Chief Justice John Roberts prides himself on keeping his court non-political, but in doing so he has made it very political—and blue pilled.
The highest court in the land decided not to hear what is perhaps the most important case of our times: Millions of Americans have been disenfranchised due to blatant voter fraud. The evidence is stark and overwhelming, but the case was tossed. They said Texas had no standing. Trump criticized the highest court in the land. If we can’t obtain justice in the face of blatant criminality, what are we supposed to do?
Supposedly there was yelling involved and Roberts’ expressed worry about rioting in the streets if the court took on the case. I’ve heard Roberts is either totally compromised (Epstein’s Island?) or that he simply has an advanced case of Trump Derangement Syndrome. Roberts’ decision was based not on the Constitution, logic, reason, or legal precedent, but rather on ‘fear.’ That’s hard to swallow, but so is the blue pill he’s forcing down our country’s throat.
If SCOTUS did hear the case, it would go in Trump’s favor because the fraud is overwhelming. Instead, it essentially endorsed the Democrat Party and cheating in elections. Roberts and his court do the bidding of the New World Order. The Swamp has standing—not millions of voters.
Make no mistake, the cheating will become permanent once Biden captures the White House. His administration will be the Blue Pill by force. The Red Pill will be smeared as ’terrorism’ and outlawed.
The Supreme Court has come out and made a statement denying that Chief Justice Roberts screamed in a room because they met by phone. This shows that they have been monitoring the comments since they denied the Texas lawsuit when there was no justification for “discretion” to deny taking the case. This is like asking if someone beat their spouse on Sunday, and they say no I was at church. If later caught, they simply say: Oh, sorry, I thought that was Saturday. They did not deny refusing to take the case because of protests. There were other rumors that Chief Justice Roberts on a phone call to Justice Breyer also said they will not take any case from Trump on the election.
The Supreme Court has condemned the nation to violence for anyone who has read history knows that the very purpose of courts is to provide a civilized resolution. If courts will not be honest, then the only solution is violence which may rise to the level of revolution. It has now not just denied the civil rights of the 74 million people who voted for Trump, a record for any incumbent president, but they have condemned democracy for here on out there will be no trust in any future election. Our model warns that the United States has a short-fuse. The break-up of the nation has just been set in motion by the Supreme Court and we have perhaps at best 13 years left. There will only be hatred and bitterness and trying to claim Biden has a mandate to drastically change the country will lead to bloodshed. This will all be on the hands of the Supreme Court.
If there was no evidence of fraud then review the evidence, show the world, and rule. The refusal to hear the case will leave that question unanswered. Ruling against Trump would have at least calmed the turmoil. This way, there will be no rest.
This was jurisdiction squarely created by the Constitution. It is already well established that voter fraud violates the civil rights of everyone else. The rights of Texas as even a state are violated by any other state which engages in voter fraud. This now justifies the rising tensions for separatism.
Pennsylvania is often at the top of the list of voter fraud in the country. This is not a small number of ballots. Pennsylvania is violating EVERYONE’S civil rights and there should be a major class-action suit filed ASAP. We all now have a right to file a class-action lawsuit under 18 USC 241 for Pennsylvania and Michigan have violated the civil rights of everyone in the country.
Section 241 has been an important statutory tool in election crime prosecutions. It has long been held to apply only to schemes to corrupt elections for federal office. It has been applied to stuffing a ballot box with forged ballots, United States v. Saylor, 322 U.S. 385 (1944); United States v. Mosley, 238 U.S. 383 (1915) as well as preventing the official count of ballots in primary elections, United States v. Classic, 313 U.S. 299 (1941), which may come in handy in this election. This means private suites can be filed claiming that interfering with the ballots is a civil rights violation to all in the country.
Destroying voter registration applications is also applicable (United States v. Haynes, Nos. 91-5979, 91-6076, 1992 WL 296782, at *1 (6th Cir. Oct. 15, 1992)), as well as destroying ballots (United States v. Townsley, 843 F.2d 1070, 1073–75 (8th Cir. 1988)).
Anyone who exploits the infirmities of elderly or handicapped people by casting absentee ballots in their names is also a violation of civil rights, United States v. Morado, 454 F.2d 167, 171 (5th Cir. 1972), just as anyone who illegally register voters and cast absentee ballots in their names, United States v. Weston, 417 F.2d 181, 182–85 (4th Cir. 1969).
Anyone who threatens injury, threaten, or intimidate a voter in the exercise of his right to vote is also a serious actionable issue under this statute, Fields v. United States, 228 F.2d 544 (4th Cir. 1955). This even extends to someone who impersonates qualified voters, Crolich v. United States, 196 F.2d 879, 879 (5th Cir. 1952).
Chief Justice Roberts should be Impeached, but the Deep State will support him.
Article III, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution provides SCOTUS has original jurisdiction over suits between states. That original jurisdiction of SCOTUS is laid out by statute in 28 U.S.C. §1251. Section 1251(a) provides that with disputes between states, the jurisdiction of SCOTUS is not only “original,” it is exclusive. In other words, if the parties cannot settle the matter, no other court but SCOTUS has authority, under the Constitution, to take jurisdiction.
The Judiciary Actof 1925 made such jurisdiction discretionary, which requires a Motion for Leave to File a Bill Complaint when the complaint is between states. That legislatively created change is equivalent to locking the courthouse door to suits like Texas, et al v. Pennsylvania, et al. Giving “discretion to hear” to courts that have original and exclusive jurisdiction over a case or controversy between states destroys the fundamental right of access to the courts. The jurisdiction of SCOTUS was created directly by the Constitution. Therefore, such jurisdiction requires an amendment to the Constitution to alter same.
The Judiciary Act of 1925 passed by Congress cannot be substituted for an amendment to the Constitution when such is required, and a “no standing” ruling is,simply put a cop-out. Once leave to file a bill of complaint is denied there is no further remedy,so this maze of laws should be treated as an unintended consequence and a grave mistake of the American system of justice. Similar unintended consequences have occurred before, e.g., the famous “Moitie footnote” was rectified by the opinion of SCOTUS in Rivet v. Regions Bank,522 U.S. 470 (1998). This mistake ties the hands of other courts that could provide review of the denial of the fundamental right of access to the courts. The denial of the Motion to File a Bill of Complaint is, at its core, an action of a trial court with original and exclusive jurisdiction per Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution but, untenably, with discretion to hear per the Judiciary Act of 1925, 28 U.S.C. § 1251(a). This scheme seems to have been designed by Kafka because it bars more than the courthouse door of the court of the first instance. When all doors to all courts that could provide review are barred in an unstoppable breathtaking cascade of severe judicial unfairness, it is reasonable, perhaps necessary, to assume that a mistake like the one made in the Moitie case was unintended, and that no one could possibly desire that such legal quandary continue. The movers in the Motion to File Bill of Complaint should take a step toward rectification of such by filing a Notice of Appeal with the D.C. Circuit under FRAP 4 which would spotlight the quandary and move forward toward rectification to achieve the goals of appellate procedure consisting, inter alia, of correcting errors, developing the law, and achieving uniformity across courts.At first blush, the errors are:
(1) violation of due process and equal protection for locking the door of the courthouse of SCOTUS by discretion where a case between two states must be heard in the first instance as per a grant and obligation of jurisdiction imposed upon SCOTUS directly by the U.S. Constitution,
(2) it was error to find no standing, because____________,
(3) the Judiciary Act of 1925 is unconstitutional because it violates due process and equal protection by allowing SCOTUS discretion to hear a case when the case is within the court’s original and exclusive jurisdiction of Article III, Article 2 of the Constitution and 28 U.S.C. § 1251(a), and by failing to provide a method of appeal that provides a review of a denial of a Motion to File Bill of Complaint alleging a case and controversy between two states thereby allowing the denial of access to SCOTUS to metastasize to other courts causing a monopolization of all avenues of relief,
(4) the Judiciary Act of 1925 is unconstitutional because it converts a fundamental right to a discretionary right which Congress cannot do since such can only be done by the amendment of the Constitution, (5) any other error you can think of. EGM
Throughout the scandals of the last few years, former Vice President Joe Biden has repeatedly heaped praise on his troubled son Hunter. In several interviews, including one this week, he has referred to Hunter as the “smartest guy” he knows. To make such a statement, it is clear that Joe Biden needs a much larger circle of acquaintances.
Is Joe Biden even qualified to identify a smart person? In fact, how smart is Joe Biden? The record shows he is the antithesis of smart. From his many asinine comments to his long record of questionable associations to his multiple episodes of outright plagiarism, Joe Biden is certainly not smart.
Since Joe Biden is not Mensa material, how about his son Hunter? C’mon man, this is about as easy as it gets. Hunter has a sordid personal life and has created a mess of professional life.
In 2014, after testing positive for cocaine use, Hunter was discharged by the U.S. Navy from his position as a public affairs specialist. His naval career lasted less than one month.
In 2016, in Prescott, Arizona, Hunter returned a Hertz rental car from California “after hours.” Inside the car, he left a crack pipe and a bag “with a white powdery substance inside” for all to see “on the passenger seat.” For good measure, he left behind credit cards, a driver’s license, a cell phone, “a Delaware Attorney General badge,” and a “U.S. Secret Service business card.” Instead of leaving the keys in the drop box, Hunter put them in the gas tank compartment. Due to Hunter’s action, this was not a car return, but a crime scene. Not surprisingly, since his last name is Biden, no charges were filed against Hunter.
The following year, Hunter’s former wife Kathleen filed for divorce from him. She noted his propensity for excessive spending on “drugs, alcohol, prostitutes, strip clubs, and gifts for women with whom he has sexual relations.” In her filing, Kathleen accused Hunter of running up massive debt, issuing bounced checks and having judgment that was “frequently impaired with respect to their safety, their care, and their best interests.” Eventually, the couple reached an uncontested divorce settlement in April of 2017.
By that time, Hunter was in the midst of a two-year relationship with his deceased brother’s wife, Hallie. After that break-up, it was announced that Hunter had impregnated a former Arkansas stripper, Lunden Alexis Roberts, who had to sue him for child support. Ultimately, they reached an out-of-court settlement. In 2019, Hunter married South African native Melissa Cohen after a six-day relationship. In March of this year, she gave birth to Hunter’s fifth child.
Along with a turbulent personal life, Hunter has been involved in controversial business dealings for years. He was paid an exorbitant amount of money to sit on the board of Burisma, a Ukrainian oil and gas company, even though he did not know the country, the industry, or the language. He admitted that he was given the position solely because of his father.
The company has been tied to a former Ukrainian President and an oligarch and was under investigation by a prosecutor until Joe Biden threatened the withholding of a $1 billion U.S. loan guarantee and was able to force his firing.
His business dealings with Ukraine, China and other countries have been outlined by his former associate Tony Bobulinksi. In his statement, Bobulinksi claims that Joe Biden was aware of these business arrangements, contradicting the denials by the former Vice President.
While most of the media ignored Hunter Biden and his questionable financial dealings, some courageous media outlets did share the truth with the American people. For example, the New York Post revealed the explosive material on a laptop that Hunter Biden left at a Delaware computer repair shop.
In a move that the “smartest guy” would not make, Hunter did not retrieve the laptop. It included images of explicit sexual acts, illegal drug use and a host of messages connecting Hunter and Joe Biden to business deals with communist business interests in China.
The owner of the computer repair shop realized the explosive contents of the laptop and shared it with President Donald Trump’s attorney Rudy Giuliani, who then gave it to the New York Post.
The hard drive has been in the possession of the FBI since last December and Hunter has now admitted that he is under federal investigation for “tax affairs.”
Joe Biden often claims that he is “proud” of his son and lambastes any rare reporter who has the audacity to ask him about Hunter and his business dealings.
Eventually, the investigation surrounding his son may destroy the remaining political career of Joe Biden. If he ultimately becomes President, it may be a very brief tenure, courtesy of the scandals surrounding the “smartest guy” Joe Biden knows.
Comrade Rebels, there is a considerable disparity amid the Republic when it comes to authoritarian dictates and various State Ministries of Covid Compliance.
In recent developments NYC Comrade Minister DeBlasio has indicated he is allowing masked citizens to return to restrooms in restaurants which were previously forbidden. This is helpful progress to comply with the frequent hand-washing dictate; however, do not actually pause while in the restaurant venue proper or the Rona will apparently attack.
Perhaps these high-minded regulations from the New York Ministry are helping to drive people from New York to Florida where Rebel Alliance leader Ron DeSantis holds a more pragmatic perspective.
According to Florida officials the sunshine state strain of the Rona virus is not distinguishing between targets standing at a bar with a beer and targets sitting outside at a table with a beer. Apparently this is a conundrum not fully appreciated within the official COVID policy of the Minnesota, Michigan, California, Pennsylvania, New York and DC-based compliance authorities.
The northern regional ministry also indicates the virus in some states is triggered by rebellious activity at certain times of the evening. As a consequence many municipalities have curfews and hours of operation to avoid the greater Rona threat later in the evening.
WASHINGTON DC — With coronavirus numbers setting new daily records, the nation’s capital is temporarily suspending all indoor dining in restaurants over the holidays. Washington Mayor Muriel Bowser issued an executive order Friday night banning indoor dining for three weeks, starting Wednesday at 10 p.m. and extending through Jan. 15.
PHOENIX – Arizona residents are being told to “shrink their circles” of personal contacts and gatherings to help the state’s health care system handle coronavirus cases.
NASHVILLE, Tenn. — Republican Gov. Bill Lee has declined to require a mask order. Only a dozen other states lack a statewide mask requirement.
Interestingly, according to the AP “among the first 215,000 people to get vaccinated in the U.S., fewer than 1.5% of them had problems that left them unable to perform their normal activities or required medical care.” The current fatality rate for the Rona is around 0.7% so if the statistics hold up, twice as many people are injured by the vaccination as will likely suffer from the worst part of the virus.
Comrades, it is also good to know our proactive COVID ministry has mandated social distancing at the Iditarod Trail Sled Dog Race in Alaska.
Should a musher come across another team on the 1,000 mile expanse of isolated wilderness, said mushers will be required to put on a mask.
Obviously our nation breathes a collective sigh of relief for the hours of painstaking debate that went into the Rona preparations in the northern tundra. With the race scheduled in March 2021, decisions were coming down to the wire. Additionally, to ensure the safety of the polar inhabitants, each musher will be required to test for Rona exposure midway through the race.
MICHIGAN – Restaurants must remain closed; however, “casinos, movie theaters, bowling alleys and similar venues will be allowed to reopen on Monday, with some restrictions in place.” What type of restrictions?… “Indoor ice and roller rinks are allowed to operate, but only for individual workouts or one-on-one training, according to the order.” So if comrade rebels in Michigan can find an Ice-Skating rink open you will not ever suffer the embarrassment of another human seeing you fall down.
All of that said, what is your local areas’ current state of COVID-19 rules and regulations?
Feel free to share examples of Ministerial Compliance Decrees that seem to be, well, transparently silly.
The New York Times is reporting today on a Friday night visit between President Trump and lawyer Sidney Powell. According to the Times President Trump’s legal counsel Rudy Giuliani was present via phone conference and White House counsel Pat A. Cipollone represented the office of the President.
There are essentially a few competing approaches still being provided to President Trump for consideration as the White House awaits an important report from Director of National Intelligence, John Ratcliffe, on what the DNI has affirmed was “foreign interference in the 2020 election.”
Rudy Giuliani and several members of the formal legal team seem to prefer President Trump using executive order #13848 upon, and as an outcome of, formal findings represented by DNI John Ratcliffe.
Use of that specific XO would make sense as the direct purpose of the 2018 order was targeted toward foreign interference. However, there is no specific information known as to which executive agency would carry out any authority if the issues directly highlight domestic election infrastructure targeting.
The Times reports “[p]art of the White House meeting on Friday night was a discussion about an executive order to take control of voting machines to examine them, according to one of the people briefed.” However legal advisors to the office of president are unsure if DHS would have authority to impound Dominion ballot machines. The 2018 executive order would seem to indicate that any office directed by the White House would have authority. This avenue would obviously depend on the DNI final report.
Ms. Powell has two lawsuits in the docket of the high court; however, as each day passes it seems the ability to confront known election fraud evidence becomes more challenging. It is likely Powell is recommending a more forceful approach by the executive branch that will support the lawsuits underway by her outside group.
NEW YORK TIMES – President Trump on Friday discussed making Sidney Powell, who as a lawyer for his campaign team unleashed a series of conspiracy theories about a Venezuelan plot to rig voting machines in the United States, a special counsel investigating voter fraud, according to two people briefed on the discussion.
It was unclear if Mr. Trump will move ahead with such a plan.
Most of his advisers opposed the idea, two of the people briefed on the discussion said, including Rudolph W. Giuliani, the president’s personal lawyer, who in recent days sought to have the Department of Homeland Security join the campaign’s efforts to overturn Mr. Trump’s loss in the election.
Mr. Giuliani joined the discussion by phone, while Ms. Powell was at the White House for a meeting that became raucous at times, according to one of the people briefed on what took place. Other administration officials drifted in and out of the meeting, two of the people briefed said, and the White House counsel, Pat A. Cipollone, pushed back on the ideas being proposed.
Ms. Powell accused other Trump advisers of being quitters, according to the people briefed. (read more)
With public confidence in the integrity of the FBI and DOJ near zero; and with massive evidence of wide-scale institutional corruption and weaponized politics highlighted over the past four years; there is somewhere near 100 million Americans waiting to see what direction President Trump will take.
In the larger picture many American voters are now awake to the reality that U.S. politics has been an “illusion of choice” for the past several election cycles. The Big Club is indeed a set of two private organizations, DNC and RNC, that select candidates and construct the party election strategies around them.
It was the December 2014 RNC playbook to nominate Jeb Bush in 2016 that finally showcased just how much strategic manipulation takes place inside The Club to give the illusion of voter influence. CTH called this specific road-map the “Splitter Strategy”, and it would have ended successfully with a Hillary -vs- Jeb general election contest if Donald J Trump had not intervened in 2015 as the outsider.
The institutions of American government and politics have responded over the past five years to having someone from outside the Big Club apparatus win the presidency. Both wings of the UniParty club were/are aligned to remove the risk represented by Trump.
It has been a one-man America-First battle against the administrative state for the past five years and we have watched each element within this larger struggle.
President Trump has a key decision now in front of him; however, he also has 100 million American patriots standing beside him.
The MAGA movement is waiting to see what comes next. One thing is certain, the entire apparatus of our U.S. government will never be the same.
A report has come out from a clerk in the Supreme Court describing what took place when the Texas case came up. Chief Justice Roberts said he did not give a “f–k” about precedent. He refused to accept the case claiming “we have riots” which in fact the entire Black Lives Matter movement has been protesting the very immunity police have been given not by Congress, but by the Supreme Court. It is the Court that has blood on its hands for creating immunity that was complained of in the Declaration of Independence.
Chief Justice Roberts swore an oath to defend the Constitution. He has abandoned that oath and is a disgrace to the nation. He has condemned the country to the rise in civil unrest that may even rise to the level of breaking the country apart. Civilization = rule of law. He has abandoned countless centuries of precedent which distinguishes tyranny from civilization.
More than 2000 years ago, Thrasymachus warned Socrates that there is no justice. It is always the will of those in power regardless if it is a democracy, aristocracy, or a tyrannical form of government. Justice Roberts is a disgrace to the entire Western Civilization. He should step down. He has violated his oath of office and is no longer qualified to sit in that court! He should go down as the second Justice to be impeached. The only Justice to be impeached was Associate Justice Samuel Chase in 1805. The House of Representatives passed Articles of Impeachment against him; however, he was acquitted by the Senate. He acted like a prosecutor rather than a judge. Nonetheless, the impeachment raised important constitutional questions over the nature of the judiciary. It was the termination of a series of efforts to expand judicial independence under the Constitution. The dispute also defined the limits of the impeachment power. What Chief Justice Roberts has violated was clearly the prohibition of the judiciary from engaging in partisan politics and confined judicial independence which Roberts has ignored.
Sidney Powell’s filings at the Supreme Court for Georgia and Michigan were given a response date of January 14th which means they then claim it is untimely and Biden will be sworn in on the 20th. Once again they are using procedures to avoid the issues raised and are now protecting the Deep State.
Meanwhile, Arizona and Wisconsin were immediately rejected by the clerk without explanation. This is really now treason against the United States. This is time that the Judiciary Act of 1925 MUST be presented as unconstitutional. Every Supreme Court Justice takes two oaths and they MUST defend the constitution. Claiming they have “discretion” means they no longer need to defend the constitution and they have left the country in the same position as for the civil war. Instead of ruling for or against which would at least raise the hope of claiming the storm, they have left the people to sort this out by nothing but violence which our computer has been projecting.
In an internet poll asking did Biden win, the responses are so skewed to “NO” it is indicative of what we will face. This is an international disgrace and the Supreme Court has shown it no longer can be trusted to defend the Constitution. If Trump is wrong, then just rule that way and end the rising hostility. Avoiding this issue that confirms we even have a real right to vote is a confirmation that the Supreme Court is no longer valid.
It was the Supreme Court that created immunity for police, politicians, and prosecutors along with judges out of thin air claiming they could not do their job if they could be sued. The Entire Black Lives Matter movement has been played for fools. The Democrats could have passed a law removing that immunity in 15 minutes. Instead, they have exploited the racial tension for political purposes and allowed the defunding of police to take place instead of correcting the wrong created by the Supreme Court.
Civilization cannot exist without the rule of law. The Supreme Court could have easily ruled it was insufficient evidence to show there was a fraud and this the election thus stands. Avoiding the issue indicates that they did not want the evidence to surface and are thus also conspiring against the people to end our liberty which was granted by the Founding Fathers. Refusing to rule can no only be seen as not wanting to address the evidence because it is serious. For the left press and the Democrats to even claim there was no fraud is a blatant lie. EVERY election has fraud. Dead people have been voting all the time. The honest thing to say is that the fraud DID NOT rise to the level of changing the outcome. That would at least be an argument. Claiming this is no fraud is a cover-up.
History will mark this decision, like Dread Scott, that in the absence of the rule of law, there is no government remaining and we are not the “people” but just the Great Unwashed. They are ruling against democracy just as John Kerry said. Trump appealed to “populism” and Kerry expressed it best for how the elite thinks of us:
“It’s really dangerous to play to the lowest common denominator of American, of global political life.” (Source: Yahoo)
What’s next? The Supreme Court will rule against the Second Amendment claiming the Founding Fathers were drunk and never intended to allow the Great Unwashed to possess any guns to prevent a revolution? After these maneuvers, the Supreme Court has lost all its integrity. The courts in America have become part of the Deep State.
The New York lawsuit against the Trump administration -over disqualification of unlawful aliens in the 2020 election- was dismissed today by the Supreme Court [full pdf here] under procedural grounds.
However, that said, there is a clear indication where the outcome is likely to end-up once the court takes up the case next year.
The high court noted no harm currently exists because the census report hasn’t been delivered to congress to begin the representative apportionment.
The ruling was 6-3 on process, with justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor and Stephen Breyer signing a dissent on the case. Justice Breyer wanted to fire a shot into the administration by outlining a liberal opinion/perspective of the issue:
…”The plain meaning of the governing statutes, decades of historical practice, and uniform interpretations from all three branches of Government demonstrate that aliens without lawful status cannot be excluded from the decennial census solely on account of that status,” Breyer wrote. “The Government’s effort to remove them from the apportionment base is unlawful, and I believe this Court should say so.”
Beyond the liberal argument this majority part should alarm everyone:
[…] “Everyone agrees by now that the Government cannot feasibly implement the memorandum by excluding the estimated 10.5 million aliens without lawful status,” the opinion later said. “Yet the only evidence speaking to the predicted change in apportionment unrealistically assumes that the President will exclude the entire undocumented population.” (read more)
In essence what the court is saying is they will not support unlawful aliens being excluded from the census and, as a consequence, congressional representation. It is just too early for them to decide because the harm has not been incurred.
This is an alarming position when cast against the recent SCOTUS decisions on 2020 election. Texas has no standing to file suit based on harm from election fraud, the voices of Texas voters are moot to the court; and now the same court is saying any unlawful alien residing in the United States should be granted a voice in government.
The Democrats certainly appear to have a compromising situation with Chinese spies inside their political network that extends well beyond Representative Eric Swalwell and Senator Dianne Fienstein. The California delegation of Democrats most certainly has the biggest exposure to having been infiltrated with Chinese operatives. It is all sketchy.
Think carefully about this part….. As noted in this interview segment Nancy Pelosi is claiming she was briefed on the Chinese spy compromise around Swalwell with McCarthy. However, simultaneously House Leader Kevin McCarthy states he found out through the media. Keep in mind McCarthy has only been part of the ‘Gang of Eight’ since Jan 2019 (he as minority leader and Pelosi taking over from Paul Ryan as House Speaker).
A Pelosi briefing prior to 2019 was in her role as Minority leader with Ryan as speaker (Nunes/Schiff as Chair/Ranking on HPSCI). Therefore either Pelosi was briefed outside the Go8 structure, or she is lying about briefing with McCarthy. While Pelosi is a notorious liar, the former explanation of a defensive briefing seems more likely.
That means U.S. intelligence officials during the Obama administration kept the Swalwell compromise secret and outside the Gang-of-Eight. Accepting that reality is further evidence the U.S. intel apparatus -writ large- was operating through the prism of politics.
I respect Dinesh D’Souza. However, on this issue I also disagree intensely.
The foundation of D’Souza’s reason for why he does not support a new political party, a MAGA or Patriot or (__fill in blank__) party, appears flawed. By saying a new party would only split the GOP, D’Souza is actually making the argument that creates Battered Conservative Syndrome; the DeceptiCon argument that protects the GOP wing. WATCH:
When the Tea Party rose to power and primaried a host of GOP politicians, it was the Republican party that attacked the conservative base and attempted to destroy the rebellion. McCain called us “hobbits” and McConnell called us “jihadists.” The threat from the Tea Party was felt amid the GOP. The GOP was *not* going to adjust.
Meanwhile Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama destroyed the center of their political party called the Blue Dog coalition, represented by Bart Stupak. The Blue Dogs were wiped out in 2010 because Democrats forced them into radical left-wing agenda items.
A new party, ie. ‘THE’ new party, would not be a carve out within the Republican club. A new party would be a coalition party of Democrats, Republicans and Independents. Need proof of the scale, look at the 2020 election for Trump. That’s the (fill__blank) party.
A new party would be a SECOND party to the UniParty occupants currently pushing more big government in Washington DC. The fact that we have decades worth of evidence (Patriot Act, Wall Street Lobbyists, K-St. etc.), and specifically the past ten years (omnibus spending bills, limitless debt ceiling, massive wasted stimulus, political bailouts, QE1/QE2, Obamacare, college tuition takeover etc.) shows that both Democrats and Republicans are two wings of the same big government bird.
The fear of “splitting the GOP” is the weaponized talking point of the GOP leadership who use that fear as a weapon to remain in power. Those who listen to that threat are suffering from battered conservative syndrome.
There is nothing conservative about expanding government, spending into oblivion, allowing open borders and simultaneously removing liberty and freedom. What exactly is being “conserved”? CTH has been making this argument for years.
2015 – A few days ago I took the time to read Jonah Goldberg’s expressed concerns about the support for Donald Trump and the state of current conservative opinion.
Toward that end I have also noted additional GOP media present a similar argument, and I took the time to consider.
While we are of far lesser significance and influence, I hope you will consider this retort with the same level of consideration afforded toward your position.
The challenging aspect to your expressed opinion, and perhaps why there is a chasm between us, is you appear to stand in defense of a Washington DC conservatism that no longer exists.
I hope you will indulge these considerations and correct me where I’m wrong.
On December 23rd 2009 Harry Reid passed a version of Obamacare through forced vote at 1:30am. The Senators could not leave, and for the two weeks previous were kept in a prolonged legislative session barred returning to their home-state constituencies. It was, by all measures and reality, a vicious display of forced ideological manipulation of the upper chamber. I share this reminder only to set the stage for what was to follow.
Riddled with anxiety we watched the Machiavellian manipulations unfold, seemingly unable to stop the visible usurpation. Desperate for a tool to stop the construct we found Scott Brown and rallied to deliver $7 million in funding, and a “Kennedy Seat” victory on January 19th 2010.
Unfortunately, the trickery of Majority Leader Harry Reid would not be deterred. Upon legislative return he stripped a House Budgetary bill, and replaced it with the Democrat Senate version of Obamacare through a process of “reconciliation”. Thereby avoiding the 3/5ths vote rule (60) and instead using only a simple majority, 51 votes.
Angered, we rallied to the next election (November 2010) and handed the usurping Democrats the single largest electoral defeat in the prior 100 years. The House returned to Republican control, and one-half of the needed Senate seats reversed. Within the next two election cycles (’12 and ’14) we again removed the Democrats from control of the Senate.
Within each of those three elections we were told Repealing Obamacare would be job #1. It was not an optional part of our representative agreement to do otherwise. From your own writing:
[…] If you want a really good sense of the damage Donald Trump is doing to conservatism, consider the fact that for the last five years no issue has united the Right more than opposition to Obamacare. Opposition to socialized medicine in general has been a core tenet of American conservatism from Day One. Yet, when Republicans were told that Donald Trump favors single-payer health care, support for single-payer health care jumped from 16 percent to 44 percent. (link)
With control of the House and Senate did Majority Leader Mitch McConnell or House Speaker John Boehner use the same level of severity expressed by Harry Reid to put a repeal bill on the desk of Obama for veto? Simply, NO.
Why not? According to you it’s the “core tenet of American conservatism”.
If for nothing but to accept and follow the will of the people. Despite the probability of an Obama veto, this was not a matter of option. While the method might have been “symbolic”, due to the almost guaranteed veto, it would have stood as a promise fulfilled.
Yet you speak of “core tenets” and question our “trust” of Donald Trump?
We are not blind to the maneuverings of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and President Tom Donohue. We are fully aware the repeal vote did not take place because the U.S. CoC demanded the retention of Obamacare.
Leader McConnell followed the legislative priority of Tom Donohue as opposed to the will of the people. This was again exemplified with the passage of TPPA, another Republican construct which insured the Trans-Pacific Trade Deal could pass the Senate with 51 votes instead of 3/5ths.
We are not blind to the reality that when McConnell chooses to change the required voting threshold he is apt to do so. Not coincidentally, the TPP trade deal is another legislative priority of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
Yet you question the “trustworthiness” of Donald Trump’s conservatism?
Another bill, the Iran “agreement”, reportedly and conveniently not considered a “treaty”, again we are not blind. Nor are we blind to Republican Bob Corker’s amendment (Corker/Cardin Amendment) changing ratification to a 67-vote-threshold for denial, as opposed to a customary 67 vote threshold for passage. A profound difference.
Yet you question the “ideological conservative principle” of Donald Trump?
Perhaps your emphasis is on the wrong syllable. Perhaps you should be questioning the “ideological conservative principle” of Mitch McConnell, or Bob Corker; both of whom apparently working to deny the will of the electorate within the party they are supposed to represent. Of course, this would force you to face some uncomfortable realities. I digress.
Another example – How “conservative” is Lisa Murkowski?
A senator who can lose her Republican primary bid, yet run as a write-in candidate, and return to the Senate with full seniority and committee responsibilities?
Did Reince Preibus (then RNC Chair), or a republican member of leadership meet the returning Murkowski and demand a Pledge of Allegiance to the principles within the Republican party?
Yet you question the “allegiances” of Donald Trump?
Perhaps within your purity testing you need to forget minority leader Mitch McConnell working to re-elect Senator Thad Cochran, fundraising on his behalf in the spring/summer of 2014, even after Cochran lost the first Mississippi primary?
Perhaps you forget the NRSC spending money on racist attack ads? Perhaps you forget the GOP paying Democrats to vote in the second primary to defeat Republican Chris McDaniel. The “R” in NRSC is “Republican”.
Perhaps you forget. We do not.
Yet you question the “principle” of those who have had enough, and are willing to support candidate Donald Trump.
You describe yourself as filled with anxiety because such supporters do not pass some qualified “principle” test? Tell that to the majority of Republicans who supported Chris McDaniel and found their own party actively working against them.
Principle? You claim “character matters” as part of this consideration. Where is the “character” in the fact-based exhibitions outlined above?
Remember Virginia 2012, 2013? When the conservative principle-driven electorate changed the method of candidate selection to a convention and removed the party stranglehold on their “chosen candidates”. Remember that? We do.
What did McConnell, the RNC and the GOP do in response with Ken Cuccinelli, they actively spited him and removed funding from his campaign. To teach us a lesson? Well it worked, we learned that lesson.
Representative David Brat was part of that lesson learned and answer delivered. Donald Trump is part of that lesson learned and answer forthcoming – yet you speak of “character”.
You speak of being concerned about Donald Trump’s hinted tax proposals. Well, who cut the tax rates on lower margins by 50% thereby removing any tax liability from the bottom 20% wage earners? While simultaneously expanding the role of government dependency programs?
That would be the GOP (“Bush Tax Cuts”)
What? How dare you argue against tax cuts, you say. The “Bush Tax Cuts” removed tax liability from the bottom 20 to 40% of income earners completely. Leaving the entirety of tax burden on the upper 60% wage earners. Currently, thanks to those cuts, 49% of tax filers pay ZERO federal income tax.
But long term it’s much worse. The “Bush Tax Cuts” were, in essence, created to stop the post 9/11/01 recession – and they contained a “sunset provision” which ended ten years later specifically because the tax cuts were unsustainable.
The expiration of the lower margin tax cuts then became an argument in the election cycle of 2012. And as usual, the GOP, McConnell and Boehner were insufferably inept during this process.
The GOP (2002) removed tax liability from the lower income levels, and President Obama then (2009) lowered the income threshold for economic subsidy (welfare, food stamps, ebt, medicaid, etc) this was brutally predictable.
This lower revenue higher spending approach means – lower tax revenues and increased pressure on the top tax rates (wage earners) with the increased demand for tax spending created within the welfare programs. Republicans focus on the “spending” without ever admitting they, not the Democrats, lowered rates and set themselves up to be played with the increased need for social program spending, simultaneously.
Is this reality/outcome not ultimately a “tax the rich” program?
As a consequence what’s the difference between the Republicans and Democrats on taxes?
All of a sudden Republicans are arguing to “broaden the tax base”. Meaning, reverse the tax cuts they created on the lower income filers? This is a conservative position now? A need to “tax the poor”? Nice of the Republicans to insure the Democrats have an atomic sledgehammer to use against them.
This is a winning strategy? This is the “conservatism” you are defending because you are worried about Donald Trump’s principles, character or trustworthiness.
Here’s a list of those modern conservative “small(er) government” principles:
• Did the GOP secure the border with control of the White House and Congress? NO.
• Did the GOP balance the budget with control of the White House and Congress? NO.
• Who gave us the TSA? The GOP
• Who gave us the Patriot Act? The GOP
• Who expanded Medicare to include prescription drug coverage? The GOP
• Who created the precursor of “Common Core” in “Race To the Top”? The GOP
• Who played the race card in Mississippi to re-elect Thad Cochran? The GOP
• Who paid Democrats to vote in the Mississippi primary? The GOP
• Who refused to support Ken Cuccinnelli in Virginia? The GOP
• Who supported Charlie Crist? The GOP
• Who supported Arlen Spector? The GOP
• Who supported Bob Bennett? The GOP
• Who worked against Marco Rubio? The GOP
• Who worked against Rand Paul? The GOP
• Who worked against Ted Cruz? The GOP
• Who worked against Mike Lee? The GOP
• Who worked against Jim DeMint? The GOP
• Who worked against Ronald Reagan? The GOP
• Who said “I think we are going to crush [the Tea Party] everywhere.”? The GOP (McConnell)
• Who worked against Donald Trump? The GOP
And, you wonder why we’re frustrated, desperate for a person who can actually articulate some kind of push-back? Mitch McConnell and John Boehner are what the GOP give us?
SERIOUSLY?
Which leads to the next of your GOP talking points. Where you opine on Fox:
“Politics is a game where you don’t get everything you want”
Fair enough. But considering we of questionable judgment have simply been demanding common sense, ie. fiscal discipline, a BUDGET would be nice.
The last federal budget was passed in September of 2007, and EVERY FLIPPING INSUFFERABLE YEAR we have to go through the predictable fiasco of a Government Shutdown Standoff and/or a Debt Ceiling increase specifically because there is NO BUDGET!
That’s a strategy?
That’s the GOP strategy? Essentially: Lets plan for an annual battle against articulate Democrats and Presidential charm, using a creepy guy who cries and another old mumbling fool who dodders, knowing full well the MSM is on the side of the other guy to begin with?
THAT’S YOUR GOP STRATEGY? Don’t tell me it’s not, because if it wasn’t there’d be something else being done – there isn’t.
And don’t think we don’t know the 2009 “stimulus” became embedded in the baseline of the federal spending, and absent of an actual budget it just gets spent and added to the deficit each year, every year. Yet this is somehow smaller fiscal government?
I have created this site to help people have fun in the kitchen. I write about enjoying life both in and out of my kitchen. Life is short! Make the most of it and enjoy!
This is a library of News Events not reported by the Main Stream Media documenting & connecting the dots on How the Obama Marxist Liberal agenda is destroying America
Centinel2012 