A man loses his son because of Joe Biden’s cowardice and ineptitude. His second son then takes his own life less than a year later. I can’t imagine the pain that he is feeling from this double loss.
When he protests that action by heckling during a Biden speech, he is arrested.
They don’t want to make a martyr out of him by charging him with the same laws that have been used against the J6 protesters.
A man sent Joe Biden a box containing hundreds of sex toys on Valentine’s Day, along with a note telling the President to go f*ck himself.
He was arrested by the Secret Service, and is being held incommunicado in an undisclosed location.
He has been vzyali. That’s what you get for speaking out against the most popular President ever.
EDIT: So it appears that the above link is a satire site. They got me. The best satire is that which is indistinguishable from reality.
Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Funny, it’s Congress that has the power. Not the states. Not Colorado. It says so right there, and anyone with a third grade reading comprehension understands that.
No, because Article III doesn’t have anything like the Section 5 that is found in the 14th Amendment, and neither does the 22nd Amendment. The left loves to look at every word and twist it to their advantage, (well-regulated militia) but then ignores words that it finds inconvenient. (“Congress has the power,” “right of the people,” or “reserved to the states”)
The left is made up of petulant children who throw temper tantrums whenever anything doesn’t go their way. You point that out, and they immediately began screaming “J6! J6!”
I know that CW2 would be a disaster, but this slow motion collapse is really beginning to wear on me. The left is playing for all of the marbles.
Let’s just get it on, already. This is one of those days for me. I am just over these assholes.
OK, I have to go do something else, something productive for a while, or I am going to blow a gasket.
The left has their unisex panties in a bunch because SCOTUS voted 9-0 that a state doesn’t have the power to remove a candidate from the ballot. The decision was based upon the 14th Amendment, Section 3 of which the left claims granted states the authority to bar a person (in this case, Trump) from running for office if they were involved in an insurrection.
Section 3: No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
However, SCOTUS denied this claim, saying that Section 5 of the same Amendment vests that power solely in the Congress.
Section 5: The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
I am not going to go into too many specifics of this case, because I don’t really want to get into this case. Instead, I want to talk about the next Trump case, explain how SCOTUS is going to rule in Trump’s favor, then explain why it won’t matter. The above points matter in the upcoming case, and I will explain why.
The case involves the actions taken by Trump while he was contesting the results of the 2020 election. He is facing criminal prosecution for those actions which have resulted in 91 criminal charges spread among four cases. Trump is arguing that he has immunity for these actions because they were taken in furtherance of his official duties. I believe that he is correct for the following reasons:
After Nixon left the White House, he was sued for actions that he had taken while he was President. Nixon argued that a president cannot be sued for official actions taken while he is in office. The case is Nixon v. Fitzgerald, and it clearly establishes that Presidents have immunity from civil liability for acts taken while executing their official duties, even if they are sued for those acts after leaving office.
The left counters that this doesn’t apply to criminal immunity. I think that they are wrong, because of the Federalist papers, debates at the Constitutional Convention, and the early history of constitutional interpretation demonstrate an assumption of absolute Presidential immunity. One of our founding fathers (Gouverneur Morris1– the youngest signed of the Articles of Confederation- see below)argued that the President can do no criminal act without accomplices who may be punished. In the event that the President were to be re-elected, that will be sufficient proof of his innocence. I assume that the unlawful act Morris referred to was taken as an official duty. I also assume that pulling out a handgun and shooting the first lady, accepting bribes, and the like would not be covered by immunity because they were likely not official acts. Note that actions taken while executing official duties need not be lawful, as long as they are official acts. The remedy here for the punishment of unlawful, official acts is impeachment and elections. To do otherwise would mean that Presidents would need to clear every decision and act through White House legal counsel, making the President a slave to his attorneys.
To me, this is important because it’s the reason why Obama can’t be prosecuted for assassinations of American citizens that were carried out on his orders. The fact remains that Obama, through his orders, committed murder of an American citizen, but since he did so in furtherance of his official duties, the only remedy available to the US is impeachment or subsequent elections. It has to be this way, or Truman could very well have been executed for the bombing of Dresden or Hiroshima as a war criminal.
The reason for this, is that the Executive is the only branch of government that consists of a single person. Congress has two houses, Constitutionally made up of at least 50 Senators and 50 Representatives, and the Supreme court, made up of multiple Justices. The Executive is the only branch with one member, meaning that it is the only one who needs criminal immunity for actions taken in official duties.
So the question remains, were the acts that Trump took to dispute the veracity and accuracy of the election official acts? I would say yes, they are. There are numerous laws about elections and how they are to be carried out. Enforcing those laws is the responsibility of the Executive and well within the purview of the Chief Executive.
Now this doesn’t mean that Trump is above the law. He was impeached for those actions less than a week after the end of his term, but the Senate failed to convict. Trump was indicted on August 1, 2023, for the conduct for which he was impeached, which is what this entire case is built upon. It’s important to note that his opponent in the election, who happens to be the current President, waited three years to file the indictment, an obvious attempt at election tampering.
The question for SCOTUS is this: “Whether and if so to what extent does a former President enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office.” For the above reasons, I believe that SCOTUS has no choice but to vote in support of Presidential Immunity, or else it endangers the entire concept of the peaceful transition of power, meaning that Trump’s current criminal cases will disappear, at least at the Federal level.
With all of this being said, the left simply won’t allow Trump to return to the Oval Office. The Federal Bureaucrats simply can’t allow it, or he will begin swinging the metaphorical budget slashing machete. Should Trump regain the Presidency, a lot of Federal careers will come to an end- perhaps even entire departments.
The left simply HATES Trump, and will see him dead before he is permitted back into the White House. They can’t let Trump ruin their communist takeover.
For those reasons, expect violence when lawfare doesn’t work. Perhaps Trump will even be assassinated. I don’t think that they are desperate enough to take him out like Sadat was killed, but I don’t see Trump ever again being President.
1Gouverneur Morris was an important figure in the First Continental Congress. He cast the deciding vote against Court Martial for George Washington, which would have removed him from command of the Army, which would mean that he would not have been our First President. The other thing is that he argued that the poor would sell their votes to the rich and that voting should be restricted to property owners.
In Washington, DC, a city of over 700,000 people, only about 2,000 of them are Republicans.
Do you remember when Obama used the IRS to target his political enemies? I do. The IRS even settled a lawsuit and apologized. So did Obama.
IRS leaks have targeted Democrats’ political enemies, such as the National Organization for Marriage, to which the IRS was obliged to pay a settlement after leaking the identities of the group’s donors in order to enable political retaliation against them. For some reason, Barack Obama’s Justice Department never got around to prosecuting that case. Or the case of the IRS director lying to Congress about targeting conservative political groups, or … well, you get the picture.
That was before the Treasury Department investigated itself and found that it did nothing wrong. So now the left is claiming that it was all fake news. Next they will say that the Russians did it because Trump asked them to.
So why am I posting about things that happened more than 7 years ago? Because it is still happening. The House Oversight Committee is looking into allegations that the IRS is selectively not enforcing its tax-exempt rules against liberal nonprofits.
So to catch you up, a lefty made the assertion that:
I still haven’t seen any proof of the 2020 election being stolen. All I’ve seen is unproven, anecdotal talking points.
Someone else came in and said:
I support Desantis too, but let’s not overdo it. The laws that were illegally changed, drop boxes, illegal ballot harvesting, ballot dumps. Yes, it has all happened and documented.
The original lefty then said:
The drop boxes were legal. The laws were changed based on emergency protocols dictated by the Trump administration. Yet nobody (including Trump’s attorneys) have been able to prove to me that there was real mass voter fraud, & every one of them have come out & said there wasn’t & admitted they LIED.
That’s where I felt the need to jump in:
Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution: “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors.” The legislature- no one else. Any other means is not legal. There is nothing there about “emergencies”
The moron lefty then says that the use of the word ‘may’ in the phrase “as the Legislature may direct” means that other agencies of the government can change the rules for selecting electors as they see fit.
The Election Clauses found in Articles I and II of the United States Constitution limit the authority of state administrative agents to develop rules for federal elections — both congressional and presidential. These two Clauses prohibit non-legislative agents from adding to, changing, or contradicting legislatively enacted rules. The Clauses leave some room for non-legislative agents, but only if a State Legislature has clearly delegated regulatory power to them.
(Brown, 2008)
Or you can try this one:
Article II’s Presidential Electors Clause, however, confer authority to regulate federal elections specifically upon State “legislatures,” rather than granting it to States as a whole. An intratextual analysis of the Constitution reveals that the term “legislature” is best understood as referring solely to the entity within each state comprised of representatives that has the general authority to pass laws.
(Morley, 2015)
Then there are also SCOTUS cases, including McPherson v. Blacker, where the court ruled that a state’s legislature may delegate its authority to select Presidential electors, but must do so through a legislative act. Before that case, most state legislatures selected their Presidential electors directly.
In short, there are administrative agencies that can select electors, but the procedure must be done in accordance with the instructions and limitations put in place by that state’s legislature. There are no states that I am aware of that permitted the use of unstaffed drop boxes, or those maintained by third parties. The fact that election committees carried out policies and procedures without following the direction of the legislatures means that any votes cast by those rules are unconstitutional.
Of course, we will never know because not one case arising from the 2020 election was decided on evidence or merit, because every one of them was dismissed on procedural grounds.
I can guarantee you that the next election will face similar shenanigans. It’s as if there is a nationwide conspiracy that is taking its direction from a central committee. There is no reason at this point to believe that the events and shenanigans from the last election will be any different.
So to those of you on the right who are busy arguing over whether Trump or DeSantis would be the better candidate- do you really think that it will matter, knowing that the left will ensure a win for their candidate no matter what?
References:
Half of the nation supports tossing the Republican candidate in jail, confiscating his property, and allowing one state (whether it be Colorado or New York) ban a candidate from running for President. These are the same people who, just four years ago, were advocating putting you into camps. They still want you in camps.
As for Trump, I have been saying this since January 7, 2021– the left will never allow Trump to enter the Oval office again. He will wind up in prison, where he will be killed. He had a chance to disappear into exile, and he chose not to take that chance and stayed until they revoked his passport. It will ultimately cost him and his family their lives and fortunes.
The one who IS president is weaponizing government to the point that a person who is a whistleblower that detailed the corruption of the Oval office’s occupant taking bribes has now been tossed in the Gulag. Now Biden himself is saying that this destroys the impeachment inquiry that has been initiated against him.
The message is clear: anyone who opposes the revolution that is currently underway will be tossed into the gulag. That’s why we can’t allow our weapons to be taken from us.
The show trials continue. Keep an eye on local canaries. Each of you should have a list of local Republican donors and politicians that serve as canaries. When they start disappearing, you should, too.
They are working their way down the list.
Alaska has announced that they will be deploying their national guard to Texas in support of the Feds and oppose the TX national guard.
