnesses say Brown held his hands up at shoulder level with his palms facing outward “for a brief moment,” the same witnesses said Brown then charged Wilson, according to the report.
The prosecutors “concluded that Brown did in fact reach for and attempt to grab Wilson’s gun, that Brown could have overpowered Wilson, which was acknowledged even by Witness 101, and that Wilson fired his weapon just over his own lap in an attempt to regain control of a dangerous situation.”
“Witness 101” said Brown was shot in the back, but three autopsies concluded Brown had no entry wounds in his back, the report said.
Even clearer was this footnote: “The media has widely reported that there is witness testimony that Brown said, ‘Don’t shoot’ as he held his hands above his head.”
“In fact, our investigation did not reveal any eyewitness who stated that Brown said, ‘Don’t shoot.’”
end quotes
So, unless Joe Biden was totally brain-dead by the time 2020 rolled around, a possibility I won’t deny, there is no way he would not have known about that same Justice Department report, which means in 2020, Joe Biden was lying though his teeth when he blamed the death of Michael Brown on corrupt Law enforcement, which takes us back to the Washington Examiner, to wit:
Again, Obama’s Justice Department found that there was no credible evidence to support the claim that the white officer, Darren Wilson, had done anything illegal when he shot and killed Brown.
Rather, its independent investigation found Wilson had acted in self-defense.
So, why release a statement on the sixth anniversary of the justifiable shooting death of Brown and tie it to “systemic racism and reforming policing?”
What is Biden doing, if not deliberately inflaming passions and whipping up resentment?
The presumptive Democratic presidential nominee seems to be playing footsie with the popular and false assertion that led to the torching of Ferguson at the time — that Wilson had “murdered” Brown.
It is a lie, and a persistent one at that.
Other top-tier Democratic officials, including Sens. Kamala Harris of California and Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, have helped spread this bit of fake news, too.
And they know what they are doing when they spread it.
Harris said in August 2019, “Michael Brown’s murder forever changed Ferguson and America.”
“His tragic death sparked a desperately needed conversation and a nationwide movement.”
“We must fight for stronger accountability and racial equity in our justice system.”
Warren tweeted 35 minutes later, “5 years ago Michael Brown was murdered by a white police officer in Ferguson, Missouri.”
“Michael was unarmed yet he was shot 6 times.”
“I stand with activists and organizers who continue the fight for justice for Michael.”
“We must confront systemic racism and police violence head on.”
But Brown was not “murdered,” as the Obama Justice Department made abundantly clear in its investigation of the matter.
The false story that Brown put his hands up and said, “Don’t shoot!” has been debunked thoroughly, and Biden and his campaign team really should know better.
end quotes
But they did know better.
They knew that if Joe told the truth, he would never make it to the white house, so they propagated “THE BIG LIE,” and as a result, Joe Biden is now the president of the United States of America, and God help all those white police officers out there with targets painted on them by “Lying” Joe Biden and the Democrats.
Paul Plante says
Since the proletariat must first of all acquire political supremacy, must rise to be the leading class of the nation, must constitute itself the nation, it is so far, itself national, though not in the bourgeois sense of the word.
United action, of the leading civilised countries at least, is one of the first conditions for the emancipation of the proletariat.
– Manifesto of the Communist Party, Chapter II. Proletarians and Communists
Paul Plante says
And while we are on this subject of factions here in the United States of America today, where the PROLETARIANS, the oppressed people living in America, have just taken control of the national government away from the BOURGEOIS, which is everybody who the PROLETARIANS think is oppressing them, starting with heteronormative white males, that through the vehicle of the Democrat party, in FEDERALIST No. 10, “The Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic Faction and Insurrection,” from the New York Packet to the People of the State of New York on Friday, November 23, 1787, James Madison wrote as follows which is very much relevant to these times we find ourselves in today, where the Chief Magistrate and his vice president have both gone on record on behalf of their faction denouncing the police as being corrupt murderers in the case of the death of Michael Brown despite evidence from the Justice Department while Joe Biden was vice president to the contrary, to wit:
There are two methods of curing the mischiefs of faction: the one, by removing its causes; the other, by controlling its effects.
There are again two methods of removing the causes of faction: the one, by destroying the liberty which is essential to its existence; the other, by giving to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests.
end quotes
We who are considered the OPPRESSORS, the ones Hillary Clinton was talking about in a Daily Caller article entitled “Hillary Tells Black Church White People Must End ‘Systemic Racism’” by Alex Pfeiffer, White House Correspondent, on April 20, 2016, need to take heed of that, to wit:
PHILADELPHIA — In a visit to a black church Wednesday, Hillary Clinton told the predominately African-American audience that it is the “responsibility of white people” to end systemic racism and incorrectly stated a popular hip-hop phrase in saying we will “ride and die.”
Clinton was visiting the St. Paul’s Baptist Church along with “The Mothers of the Movement” and former U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder.
The Mothers of the Movement consisted of mothers who had lost loved ones in police shootings.
The panel included the mother of Sandra Bland and the fiancee of Sean Bell.
The stated topics of the event were police brutality, mass incarceration, gun violence and racism.
“We have to be honest about systemic racism and particularly the responsibility of white people, not just people in public life but all of us,” Hillary said.
She later said at the event, “We all have implicit biases.”
“They are almost in the DNA going back probably millennia.”
“And what we need to do is be more honest about that and surface them.”
Clinton added, “I don’t have the answers, I’m not a behavioral psychologist or anything, but I think that needs to be done in every community kind of setting we can find that is open to doing it.”
end quotes
Yes, people, there is the way the Democrats are going to cure faction now that they control the national government – they are going to destroy the liberty of those they consider the “OPPRESSOR CLASS,” and in the process they are going to give to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests, OR ELSE!
Getting back to Federalist No. 10, Jemmy Madison continued as follows:
As long as the reason of man continues fallible, and he is at liberty to exercise it, different opinions will be formed.
As long as the connection subsists between his reason and his self-love, his opinions and his passions will have a reciprocal influence on each other; and the former will be objects to which the latter will attach themselves.
The diversity in the faculties of men, from which the rights of property originate, is not less an insuperable obstacle to a uniformity of interests.
The protection of these faculties is the first object of government.
From the protection of different and unequal faculties of acquiring property, the possession of different degrees and kinds of property immediately results; and from the influence of these on the sentiments and views of the respective proprietors, ensues a division of the society into different interests and parties.
end quotes
And right there, people, is the root of the present political controversy here in the United States of America today – the division of the society in the United States of America today into different interests and parties because of the diversity in the faculties of men, from which the rights of property originate, so that there have been different and unequal faculties of acquiring property in the United States of America, which is the “CAPITALIST” system in the United States of America that Joe Biden and his faction think is very unfair, which issue was covered in Chapter II of Manifesto of the Communist Party, entitled “Proletarians and Communists,” to wit:
Your very ideas are but the outgrowth of the conditions of your bourgeois production and bourgeois property, just as your jurisprudence is but the will of your class made into a law for all, a will whose essential character and direction are determined by the economical conditions of existence of your class.
end quotes
As to the U.S. economy being unfair to the followers of Joe Biden, we have Joe Biden in his “Remarks by President Biden on the American Jobs Plan” on March 31, 2021 at the Carpenters Pittsburgh Training Center in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, stating thusly:
Even before the crisis we’re now facing, those at the very top in America were doing very well, which is fine.
They were doing great.
But everyone else was falling behind.
It just goes to show you how distorted and unfair our economy has become.
end quotes
So, yes, people, ROOTS OF CONFLICT and factionalism which takes us back to Federalist No. 10, to wit:
The latent causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of man; and we see them everywhere brought into different degrees of activity, according to the different circumstances of civil society.
A zeal for different opinions concerning religion, concerning government, and many other points, as well of speculation as of practice; an attachment to different leaders ambitiously contending for pre-eminence and power; or to persons of other descriptions whose fortunes have been interesting to the human passions, have, in turn, divided mankind into parties, inflamed them with mutual animosity, and rendered them much more disposed to vex and oppress each other than to co-operate for their common good.
end quotes
Which statement by James Madison in 1787 about mankind being divided into parties makes it incandescently clear that when Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan tells us in CHIAFALO ET AL. v. WASHINGTON that the plan for electing U.S. presidents outlined by Alexander Hamilton in Federalist No. 68 failed to anticipate the rise of political parties, she was full of **** and was making up American history by pulling it out of her ***, because in 1787, the parties or factions obviously already existed, or James Madison would not have made mention of them in Federalist No. 10.
As to an attachment to different leaders ambitiously contending for pre-eminence and power dividing mankind into parties and inflaming them with mutual animosity, and rendering them much more disposed to vex and oppress each other than to co-operate for their common good, we see a clear-cut example of that in this GOTHAMIST article by Raphael Pope-Sussman on Feb. 1, 2017, to wit:
Hundreds of New Yorkers braved freezing temperatures Tuesday night on Brooklyn’s Grand Army Plaza at a rally calling upon U.S. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer to take a firm stand against the Trump administration.
The rally was the latest in a series of weekly gatherings poetically dubbed “What the F*ck, Chuck?” outside the senator’s Brooklyn home on Prospect Park West and his offices in Midtown.
As a series of speakers stood on a platform and shouted over a mobile PA system, protesters cheered and jeered as they held signs with slogans like “Buck Up Chuck”; “Resisting Trump Is Your Primary Duty”; and “Filibuster Filibuster Filibuster.”
Hae-Lin Choi, of the Democratic Socialists of America and Resist Trump NY, took the stage first, announcing herself as an immigrant and telling the crowd why organizers had called for the protest.
“We planned this rally to Schumer’s home to help him find the spine and maybe some of the other body parts he needs to grow,” she said, citing Schumer’s early “yea” votes on Trump’s nominees to lead Defense, Homeland Security, and the Central Intelligence Agency.
Choi said organizers were encouraged by Schumer’s announcement in recent days that he would vote no on eight more nominees, but that they see this as a bare minimum, and they intend to keep up the pressure.
“Senator Schumer must be bold and stand with the working class,” she cried over the loudspeaker.
“He has to champion the resistance or get out of the way and we’ll find someone that will.”
As Choi spoke, the crowd chanted, “Stand up, or get out of the way.”.
end quotes
Which takes us back to Federalist No. 10, to wit:
So strong is this propensity of mankind to fall into mutual animosities, that where no substantial occasion presents itself, the most frivolous and fanciful distinctions have been sufficient to kindle their unfriendly passions and excite their most violent conflicts.
But the most common and durable source of factions has been the various and unequal distribution of property.
Those who hold and those who are without property have ever formed distinct interests in society.
Those who are creditors, and those who are debtors, fall under a like discrimination.
A landed interest, a manufacturing interest, a mercantile interest, a moneyed interest, with many lesser interests, grow up of necessity in civilized nations, and divide them into different classes, actuated by different sentiments and views.
end quotes
Which takes us back to Chapter II of Manifesto of the Communist Party, entitled “Proletarians and Communists,” to wit:
You are horrified at our intending to do away with private property.
But in your existing society, private property is already done away with for nine-tenths of the population; its existence for the few is solely due to its non-existence in the hands of those nine-tenths.
You reproach us, therefore, with intending to do away with a form of property, the necessary condition for whose existence is the non-existence of any property for the immense majority of society.
In one word, you reproach us with intending to do away with your property.
Precisely so; that is just what we intend.
From the moment when labour can no longer be converted into capital, money, or rent, into a social power capable of being monopolised, i.e., from the moment when individual property can no longer be transformed into bourgeois property, into capital, from that moment, you say, individuality vanishes.
You must, therefore, confess that by “individual” you mean no other person than the bourgeois, than the middle-class owner of property.
This person must, indeed, be swept out of the way, and made impossible.
end quotes
So, yes, people, there have been battle lines drawn, and the future is now.
But stay tuned, because there is more of the future yet to come, because time stands still for no one.
Paul Plante says
Staying with FEDERALIST No. 10, “The Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic Faction and Insurrection,” from the New York Packet to the People of the State of New York on Friday, November 23, 1787, James Madison continued as follows with respect to political factions here in the United States of America:
The regulation of these various and interfering interests forms the principal task of modern legislation, and involves the spirit of party and faction in the necessary and ordinary operations of the government.
No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, because his interest would certainly bias his judgment, and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity.
With equal, nay with greater reason, a body of men are unfit to be both judges and parties at the same time; yet what are many of the most important acts of legislation, but so many judicial determinations, not indeed concerning the rights of single persons, but concerning the rights of large bodies of citizens?
And what are the different classes of legislators but advocates and parties to the causes which they determine?
end quotes
One thing Jemmy Madison clearly failed to do in Federalist No. 10, for which he can not really be blamed, given that Federalist No. 10 was published on November 23, 1787, and Madison died on June 28, 1836, while the Communist Manifesto wasn’t published until February 21, 1848, was to anticipate the influence of Marxist thought in American politics, which takes us back to Jemmy, as follows:.
Is a law proposed concerning private debts?
It is a question to which the creditors are parties on one side and the debtors on the other.
Justice ought to hold the balance between them.
Yet the parties are, and must be, themselves the judges; and the most numerous party, or, in other words, the most powerful faction must be expected to prevail.
end quotes
And in the Preface to the 1882 Russian Edition of the Communist Manifesto, it was stated thusly about America, to wit:
What a limited field the proletarian movement occupied at that time (December 1847) is most clearly shown by the last section: the position of the Communists in relation to the various opposition parties in various countries.
Precisely Russia and the United States are missing here.
It was the time when Russia constituted the last great reserve of all European reaction, when the United States absorbed the surplus proletarian forces of Europe through immigration.
Both countries provided Europe with raw materials and were at the same time markets for the sale of its industrial products.
Both were, therefore, in one way of another, pillars of the existing European system.
How very different today.
Precisely European immigration fitted North American for a gigantic agricultural production, whose competition is shaking the very foundations of European landed property — large and small.
At the same time, it enabled the United States to exploit its tremendous industrial resources with an energy and on a scale that must shortly break the industrial monopoly of Western Europe, and especially of England, existing up to now.
Both circumstances react in a revolutionary manner upon America itself.
Step by step, the small and middle land ownership of the farmers, the basis of the whole political constitution, is succumbing to the competition of giant farms; at the same time, a mass industrial proletariat and a fabulous concentration of capital funds are developing for the first time in the industrial regions.
The Communist Manifesto had, as its object, the proclamation of the inevitable impending dissolution of modern bourgeois property.
But in Russia we find, face-to-face with the rapidly flowering capitalist swindle and bourgeois property, just beginning to develop, more than half the land owned in common by the peasants.
Now the question is: can the Russian obshchina, though greatly undermined, yet a form of primeval common ownership of land, pass directly to the higher form of Communist common ownership?
Or, on the contrary, must it first pass through the same process of dissolution such as constitutes the historical evolution of the West?
The only answer to that possible today is this: If the Russian Revolution becomes the signal for a proletarian revolution in the West, so that both complement each other, the present Russian common ownership of land may serve as the starting point for a communist development.
Karl Marx & Frederick Engels
January 21, 1882, London
end quotes
There is where we see the roots of this present political conflict in the United States of America being formed as far back as 1882, if not earlier.
Getting back to Federalist No. 10, which in hindsight is really quite naive and idealistic, we have:
Shall domestic manufactures be encouraged, and in what degree, by restrictions on foreign manufactures? are questions which would be differently decided by the landed and the manufacturing classes, and probably by neither with a sole regard to justice and the public good.
The apportionment of taxes on the various descriptions of property is an act which seems to require the most exact impartiality; yet there is, perhaps, no legislative act in which greater opportunity and temptation are given to a predominant party to trample on the rules of justice.
Every shilling with which they overburden the inferior number, is a shilling saved to their own pockets.
It is in vain to say that enlightened statesmen will be able to adjust these clashing interests, and render them all subservient to the public good.
Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm.
end quotes
But there Jemmy was not naive or idealistic, at all – to the contrary, he was dead on the money with respect to where we have devolved to politically since Federalist No. 10 was published because today, we truly do not have any “enlightened statesmen” at all in this country, at the helm or otherwise, which again takes us back to Jemmy and Federalist No. 10. to wit:
Nor, in many cases, can such an adjustment be made at all without taking into view indirect and remote considerations, which will rarely prevail over the immediate interest which one party may find in disregarding the rights of another or the good of the whole.
The inference to which we are brought is, that the CAUSES of faction cannot be removed, and that relief is only to be sought in the means of controlling its EFFECTS.
If a faction consists of less than a majority, relief is supplied by the republican principle, which enables the majority to defeat its sinister views by regular vote.
It may clog the administration, it may convulse the society; but it will be unable to execute and mask its violence under the forms of the Constitution.
When a majority is included in a faction, the form of popular government, on the other hand, enables it to sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens.
end quotes
And there he is talking about the extreme FOLLY of giving complete control of our national government to the vindictive and dictatorial Democrat faction, but alas, it is too late now to undo that stupid move as the Democrats sacrifice to their ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens who are not Democrats and don’t wish to be.
Getting back to Jemmy, we have:
To secure the public good and private rights against the danger of such a faction, and at the same time to preserve the spirit and the form of popular government, is then the great object to which our inquiries are directed.
end quote
And given that we, the American people, have failed miserably since then to secure the public good and private rights against the danger of this faction called the Democrat party, and at the same time to preserve the spirit and the form of popular government, it can truly be said that we deserve our fate.
Paul Plante says
So, while we are on the subject of factions in here as they relate to the so-called electoral college, and/or vice versa, is there any evidence whatsoever that serves to link Joe Biden with Marxism?
And that answer is most definitely in the affirmative if we consider that Joe Biden is president because of the votes of the members of the electoral college as we see in the NEW YORK TIMES story “Supreme Court Rejects Texas Suit Seeking to Subvert Election” by Adam Liptak published Dec. 11, 2020, updated Jan. 15, 2021, to wit:
Mike Gwin, a spokesman for the Biden campaign, said the Supreme Court had “decisively and speedily rejected the latest of Donald Trump and his allies’ attacks on the democratic process.”
“President-elect Biden’s clear and commanding victory will be ratified by the Electoral College on Monday, and he will be sworn in on Jan. 20,” Mr. Gwin said.
end quotes
If that is true, then one of the members of the electoral college who “ratified” (sign or give formal consent, making it officially valid) President-elect Biden’s clear and commanding victory besides Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton and Andy Cuomo was Kathy Sheehan, the Democratic Socialist mayor of the sanctuary city of Albany, New York, where mayor Kathy, the elector of Joe Biden, was flying a huge BLACK LIVES MATTER banner over the entrance to Albany city hall proclaiming it BLACK LIVES MATTER turf.
Mayor Kathy, the elector of Joe Biden as president, was the subject of an Albany Times Union story entitled “As statues tumble, relatives of Gen. Philip Schuyler ask for pause” by Brendan J. Lyons on July 5, 2020, where we were informed as follows, to wit:
Although (Kathy) Sheehan has been mayor of the city (Albany) since 2014, the recent protests in Albany and across the country in the wake of the killing of George Floyd by a Minneapolis police officer prompted her call for the statue’s removal at a time she believes everyone should embrace the Black Lives Matter movement.
Earlier this month, Sheehan authorized city workers to paint a giant “Black Lives Matter” mural on Lark Street in the Center Square neighborhood.
While a few leaders of Black Lives Movement groups have promoted violence, or have a history of violence themselves, the mayor said it is time for the nation to embrace that cause.
“To me, saying that Black Lives Matter is not a political statement,” she said.
“To me, stating that Black Lives Matter is something that we have to say out loud because of our history.”
end quotes
And as we all saw in the Cape Charles Mirror story “Black Lives Matter is a Marxist group that wants to destroy the Nuclear family” on August 9, 2020 http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/black-lives-matter-is-a-marxist-group-that-wants-to-destroy-the-nuclear-family/ , to “embrace” (accept or support a belief willingly and enthusiastically) the “cause” of BLACK LIVES MATTER is to have to embrace Marxism, given that BLACK LIVES MATTER co-founder Patrisse Cullors said in a newly surfaced video from 2015 that she and her fellow organizers are “trained Marxists.”
In the video, Cullors is interviewed by Jared Ball of the Real News Network and discusses the direction of the BLM movement.
“The first thing, I think, is that we actually do have an ideological frame.”
“Myself and Alicia in particular are trained organizers,” she said.
“We are trained Marxists.”
“We are super-versed on, sort of, ideological theories.”
end quotes
Among her many quotes is this:
I was trained within a black radical tradition that encouraged struggle within our own movements because it sharpens collective analysis – bringing us closer to the tools we need to achieve liberation.
end quotes
And this:
The black radical agenda, which pushes us closer to freedom and the agenda to which I subscribe, calls for an eradication of white supremacy and an adoption of values and traditions endowed from the black experience.
end quote
That is what mayor Kathy Sheehan of Albany, New York has embraced, and when she cast her electoral college vote for Joe Biden, it would have had to be because Joe shares her values when it comes to embracing BLACK LIVES MATTER, and by extension, Marxism.
So, is Patrisse Cullors a Marxist?
In this video, “Am I A Marxist?” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEp1kxg58kE she says as follows on that subject:
“Am I a Marxist?”
“I am many things.”
“I do believe in Marxism.”
“It is a philosophy that I learned really early on in my organizing career.”
“We were taught to learn about the system that we are criticizing – capitalism.”
“We were taught to understand why there were philosophies that were criticizing capitalism.”
end quotes
So, if Kathy Sheehan of Albany, New York has embraced BLACK LIVES MATTER, has she embraced Marxism, as well?
If she has embraced BLACK LIVES MATTER, has she also embraced this statement by BLACK LIVES MATTER co-founder Patrisse Cullors, to wit:
Policing has never been about public safety: its origins are rooted in social control, the denial of people’s human rights, securing the U.S. borders, recapturing escaped, enslaved Africans, and upholding racist, homophobic, and transphobic laws.
end quote
And when she cast her electoral college vote for Joe Biden, was it because Joe shared her view that policing in the United States of America has never been about public safety?
Did she cast her electoral college vote for Joe Biden because he shares her view that policing in the United States of America has as its purpose the denial of people’s human rights, recapturing escaped, enslaved Africans, and upholding racist, homophobic, and transphobic laws?
If not, then why would Kathy Sheehan of Albany, New York, who wants everyone in America to embrace the cause of BLACK LIVES MATTER, have cast her electoral college vote for Joe Biden?
Paul Plante says
So yes, people, when you read the NEW YORK TIMES story “Supreme Court Rejects Texas Suit Seeking to Subvert Election” by Adam Liptak published Dec. 11, 2020, updated Jan. 15, 2021, that Mike Gwin, a spokesman for the Biden campaign, said “President-elect Biden’s clear and commanding victory will be ratified by the Electoral College on Monday,” not only was he talking about picking up the electoral college vote of Democratic Socialist mayor of the sanctuary city of Albany, New York Kathy Sheehan, but those of William J. Clinton and wife, twice-failed Democrat presidential contender Hillary Rodham Clinton, as well, with it being said by the wags looking on that Hillary was gloating over Trump’s loss, while smirking at the same time about being the one to crown his successor!
Also ratifying “President-elect Biden’s clear and commanding victory,” of course, was Andrew M. Cuomo, the Democratic Socialist governor of New York state who right now is having some “women issues” related to the pig-like manner he is alleged to treat women in, viewing them like so many other Democrat men in NY politics, Eliot “I’m a ******* steamroller” Spitzer and Eric “Teddy Boy” Schneiderman coming right to mind, as mere sex objects to be fondled at will and then discarded.
Beyond Andy, there was Kathy C. Hochul, Andy’s assistant governor, and what is truly scary and worrisome given Joe Biden’s denunciation and condemnation of the police as murderers in connection with the death of Michael Brown, despite the evidence to the contrary, there was Letitia A. James, the New York State Attorney General, the state’s top law enforcement person who had a slew of lawsuits against Trump, ratifying “President-elect Biden’s clear and commanding victory.”
So, those are the people who made Joe Biden the president of the United States of America, starting with Bill and Hillary Clinton, themselves, which takes us back to Jemmy Madison and FEDERALIST No. 10, “The Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic Faction and Insurrection,” from the New York Packet to the People of the State of New York on Friday, November 23, 1787, to wit:
Let me add that it is the great desideratum by which this form of government can be rescued from the opprobrium under which it has so long labored, and be recommended to the esteem and adoption of mankind.
By what means is this object attainable?
Evidently by one of two only.
Either the existence of the same passion or interest in a majority at the same time must be prevented, or the majority, having such coexistent passion or interest, must be rendered, by their number and local situation, unable to concert and carry into effect schemes of oppression.
If the impulse and the opportunity be suffered to coincide, we well know that neither moral nor religious motives can be relied on as an adequate control.
They are not found to be such on the injustice and violence of individuals, and lose their efficacy in proportion to the number combined together, that is, in proportion as their efficacy becomes needful.
From this view of the subject it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction.
A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual.
Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.
Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.
end quotes
And here we are today, with Joe Biden as yet another “theoretic politician” patronizing this species of government, with Joe, who feels he is a victim of “white privilege,” once again erroneously supposing that by the national government under his administration reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions – in other words, be made into mindless zombies or Stepford wives, which takes us back to Federalist No. 10, to wit:
A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking.
Let us examine the points in which it varies from pure democracy, and we shall comprehend both the nature of the cure and the efficacy which it must derive from the Union.
The two great points of difference between a democracy and a republic are: first, the delegation of the government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest; secondly, the greater number of citizens, and greater sphere of country, over which the latter may be extended.
The effect of the first difference is, on the one hand, to refine and enlarge the public views, by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens, whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country, and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations.
end quotes
And with the rise of political parties in this country out for their own good, and here we are most certainly talking about the Democrat party, the ideas of James Madison in Federalist No. 10 about the refining and enlarging of the public views by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country, and whose patriotism and love of justice would be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations went right out the window over a hundred years ago, because we do not have that chosen body of citizens whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country, and whose patriotism and love of justice would be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations – we have what the Democrats dished up, instead, which takes us back to Federalist No. 10. to wit:
Men of factious tempers, of local prejudices, or of sinister designs, may, by intrigue, by corruption, or by other means, first obtain the suffrages, and then betray the interests, of the people.
end quotes
And yes, people, they have, and who we have to blame for that is our own selves!
Paul Plante says
“It is therefore obvious to the least intelligent mind, to account why, great power in the hands of a magistrate, and that power connected, with a considerable duration, may be dangerous to the liberties of a republic — the deposit of vast trusts in the hands of a single magistrate, enables him in their exercise, to create a numerous train of dependents — this tempts his ambition, which in a republican magistrate is also remarked, to be pernicious and the duration of his office for any considerable time favors his views, give him the means and time to perfect and execute his designs — he therefore fancies that he may be great and glorious by oppressing his fellow citizens, and raising himself to permanent grandeur on the ruins of his country.”
Those are words from two hundred thirty-four (234) years ago at the time of our nation’s founding as a nation, as opposed to a collection of British colonies in rebellion against a foreign tyrant king, and they serve as a basis for why the early Americans were very concerned with how an American president was to be chosen, out of a valid fear for what we would be stuck with, as a result of poor political choices.
Those words are from the anti-federalist Cato IV political essay by Cato, believed to be George Clinton, the first governor of the state of New York, on November 8, 1787, and they are brought to mind in here by the ascension of Joe Biden, who claims to be a victim of white privilege, into the oval office.
We know that Joe is a victim of white privilege because we were told so by Joe his own self in a Business Insider article entitled “Biden admits at CNN town hall that he’s benefited from white privilege” by Oma Seddiq on Sep. 17, 2020, where we were regaled on the subject of Joe’s white privilege as follows by Joe, to wit:
Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden on Thursday acknowledged that white privilege has worked in his favor.
“I’ve benefited just because I don’t have to go through what my Black brothers and sisters have had to go through,” Biden told CNN’s Anderson Cooper during a drive-in town hall at PNC Field in Moosic, Pennsylvania.
White privilege refers to the societal advantages that white people can reap because of their race.
This emerged as a hot-button issue as protests over racial injustice and police brutality swept the nation following the May 25 police killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis.
end quotes
And there was Joe, right in there pandering away.
Which in turn takes us back to Obama Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan telling us in CHIAFALO ET AL. v. WASHINGTON about how the plan for electing U.S. presidents outlined by Alexander Hamilton in Federalist No. 68 failed to anticipate the rise of political parties, so that instead of having the best this country has to offer in the position of chief magistrate, we ended up with Joe Biden, instead, to wit:
The Amendment thus brought the Electoral College’s voting procedures into line with the Nation’s new party system.
end quotes
By way of review, the “amendment” in question there is the Twelfth Amendment, whose main part provided that electors would vote separately for President and Vice President.
The Amendment, ratified in 1804, says: “The Electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President . . .; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to [Congress, where] the votes shall then be counted.”
end quotes
How Justice Kagan Amendment makes the intellectual leap to her belief that the Twelfth Amendment thus brought the Electoral College’s voting procedures into line with the Nation’s new party system is obscure, but nonetheless, she is the Supreme Court Justice, so even if that is dead wrong, it is still “law of the land” now, because in this country, history is not at all fixed, to the contrary, history is a putty-like substance that can be shaped and twisted in whatever form it needs to be to fulfull the needs of the moment.
Getting back to Justice Kagan, she spins history, as follows:
Within a few decades, the party system also became the means of translating popular preferences within each State into Electoral College ballots.
end quotes
What that really is saying is that within a few decades of 1804, the party system also became the means of translating popular preferences within each State into Electoral College ballots by totally perverting the system to put it into the hands of the major political factions, to the detriment of all those American citizens who do not cleave to the standard of either political faction.
And it is interesting that in her version of American political history, Justice Kagan has chosen to leave out the 1824 Presidential Election and the “Corrupt Bargain,” which, as we learned as American school children, marked the final collapse of the Republican-Federalist political framework.
For the first time no candidate ran as a Federalist, while five significant candidates competed as Democratic-Republicans.
Clearly, no party system functioned in 1824.
end quotes
Is that a salient point that Justice Kagan chose to leave out of her version of American history, that no party system functioned in 1824, and in fact, during the so-called Era of Good Feelings, which began in 1815 in the mood of victory that swept the nation at the end of the War of 1812, exaltation replaced the bitter political divisions between Federalists and Republicans, between northern and southern states, and between east-coast cities and settlers on the western frontier?
Getting back to the history Justice Kagan left out, the official candidate of the Democratic-Republicans to replace James Monroe was William H. Crawford, the secretary of the treasury.
A caucus of Republicans in Congress had selected him, but this backing by party insiders turned out to be a liability as other candidates called for a more open process for selecting candidates.
The outcome of the very close election surprised political leaders.
The winner in the all-important Electoral College was Andrew Jackson, the hero of the War of 1812, with ninety-nine votes.
He was followed by JOHN QUINCY ADAMS, the son of the second president and Monroe’s secretary of state, who secured eighty-four votes.
Meanwhile Crawford trailed well behind with just forty-one votes.
Although Jackson seemed to have won a narrow victory, receiving 43 percent of the popular vote versus just 30 percent for Adams, he would not be seated as the country’s sixth president.
Because nobody had received a majority of votes in the electoral college, the House of Representatives had to choose between the top two candidates.
Henry Clay, the speaker of the House of Representatives, now held a decisive position.
As a presidential candidate himself in 1824 (he finished fourth in the electoral college), Clay had led some of the strongest attacks against Jackson.
Rather than see the nation’s top office go to a man he detested, the Kentuckian Clay forged an Ohio Valley-New England coalition that secured the White House for John Quincy Adams.
In return Adams named Clay as his secretary of state, a position that had been the stepping-stone to the presidency for the previous four executives.
This arrangement, however, hardly proved beneficial for either Adams or Clay.
Denounced immediately as a “CORRUPT BARGAIN” by supporters of Jackson, the antagonistic presidential race of 1828 began practically before Adams even took office.
To Jacksonians the ADAMS-CLAY ALLIANCE symbolized a corrupt system where elite insiders pursued their own interests without heeding the will of the people.
end quotes
And today, that a corrupt system where elite insiders like Bill and Hillary Clinton and Andy Cuomo of New York state pursue their own interests without heeding the will of the people is alive and well and rewarded us with a two-time loser named Joe Biden as our next president.
Paul Plante says
And before we go forward in here, let us for a moment go back to the 1824 Presidential Election and the “Corrupt Bargain,” and the fact that for the first time in our political history, no candidate ran as a Federalist, while five significant candidates competed as Democratic-Republicans, and let us focus in on the fact of FIVE candidates for president, and then let us ask ourselves this question, to wit: WAS THAT BY ACCIDENT THAT THERE WERE FIVE, OR IS THAT THE WAY IT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE?
And for some historical insight to what that answer should be, let us go back from there thirty-seven (37) years to 1787 and the anti-federalist Cato IV political essay by Cato, believed to be George Clinton, the first governor of the state of New York, on November 8, 1787, where we have as follows:
It is a maxim in republics, that the representative of the people should be of their immediate choice; but by the manner in which the president is chosen he arrives to this office at the fourth or fifth hand, nor does the highest vote, in the way he is elected, determine the choice — for it is only necessary that he should be taken from the highest of five, who may have a plurality of votes.
end quotes
Now, consider that in 1787, when Cato was alive, there was still a great debate going on in America as to whether the Constitution should be ratified, or not, so that salient points such as what Cato is saying about “for it is only necessary that he should be taken from the highest of five, who may have a plurality of votes” were a part of the public debate, so that we can clearly see that at the time of this nation’s founding, it was never supposed to be an either/or contest, where if we don’t get stuck with what the Democrats dished up, or dredged up in the case of Joe Biden, resurrecting him from their large pool of failed presidential contenders, then we get stuck with what the Republicans have dredged up, instead.
And the fact that in 1824, there were still five candidates for the office lends credence to what Cato was saying in 1787 about the “highest of the five.”
So what happened?
How come it’s only two now?
And how come only two political factions, neither of which represents a majority of the American people, get to be the ones that have an American president as part of their faction?
Or is it now seditious to ask that question in the troubled America of today?
Paul Plante says
And speaking of what is becoming seditious to talk about in America once again now that the Democrats essentially own and control both the Legislative branch of our national government, and the Executive branch, and are talking about expanding the Supreme Court to give them total control of the Judicial branch, as we see in a press release from Joe Biden himself entitled “President Biden to Sign Executive Order Creating the Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court of the United States” on April 09, 2021 wherein we were informed by the Commander-In-Chief (“CIC”) that as CIC, he was empowering himself to issue an executive order forming the Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court of the United States, the purpose of which is to provide an analysis of the principal arguments in the contemporary public debate for and against Supreme Court reform, including an appraisal of the merits and legality of particular reform proposals to include the Court’s role in the Constitutional system and the membership and size of the Court, that thought takes us back once again to 1787 and the anti-federalist Cato IV political essay by Cato, believed to be George Clinton, the first governor of the state of New York, on November 8, 1787, where we have as follows:
The ten miles square, which is to become the seat of government, will of course be the place of residence for the president and the great officers of state — the same observation of a great man will apply to the court of a president possessing the powers of a monarch, that is observed of that of a monarch — ambition with idleness — baseness with pride — the thirst of riches without labour — aversion to truth — flattery — treason — perfidy — violation of engagements — contempt of civil duties — hope from the magistrate’s weakness; but above all, the perpetual ridicule of virtue — these, he (Montesquieu) remarks, are the characteristics by which the courts in all ages have been distinguished.
end quotes
That was in 1787.
Thirty-seven (37) years later, in 1824, we had what is now known to American schoolchildren studying American political history as the “CORRUPT BARGAIN,” which is what the 1824 presidential process ended up being called.
And that takes us back to Jemmy Madison and FEDERALIST No. 10, “The Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic Faction and Insurrection,” from the New York Packet to the People of the State of New York on Friday, November 23, 1787, to wit:
The other point of difference is, the greater number of citizens and extent of territory which may be brought within the compass of republican than of democratic government; and it is this circumstance principally which renders factious combinations less to be dreaded in the former than in the latter.
end quotes
Just thirty-seven (37) years later, Henry Clay was going to prove to the American people just how naive Jemmy Madison was when he made that statement in 1787 about the greater number of citizens and extent of territory which may be brought within the compass of republican than of democratic government being the circumstance principally which renders factious combinations less to be dreaded in the former than in the latter.
Getting back to Federalist No. 10, Jemmy continues as follows:
The smaller the society, the fewer probably will be the distinct parties and interests composing it; the fewer the distinct parties and interests, the more frequently will a majority be found of the same party; and the smaller the number of individuals composing a majority, and the smaller the compass within which they are placed, the more easily will they concert and execute their plans of oppression.
Extend the sphere, and you take in a greater variety of parties and interests; you make it less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens; or if such a common motive exists, it will be more difficult for all who feel it to discover their own strength, and to act in unison with each other.
end quotes
Except we DO NOT have a greater variety or parties today – we have but two, and between them, they have divided this nation to where it is now at war with itself once again, which takes us back to Federalist No. 10, for more of how deluded Jemmy Madison was when he set pen to paper on 1787 to compose Federalist No. 10, to wit:
Besides other impediments, it may be remarked that, where there is a consciousness of unjust or dishonorable purposes, communication is always checked by distrust in proportion to the number whose concurrence is necessary.
Hence, it clearly appears, that the same advantage which a republic has over a democracy, in controlling the effects of faction, is enjoyed by a large over a small republic,— is enjoyed by the Union over the States composing it.
Does the advantage consist in the substitution of representatives whose enlightened views and virtuous sentiments render them superior to local prejudices and schemes of injustice?
It will not be denied that the representation of the Union will be most likely to possess these requisite endowments.
Does it consist in the greater security afforded by a greater variety of parties, against the event of any one party being able to outnumber and oppress the rest?
end quotes
In 2021, we first of all DO NOT have a greater variety of parties, we only have two, and secondly, despite anything Jemmy Madison said in 1787, in 2021, the one party, the Democrats, were indeed able to outnumber and oppress the other, as well as those of us who do not cleave to either standard, nor drink the KOOL-AID both offer up as refreshments, which again takes us back to Federalist No. 10, to wit:
In an equal degree does the increased variety of parties comprised within the Union, increase this security.
Does it, in fine, consist in the greater obstacles opposed to the concert and accomplishment of the secret wishes of an unjust and interested majority?
Here, again, the extent of the Union gives it the most palpable advantage.
The influence of factious leaders may kindle a flame within their particular States, but will be unable to spread a general conflagration through the other States.
end quotes
Except with modern communications, the like of which Jemmy Madison likely could not conceive of back then, that is no longer true that the influence of factious leaders may kindle a flame within their particular States, but will be unable to spread a general conflagration through the other States, as we recently saw in the riots across the nation after George Floyd died.
Getting back to Jemmy:
A religious sect may degenerate into a political faction in a part of the Confederacy; but the variety of sects dispersed over the entire face of it must secure the national councils against any danger from that source.
A rage for paper money, for an abolition of debts, for an equal division of property, or for any other improper or wicked project, will be less apt to pervade the whole body of the Union than a particular member of it; in the same proportion as such a malady is more likely to taint a particular county or district, than an entire State.
end quotes
And as we hear Joe Biden talking about “equity,” we can today clearly see that a rage for an abolition of debts, for an equal division of property, or for any other improper or wicked project is very much apt to pervade the whole body of the Union than a particular member of it, precisely because it has, which is how we ended up with Joe Biden as president.
Getting back to Federalist No. 10. it concludes thusly:
In the extent and proper structure of the Union, therefore, we behold a republican remedy for the diseases most incident to republican government.
And according to the degree of pleasure and pride we feel in being republicans, ought to be our zeal in cherishing the spirit and supporting the character of Federalists.
end quotes
Except we are all Democrats now, and all of that went out the window back in 1824, the year political factions began to strip us of our rights with respect to how the person to be president of the United States of America was to be selected so that he or she WOULD NOT be a creature of a faction to our detriment as a nation and as a people.
Paul Plante says
And as we continue to ponder exactly how it was that of all people to be our chief magistrate charged with the duty of taking care that our laws are faithfully enforced, this from someone who thinks the police in this nation are all corrupt and murderers, it is interesting to note that if one goes to the National Endowment for the Humanities website for Subjects & Topic: A More Perfect Union, History & Social Studies, U.S. History, Grades: 9-12, one comes across a lesson plan from our American history to be studied by high school children entitled “The Presidential Election of 1824: The Election is in the House” where we have as follows with respect to what American schoolchildren are supposed to know about our political system, to wit:
The presidential election of 1824 represents a watershed in American politics.
end quote
Which raises the question of if high school students are supposed to know that, and certainly I was required to know that when I was a high school student, which is why I am aware of it today, why did Obama Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan not include any of that in her version of history as stated in CHIAFALO ET AL. v. WASHINGTON?
Was she absent from school that day?
Getting back to the lesson plan, which is what I learned as a high school student and young American citizen back when, we have:
The collapse of the Federalist Party and the illness of the “official candidate” of the Democratic-Republicans led to a slate of candidates who were all Democratic-Republicans.
This led to the end of the Congressional Caucus system for nominating candidates, and eventually, the development of a new two-party system in the United States.
end quotes
High school stuff, people, so why was Obama Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan seemingly ignorant of it in CHIAFALO ET AL. v. WASHINGTON, given that it indeed was a watershed in our American political history, and any resemblance our national government might have had to that detailed in the Federalist papers before 1824 was a thing of the past.
Something to think about, anyway.
Getting back to the lesson plan, it continues as follows:
In the election, Andrew Jackson won a plurality of both the popular and electoral vote.
But John Quincy Adams became president.
Four crucial elements of our election system were highlighted in the election of 1824:
* the nomination of candidates;
* the popular election of electors;
* the Electoral College; and
* the election of the president in the House when no candidate receives a majority in the Electoral College.
In this unit, students will read an account of the election from the Journal of the House of Representatives, analyze archival campaign materials, and use an interactive online activity to develop a better understanding of the election of 1824 and its significance.
end quotes
Now, again, if that is what high school students in America are expected to know, why on earth did Obama Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan leave all of that out in her version of American political history in CHIAFALO ET AL. v. WASHINGTON?
Did she perhaps think it might be too hard for the American people who aren’t Harvard graduates to understand?
Going back to that lesson plan, it continues as follows:
Guiding Questions
* Why was the election of 1824 decided in the House of Representatives?
* Who were the candidates in 1824?
* What were the important issues in the campaign of 1824?
* How did John Quincy Adams win election in 1824?
Learning Objectives
* Summarize relevant portions of the Constitution on presidential election procedures.
* Explain why the election of 1824 was decided in the House of Representatives.
* Cite examples from presidential campaign materials from 1824.
* Explain how John Quincy Adams won election in 1824.
* Take a stand, supported by evidence, on whether or not there was a “corrupt bargain” between Henry Clay and John Quincy Adams.
Curriculum Details
Preparation Instructions
Lesson Plans in Curriculum
Lesson 1: The Election Is in the House: The Denouement
This lesson will help students develop a better understanding of the election of 1824 and its significance.
Lesson 2: The Election Is in the House: 1824: The Candidates and the Issues
All of the major candidates for president in the 1824 election claimed allegiance to the same party, the Democratic-Republicans.
What distinguished the candidates from each other?
What were the important issues in the campaign of 1824?
Lesson 3: The Election Is in the House: Was There a Corrupt Bargain?
The presidential election of 1824 represents a watershed in American politics.
Four crucial elements of our election system were highlighted in the election of 1824: the nomination of candidates, the popular election of electors, the Electoral College, and the election of the president in the House when no candidate receives a majority in the Electoral College.
end quotes
Could it be that Obama Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan left all of that out of CHIAFALO ET AL. v. WASHINGTON because they don’t teach any of it at Harvard, choosing instead to make it up as they go?
Or was all of that, especially those hard questions, too hard for her to understand?
Paul Plante says
And as we continue to look for where the train went off the tracks in terms of how U.S. presidents are selected today, or dredged up from the bottom of the political barrel it might be more properly said, as opposed to the system as it was outlined by Alexander Hamilton in FEDERALIST No. 68, “The Mode of Electing the President,” from the New York Packet to the People of the State of New York on Friday, March 14, 1788, where we were told, quite erroneously as it has turned out since then, that “(T)he process of election affords a moral certainty, that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications,” let us go back to the United States presidential election of 1828 and an article on the subject by Encyclopaedia Britannica written by Alison Eldridge, Managing Editor, Strategic Content at Encyclopaedia Britannica, where we have from our American political history as follows:
The election of 1828 was arguably one of the most significant in United States history, ushering in the era of political campaigns and paving the way for the solidification of political parties.
end quotes
So using the train analogy, we can say that the presidential election of 1824, the year of the “CORRUPT BARGAIN,” was when the wheels started coming off, and four years later in 1828, the train jumped the tracks and we have been on a downhill run ever since in terms of the factionalism that has so divided this nation along “color lines” this time around.
Getting back to that basic American history every schoolchild, which is to say, every adult in America should know and be conversant with, we have:
The previous election, of 1824, had seen John Quincy Adams become president although his opponent Andrew Jackson had earned the most electoral votes.
Because no candidate won a majority of the electoral vote, however, that election was decided by the House of Representatives in Adams’s favour after fellow candidate and Speaker of the House Henry Clay (who finished fourth) threw his support behind Adams.
Adams subsequently appointed Clay his secretary of state, giving merit to rumours of a “corrupt bargain” in the eyes of Jackson supporters.
end quotes
Now, we already know that we have had factions in this country going back to when it was a bunch of English colonies, so it is not surprising that in 1824 we would still have factions, but what is of interest is that before, the factions were limited in terms of numbers and political power in the nation, as opposed to a region or a state, but in 1824, that all began to change, as we see by going back to that history, to wit:
During the contested election of 1824, followers of Henry Clay and John Quincy Adams began calling themselves National Republicans, and backers of Andrew Jackson emerged as Democratic Republicans.
end quotes
Note the use of the term “followers” in there, because in our times today, that word has powerful meaning in terms of people who drink KOOL-AID and never think for themselves, finding it far easier to align themselves with what they consider a “kind master.”
Getting back to the history:
By the election of 1828, the Jacksonians had become known simply as the Democrats.
Unlike previous elections, in which the parties’ congressional delegations would generally gather to nominate a candidate (this had failed to coalesce support around a single candidate among the Democratic-Republicans in 1824), this election was the first in which a majority of states held conventions to endorse a candidate.
end quotes
So, there we have before us an important change that for some odd and unexplained reason, Obama Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan left out of CHIAFALO ET AL. v. WASHINGTON, perhaps because they don’t teach any of it at Harvard, choosing instead to make it up as they go.
Getting back to the history once again:
By 1828 selection of presidential electors was being decided by the voters in all but two states, and public opinion was becoming more important than ever before.
Jackson’s supporters established pro-Jackson newspapers and helped to distribute information and election material.
Both sides organized rallies, parades, and other public events to promote their chosen candidate.
end quotes
Yes, people sides being taken and lines being drawn, and thousands of people in the street waving signs that mostly say hooray for their side, and those of us who do not cling to factions or take sides have found ourselves squeezed out into the cold when it comes to who is going to be the next American president, which takes us back to that history once more, as follows:
Personalities and slander played a large part in the 1828 election.
end quotes
And there is something we still have today, so the more things change, the more they stay the same.
Staying with the history, it continues as follows:
Jackson and his wife, Rachel, despite their long marriage, had been vilified in campaign pamphlets as adulterers.
News of Jackson’s proclivities for dueling and gambling became embellished and widespread.
The mudslinging was just as fierce from Jackson’s supporters, portraying Adams not only as a “corrupt bargainer” but also as an unscrupulous aristocrat who had misappropriated tax dollars.
In the end, with 178 electoral votes to Adams’s 83, Jackson became the first president to gain office by a direct appeal to the mass of voters rather than through the support of a recognized political organization.
Paul Plante says
And with the thought in mind of personalities and slander playing a large part in the 1828 presidential election in this country, that thought takes us back to January 17, 2021 and the original post in this thread where we had as follows to consider, to wit:
So, the anarchy at the capitol is over, mass arrests are taking place, the House of Representatives under Nancy Pelosi is demanding the the vice president remove the president and install himself in his place, and the nation is split even further than it was back in 1968 when Eugene McCarthy, a little-known Democratic senator from Minnesota, announced on November 20, 1967, that he would seek the party’s nomination for president, being very straightforward about his political goals —rehabilitating the American political system and getting the antiwar protests off the streets:
“There is growing evidence of a deepening moral crisis in America — discontent and frustration and a disposition to take extralegal if not illegal actions to manifest protest.”
“I am hopeful that this challenge…may alleviate at least in some degree this sense of political hopelessness and restore to many people a belief in the process of American politics and of American government…[and] that it may counter the growing sense of alienation from politics, which I think is currently reflected in a tendency to withdraw from political action, to talk of nonparticipation, to become cynical and to make threats of support for third parties or fourth parties or other irregular political movements.”
That deepening moral crisis McCarthy spoke about in 1968 — the discontent and frustration and a disposition to take extralegal if not illegal actions to manifest protest, were as a direct result of the policies of Democrat Lyndon Baines Johnson who had been elected in 1964 with the greatest majority since Franklin Roosevelt’s reelection triumph in 1936, and four years later, on the eve of the 1968 election, had become the most hated man in America.
“I feel like a hitchhiker caught in a hailstorm on a Texas highway,” he told his press secretary.
“I can’t run.”
“I can’t hide.”
“And I can’t make it stop.”
So, yes, people in the United States of America, one single man, in that case, Lyndon Baines Johnson, can split the nation asunder and bring us to the brink of a civil war, which thought takes us to a Yahoo News article entitled “Joe Biden, now president-elect, declares it is ‘time to heal in America’” by David Knowles, Brittany Shepherd and Hunter Walker on November 7, 2020, where we had as follows:
In his first speech as president-elect on Saturday, Joe Biden said he hoped to unify the nation after an especially bitter campaign with President Trump, who has so far refused to concede defeat in the race.
end quotes
Now, when I read that part about Joe Biden of all people saying he hoped to “unify” the nation, my first thought was, yeah, right, Joe, and how exactly do you propose to do that after working so hard to divide it?
Yes, people, like Democrat Lyndon Baines Johnson before him, Joe Biden has done more to divide this nation than has Donald Trump, which proposition is before us in this essay.
As to really healing this nation after he and Hillary Clinton and Barack Hussein Obama and Nancy Pelosi and Charley “Chuck” Schumer have done so much to divide it, does Joe Biden plan to apologize to all those people in America he previously called the “dregs of society” as in The Daily Wire story “Joe Biden Calls Trump Supporters ‘Virulent People,’ The ‘Dregs Of Society’” by Joseph Curl on September 17, 2018, as follows:
Joe Biden just had his “deplorables” moment.
Biden, who says he’ll decided in January whether to run for president in 2020 but who is making all the moves of a presidential candidate, used a pro-LGBT Human Rights Campaign annual dinner on Saturday to rip President Trump.
And in so doing, Biden had a moment reminiscent of Hillary Clinton, when she called Trump supporters “deplorables.”
Biden did his old act, starting off soft and avuncular before booming through his power points, punching the air and flailing about.
“Despite losing in the courts, and in the court of opinion, these forces of intolerance remain determined to undermine and roll back the progress you all have made,” he said.
“This time they — not you — have an ally in the White House.”
“This time they have an ally.”
“They’re a small percentage of the American people — virulent people, some of them the dregs of society.”
“God forgive me,” he added, making the sign of the cross as the audience applauded.
“Our work is not yet done by any stretch of the imagination.”
“The stakes are much too high.”
And then he went even further. “This is deadly earnest, we are in a fight for America’s soul,” Biden said.
end quotes
So what now does Joe Biden plan to do with those “forces of intolerance,” those virulent people, some of them the dregs of society?
If he is going to unify the nation, where does he envision those forces of intolerance, those virulent people, some of them the dregs of society, fitting into his scheme?
Or is he going to pull a Lenin or Stalin act and simply eliminate them from society to clear the path for the better world Joe Biden and the Democrats are promising to those who are his followers?
Getting back to the Yahoo News article while we wait for that answer from Team Biden, it continues as follows:
The former vice president repeatedly sought to reinforce his message during the campaign that he would seek to be a president for all Americans, regardless of whether they had voted for him.
end quotes
He would “seek” to be a president for all Americans?
What the **** is that?
Doesn’t the Constitution make it incandescently clear that the president is supposed to be the president for all Americans by taking care that OUR laws be faithfully executed?
So what is up with this talk of “seeking,” which is defined as an attempt or desire to obtain or achieve something?
If Joe Biden has to “seek” to be a president for all Americans, then in my estimation as an American citizen, he is not fit to be the president of a free people.
Getting back to the story:
“I pledge to be a president who seeks not to divide, but unify.”
end quotes
All well and good, Joe Biden, but dude, by calling American citizens dregs of society, you were seeking to divide us for partisan political gain for yourself and the Democrat party, which represents only a third of the American people at best, so how can you now possibly unite us, those of us in the 70% who never were Democrats and don’t want to be?
Getting back to it one more time, we have:
“We need to stop treating our opponents as our enemies,” Biden told the crowd.
“They’re not our enemies.”
“They’re Americans.”
end quotes
Yes, Joe Biden, they are Americans, aren’t they.
And they were Americans when you called them “dregs of society,” and you encouraged your followers to treat them as enemies.
So when you tell us, “This is the time to heal in America,” what now is your plan for doing so?
The candid world that watches and waits would like to know!