Why wouldn’t they do it? No one has resisted in any meaningful way, much less stopped ANYTHING the tyrants have tried thus far. Ignoring ALL immigration laws, open borders, giving money and flights with no ID to illegals? Keeping political prisoners in pre-trial detention for 3 years with no hearings or trials? Sending billions to designated terrorists? Running a giant kickback scheme and sending billions to the most corrupt nation on earth? Forcing Americans to inject a gene editing biologic with no long term safety studies and falsified clinical trials? Blowing up an international gas line and destroying the economy of a supposed friendly nation? At this point they’ve got to be thinking, “The plebes deserve everything we’ll do to them.” Now, every step they take is “In your face. Stop us if you can.”
Exactly. I've been wondering for months, if not more then a year now "When are we going to stop complaining about what the left is doing and actually start fighting back??".
We sit here, whine and moan about the tactics they use but we don't do shit about it. We've had one successful "boycott" of a product (Bud Light) and even now there are some who are saying "It's time to stop the boycott..."
No wonder the left is doing whatever they want. Nobody on the right is doing fuck all to stop it.
Agreed. The DNC wants money so they can get elected to have tyrannical power. The RNC wants to get elected so they can have money. Both parties are private corporations beholden to their corporate stakeholders- NOT to the citizens they supposedly represent. They promise stuff and occasionally do just enough to get elected, but in the end party politics are a giant scam for power/money. The American people believe it’s all about the Constitution, freedom, justice, natural rights, national sovereignty, etc. Those elected and those in the bureaucracy couldn’t care less about those things. Once you see it for what it really is, almost everything you see in politics makes sense.
Exactly. Folks here get what they allow to happen. Freedom and liberty are a cost and no one is willing to pay. Quite the contrary. Ignore at your own peril Americans.
But if they can get away with all that, why not just go for the whole enchilada? Why not jail their political opponents? Isn't that how it's done elsewhere?
Damn right! Those Republicans are probably going to burn down Minneapolis and take over Portland and mob New York streets shouting "What do we want? DEAD COPS!!" – oh wait, BLM already did that in 2020.
Were the President's end term date not actually written into the Constitution, I would not put it past them. I keep thinking the Democratic Party can't break any more norms or sink any lower... and they keep proving me wrong.
Were the election to be cancelled and thus there is no President and VP to swear in on Jan 20th, the Presidential Succession Act applies. Absent an election, Mike Johnson (as Speaker of the House) would assume the office of President.
At the time, there was no Constitutional restriction on the number of terms a President could serve. It was a tradition. Even many Democrats saw Roosevelt's 4 terms as a 'one off' and the Constitution was amended to limit the President to 2 terms as soon as the WW II ended.
(Technically a President can serve a maximum of 10 years if his predecessor dies in office before half of his term is completed.)
The 22nd Amendment limiting Presidents to 2 terms was proposed almost immediately after FDR's death. Both parties recognized that FDR had generated a kind of quasi-kingship and this was bad for the republic, It was very popular and was ratified within a couple of years.
They need an Event to trigger that. At some point before November, my guess is they will trigger their Event. Then, “Aw, golly gee. Look at that terrible event. Look at all those dead people. Those dang white suprematists did it again, I’m telling you! Well, dog gone it all, we cannot have safe and fair elections NOW, can we. We’ll just pause everything for a bit. Not long, mind you, just for a bit. We’ll play Taylor Swift songs and loop-stream Morning Joe episodes while we’re waiting. It’ll be fun, you’ll see. Would anyone like some cake?”
I’m pretty sure that outside of a handful of us fringe right substack whackos, the rest of the mouth-breathing population is incapable of understanding or caring about what is going down. I was better when I was just cynical.
I was in favor of legalization, but it has not turned out well. The number of stoned drivers (blue-grey smoke out the window at a stop light) in California is staggering.
I voted for legalization as well. I have believed since high school there is little difference between weed and alcohol--one creates Taco Bell inhaling gigglers, while the other creates loud, violent, wife-beaters.
I read "Chasing the Scream" by Johann Hari 5-6 years ago. Good read, all about the horrible outcomes of our (all started here in the US) War on Drugs.
The last decade, especially the last 3-4 years of fentanyl ODs; homelessness as an industry; neutering of law enforcement; apathy, disregard, and gaslighting of the issues by local/county/state politicians...has turned my prior small 'L' libertarianism into an older school 'law & order' conservative.
The war on drugs is a complete shitshow, but decriminalization/legalization hasn't worked out well either.
Part of me thinks (and this may be my resistance to accepting I was SO WRONG) that we did not have the 'recovery' infrastructure built in lieu of jail for addicts. Is fentanyl such a game-changer that is makes moot any previous arguments for legalization?
Or, is the human condition simply unfit for total liberty of vice?
I don't know, but I don't like where this is heading.
So'called "legalization" has been done about as badly as it could have been done, - BY DESIGN....By cementing the legal retail price as high as they have, they have guaranteed a thriving black market undercutting that price. Locally, in SW N.H., illegal weed is cheaper, stronger, and more available than ever. Worse in California, because illegals are running massive "legal" grows, over-supply is further driving this sad situation....BY DESIGN....just sayin.... Better to have kept $$profit & TAXES-politics OUT of things....
BY DESIGN. I reread Brave New World last year. Soma. Erotic play. Titillation & intoxication. That will hamstring a significant percentage of any population.
If Swift’s plane were to follow Amelia Earhart’s over the Pacific, there would be a brief mourning, and then America’s hyper-short attention would thankfully move on. I am SO tired of seeing those two’s names…
In the face of massive farmer protests, the EU has just stood down & walked back SOME of their more onerous demands. All with a near-total MSM blackout on this news....but thanks to social media, I'd say there are far fewer mouth-breathers than you think....and far more awaken each day....lets hope the tide has turned.....
TL:DR - The democrats committed well known felonies and have done so for decades with no repercussions.
The long version:
When Obama first ran for office in ‘08, his campaign disabled the legally required verification information for credit cards, making campaign finance violations easy to do and hard to track.
I’m not talking about the optional 3 digit code on the back of your card. That is used by the card companies to stop fraud. I’m talking about the statutory requirement under Gramm Leach Bliley that the name, address, and card number have to match issuer records for online transactions.
That’s why when you’re buying something online it wants your billing name and address as well as your shipping address. They have to check.
It is built into the software. It is not an optional feature when you are setting up your processing. In order to disable it, you would have to rewrite the software or write your own.
FEC requirements exempt you from disclosing the name of small donors. I think the cutoff is $250.
This enabled a person, you could use George Soros, or a Saudi Arabian Prince, to have a secretary sit and make unlimited donations using the same debit card, just changing the name for each transaction. They could literally donate millions of dollars in $245 increments and no one would ever know.
Since the Obama campaign was the first ever to not disclose small donors, they didn’t even have to use a real name. Just a different series of letters or numbers for every transaction. (Do you remember how they bragged about their numbers of small donations, pretending like it showed broad based, grass roots support? Lies.)
Bloggers discovered it and reported it to the Bush DoJ, who did nothing.
Later, when PDT was in office, ActBlue was doing the same thing. They probably still are.
I tested it by using my card, the address of the federal penitentiary in Leavenworth as the address, and the name Osama bin Laden. I donated $2 and it processed. 100% illegally.
I wrote a letter to the DoJ explaining the law and the process by which they were not only breaking campaign finance laws, but also financial security laws, and heard nothing back from them. That was my first clue that Bill Barr was not what he pretended to be.
I don’t have any confidence that any laws apply to the Ds or I’d check and see if the Biden campaign or ActBlue are still breaking the laws systemically.
This dual track justice system will be the breaking of us.
Why? That's only a clause in the old rulebook. The one we let them throw away years ago.
US Constitution: Article II, Section 1, Clause 5:
"No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."
Maybe it's because english isn't my language but to me that quote reads as if no president that's been born after the Constitution was written is eligible - that cannot be the meaning or intent? Surely it's an artifact of differences in sentence structure and word order between now and then?
I'm no lawyer but the "natural", couldn't that be argued as a case against adoptees, people born via cesarion, test tub-babies, IVF and so on? None of it is natural, in a sense.
Another way of reading the “…at the time of Adoption…” is this: From the moment the Constitution was adopted, only a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the US (so not necessarily born in the US) could be President. That’s what that sentence says. Hope that clarifies things.
Oh, I get the intent but I'm also quite used to the conflict between RAW and RAI; Rules As Written vs Rules As Intended.
It is clear that the correct intention is the way you explain it, but /as written/ surely it could be argued the way I (maliciously) interpreted it.
I ask because we sometimes run into similar problems over here, since our foundational laws (eq. to your constitution in function, basically) were written when Sweden was swedish, not a hodgpe-podge multiracial failing state, so the older laws use weaker verbs, the eq. of "should" and "may", rather than "shall" and "will".
And that has led to cases where people argue that since it says "may", interpreted as if there's a choice, the law cannot be enforced, but the meaning to a native speaker is clear as day intended as "shall/will".
I'm sure there are plenty of parallels to this in the US.
First use I've seen of "RAW-RAI".... But, 2 phrases, "letter of the law", and "spirit of the law", are both enshrined in various legal-criminal, and civil court cases..... same idea....
Exactly when did “Osama” make his $2 contribution? The Barr DOJ ignored your letter, but the Garland DOJ will go full Javert on your violation. There’s a 5 year statute on almost all federal crimes.
Nobody ever accused me of being overly optimistic but I don't think the Democrats will allow Trump to be inaugurated regardless of the election results. Something will happen. Either they'll find a couple of million votes two weeks after Election Day that the courts somehow allow to be counted regardless of the law, or somebody will have a little accident. Or some supposed MAGA coup will be staged to give an excuse not to hold the election after all. And anyone who complains can expect to be sent to prison for decades.
Remember in 2020, the FBI entrapped and framed a gullible group of LARPers into thinking they were going to kidnap Gretchen Whitmer, all so they could be charged just before the election in order to paint Trump supporters as extremists. The FBI committed multiple felonies in the process but when the order of the day is "by any means necessary," that's what you're going to get. The stakes are higher now, and it looks like the AG is an active participant in DoJ lawfare.
It happened in the 2004 WA state Governor’s race. Dino Rossi (R) beat out Christine Gregoire (D). Sooo - they did a recount & he won again. Then ( 3rd times a charm) another hand recount was done & they found ballots in the trunk of a car (yep) & Gregoire won by ~125 votes. Haven’t had a Republican elected since. BTW, last year our SOS (R) went to work in the Biden administration.
That's been the Democrat tactic for the past couple of decades. When you're behind, have recount after recount until the Democrat is ahead, then the recounts stop. You have to give the magic ballot machine some time to do its job, after all.
your daddys FBI was just as corrupt, or maybe worse. The FBI has only ever existed to act as a stasi for whomever is in charge. They are and never where any different than the USSR KGB. Crooked as feds that are totally worthless and serve no useful purpose for the citizenry.
This is absurd. C’mon man! If you consult President Sisi from Mexico, he can step in to close all the Dairy Queens in Texas, which I’ve advocated since the Zulu wars of 1979. My good friend Sir Henry Bartle Frere will take your order now. Good night, Barack.
- President Joseph Robin Hood, Archduke of Sherwood Forest.
not really, Kennedy is a wolf in sheeps clothing. Another big government guy. The only thing he's right on is vaccines, everything else hes just another big spending democrat.
Matt Taibbi wrote recently about how they did something similar to Ralph Nader when he ran against Bush and Kerry, I think.
They've gotten away with this for so long, they've brought us to a crisis point. But I honestly don't know that getting rid of Kennedy would help them, for two reasons: (1) The polling isn't clear, and using me as an example, I voted for Trump twice, but Democrat before him all the way back to the aforementioned Kerry. If they use dirty tricks to keep Kennedy off the ballots, it won't make me more likely to vote for Biden. In fact, that might actually push me to vote for Trump, even though I'm right now leaning to Kennedy or just writing in Mickey Mouse. I have a feeling there are more like me. (2) The Dems have a razor thin majority for the presidential race. If they pull a stunt like that and then try to swap Biden out at the last minute (something it seems more and more likely they will try to do), they may just hand the election to Trump. It's a little hard to cry about "saving democracy" when you keep fighting to keep voters from choosing.
Every week that passes leaves me less and less confident that there will even BE an election this fall. The criminality has become so blatant, so in your face, fuck you, obvious, that I fear they will not even bother going through the motions.
I fully expect something like a declaration of martial law following the "unfortunate demise" of any non-D candidates who make it onto the ballot.
I hope and pray we are allowed to vote in November because it sure looks like the election will be called off by the democrats in control with some flimsy excuse about democracy and national interests. They will do anything to stay in control and our soldiers and law enforcement are going to be asked to put down Americans who just want a voice in how the country is run, but don’t want a one party dictatorship. Remember Ashley Babbit.
Don't worry about this. They can call off the election, but they can't call off the next inauguration. That date is written into the Constitution: Jan 20. If there was no election, there is no President or VP to swear in, and the Presidential Succession Act applies, thus making Mike Johnson acting President. The Democrats will not risk this scenario.
The new US Congress is sworn in well before the president; it could easily be a Democrat run Congress in January 2025. Then there would be a Democrat speaker for your succession prediction.
Elections are run by states (Art 1, Sec 4). We don't actually have a single election, we have 50 separate elections on the same day. An individual state could cancel their election, but the federal govt can't. But lets say they found a way to blackmail all the states into doing it. No election = no new Congress to swear in. Unlike the President, the Congress' end term date is not written into the Constitution. It simply says they are to be elected every 2 years and meet on Jan 3rd. Result: GOP is still in control and the Speaker becomes President on Jan 20th. (Since technically, the speaker doesn't have to be a member of Congress, that could get interesting.)
Note, I'm not saying the Democrats are above doing this if they thought it would work to keep them in power. After all, Trump is Hitler and you can't turn over power to Hitler. I'm just saying that there's no viable way that it works.
I think most of us understand the election process, but the Democrats are basically at the point where they don’t care what the US Constitution says, what the laws say, what the courts say, what some doctors say, etc. unless what is said is what they want. They do what they want and wait for the consequences—which are usually none. They call Trump Hitler so the masses support them and let them do whatever they want to keep Trump out of office.
As I said, I'm not saying they wouldn't do it, just that I don't see a path to victory and therefore any reason for them to attempt it. For Joe Biden to violate a SCOTUS order for him to vacate the White House on Jan 20th really would be an act of insurrection. It would break the republic.
I still want to believe that even the progressives aren't so stupid to break the toys instead of share them. However, once you've convinced yourself that your political opposition is Hitler, his voters are all little Himlers in waiting, political violence is a good thing, and you're the only thing saving 300M people from fascist dictatorship... "by any means necessary" takes on new meaning. So perhaps I'm wrong. I hope not though.
Why wouldn’t they do it? No one has resisted in any meaningful way, much less stopped ANYTHING the tyrants have tried thus far. Ignoring ALL immigration laws, open borders, giving money and flights with no ID to illegals? Keeping political prisoners in pre-trial detention for 3 years with no hearings or trials? Sending billions to designated terrorists? Running a giant kickback scheme and sending billions to the most corrupt nation on earth? Forcing Americans to inject a gene editing biologic with no long term safety studies and falsified clinical trials? Blowing up an international gas line and destroying the economy of a supposed friendly nation? At this point they’ve got to be thinking, “The plebes deserve everything we’ll do to them.” Now, every step they take is “In your face. Stop us if you can.”
Exactly. I've been wondering for months, if not more then a year now "When are we going to stop complaining about what the left is doing and actually start fighting back??".
We sit here, whine and moan about the tactics they use but we don't do shit about it. We've had one successful "boycott" of a product (Bud Light) and even now there are some who are saying "It's time to stop the boycott..."
No wonder the left is doing whatever they want. Nobody on the right is doing fuck all to stop it.
Don’t ever mistake repubicans as a party looking after the good of our country, or its citizens
Agreed. The DNC wants money so they can get elected to have tyrannical power. The RNC wants to get elected so they can have money. Both parties are private corporations beholden to their corporate stakeholders- NOT to the citizens they supposedly represent. They promise stuff and occasionally do just enough to get elected, but in the end party politics are a giant scam for power/money. The American people believe it’s all about the Constitution, freedom, justice, natural rights, national sovereignty, etc. Those elected and those in the bureaucracy couldn’t care less about those things. Once you see it for what it really is, almost everything you see in politics makes sense.
Picky, Picky, Picky . . .
lol
Exactly. Folks here get what they allow to happen. Freedom and liberty are a cost and no one is willing to pay. Quite the contrary. Ignore at your own peril Americans.
But if they can get away with all that, why not just go for the whole enchilada? Why not jail their political opponents? Isn't that how it's done elsewhere?
What's next? Go Full-Zelensky and call off the election?
I mean, facing the threat of another INSURRECTIONIST ATTACK....
Damn right! Those Republicans are probably going to burn down Minneapolis and take over Portland and mob New York streets shouting "What do we want? DEAD COPS!!" – oh wait, BLM already did that in 2020.
how else can they save democracy?
We must destroy democracy to save democracy.
We’re a constitutional republic, not a democracy. This misunderstanding is a key part of the problem.
Thank goodness our righteous saviors have arrived.
Were the President's end term date not actually written into the Constitution, I would not put it past them. I keep thinking the Democratic Party can't break any more norms or sink any lower... and they keep proving me wrong.
Were the election to be cancelled and thus there is no President and VP to swear in on Jan 20th, the Presidential Succession Act applies. Absent an election, Mike Johnson (as Speaker of the House) would assume the office of President.
they did something similar in the past allowing FDR to have a 3rd term, Not sure of the details of how it was done, but they did it.
At the time, there was no Constitutional restriction on the number of terms a President could serve. It was a tradition. Even many Democrats saw Roosevelt's 4 terms as a 'one off' and the Constitution was amended to limit the President to 2 terms as soon as the WW II ended.
(Technically a President can serve a maximum of 10 years if his predecessor dies in office before half of his term is completed.)
The 22nd Amendment limiting Presidents to 2 terms was proposed almost immediately after FDR's death. Both parties recognized that FDR had generated a kind of quasi-kingship and this was bad for the republic, It was very popular and was ratified within a couple of years.
Appreciate the clarification. Was gonna research it myself.
No measure is too extreme to protect Democracy!
I see what you did there. 😉
They need an Event to trigger that. At some point before November, my guess is they will trigger their Event. Then, “Aw, golly gee. Look at that terrible event. Look at all those dead people. Those dang white suprematists did it again, I’m telling you! Well, dog gone it all, we cannot have safe and fair elections NOW, can we. We’ll just pause everything for a bit. Not long, mind you, just for a bit. We’ll play Taylor Swift songs and loop-stream Morning Joe episodes while we’re waiting. It’ll be fun, you’ll see. Would anyone like some cake?”
My guess is the event is already planned.
Don't give them any ideas. 😅
I’m pretty sure that outside of a handful of us fringe right substack whackos, the rest of the mouth-breathing population is incapable of understanding or caring about what is going down. I was better when I was just cynical.
I'm right there with you. I'm reaching terminal cynicism.
Yup...if we let it get the best of us...it's just a hop-skip-and-jump to apathy, right?
With all the legal weed, apathy is our newest top virtue. It is almost like it was by design.
bsn
I was in favor of legalization, but it has not turned out well. The number of stoned drivers (blue-grey smoke out the window at a stop light) in California is staggering.
I voted for legalization as well. I have believed since high school there is little difference between weed and alcohol--one creates Taco Bell inhaling gigglers, while the other creates loud, violent, wife-beaters.
I read "Chasing the Scream" by Johann Hari 5-6 years ago. Good read, all about the horrible outcomes of our (all started here in the US) War on Drugs.
The last decade, especially the last 3-4 years of fentanyl ODs; homelessness as an industry; neutering of law enforcement; apathy, disregard, and gaslighting of the issues by local/county/state politicians...has turned my prior small 'L' libertarianism into an older school 'law & order' conservative.
The war on drugs is a complete shitshow, but decriminalization/legalization hasn't worked out well either.
Part of me thinks (and this may be my resistance to accepting I was SO WRONG) that we did not have the 'recovery' infrastructure built in lieu of jail for addicts. Is fentanyl such a game-changer that is makes moot any previous arguments for legalization?
Or, is the human condition simply unfit for total liberty of vice?
I don't know, but I don't like where this is heading.
bsn
My favorite is when they stop 50 feet before the stoplight
So'called "legalization" has been done about as badly as it could have been done, - BY DESIGN....By cementing the legal retail price as high as they have, they have guaranteed a thriving black market undercutting that price. Locally, in SW N.H., illegal weed is cheaper, stronger, and more available than ever. Worse in California, because illegals are running massive "legal" grows, over-supply is further driving this sad situation....BY DESIGN....just sayin.... Better to have kept $$profit & TAXES-politics OUT of things....
BY DESIGN. I reread Brave New World last year. Soma. Erotic play. Titillation & intoxication. That will hamstring a significant percentage of any population.
bsn
Never apathy! The best I can do is despair.
Yeah. Ain't gonna lie, briefly during c19 I brushed up against that.
You can only be a caged tiger for so long.
Still pissed my freedoms were taken away!
please only use the correct "COVID1984" plandemic-scamdemic.....
How can anyone concern themselves with such trifles when Taylor and Kelce are going to be together at the Superbowl on Sunday. C'mon man...priorities!
Go Team Pfizer!
Yes, & an opportunity to hear/sing the black national anthem.
If there was ever a moment to take a knee…….
If Swift’s plane were to follow Amelia Earhart’s over the Pacific, there would be a brief mourning, and then America’s hyper-short attention would thankfully move on. I am SO tired of seeing those two’s names…
In the face of massive farmer protests, the EU has just stood down & walked back SOME of their more onerous demands. All with a near-total MSM blackout on this news....but thanks to social media, I'd say there are far fewer mouth-breathers than you think....and far more awaken each day....lets hope the tide has turned.....
Hope you’re right about fewer mouth breathers, but I just left Walmart and I’m gonna have to stick with my first opinion…
i went from a natural skeptic, to full on black pilled.
TL:DR - The democrats committed well known felonies and have done so for decades with no repercussions.
The long version:
When Obama first ran for office in ‘08, his campaign disabled the legally required verification information for credit cards, making campaign finance violations easy to do and hard to track.
I’m not talking about the optional 3 digit code on the back of your card. That is used by the card companies to stop fraud. I’m talking about the statutory requirement under Gramm Leach Bliley that the name, address, and card number have to match issuer records for online transactions.
That’s why when you’re buying something online it wants your billing name and address as well as your shipping address. They have to check.
It is built into the software. It is not an optional feature when you are setting up your processing. In order to disable it, you would have to rewrite the software or write your own.
FEC requirements exempt you from disclosing the name of small donors. I think the cutoff is $250.
This enabled a person, you could use George Soros, or a Saudi Arabian Prince, to have a secretary sit and make unlimited donations using the same debit card, just changing the name for each transaction. They could literally donate millions of dollars in $245 increments and no one would ever know.
Since the Obama campaign was the first ever to not disclose small donors, they didn’t even have to use a real name. Just a different series of letters or numbers for every transaction. (Do you remember how they bragged about their numbers of small donations, pretending like it showed broad based, grass roots support? Lies.)
Bloggers discovered it and reported it to the Bush DoJ, who did nothing.
Later, when PDT was in office, ActBlue was doing the same thing. They probably still are.
I tested it by using my card, the address of the federal penitentiary in Leavenworth as the address, and the name Osama bin Laden. I donated $2 and it processed. 100% illegally.
I wrote a letter to the DoJ explaining the law and the process by which they were not only breaking campaign finance laws, but also financial security laws, and heard nothing back from them. That was my first clue that Bill Barr was not what he pretended to be.
I don’t have any confidence that any laws apply to the Ds or I’d check and see if the Biden campaign or ActBlue are still breaking the laws systemically.
This dual track justice system will be the breaking of us.
Aren't you supposed to be an actual American to be President ?
Why? That's only a clause in the old rulebook. The one we let them throw away years ago.
US Constitution: Article II, Section 1, Clause 5:
"No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."
Maybe it's because english isn't my language but to me that quote reads as if no president that's been born after the Constitution was written is eligible - that cannot be the meaning or intent? Surely it's an artifact of differences in sentence structure and word order between now and then?
I'm no lawyer but the "natural", couldn't that be argued as a case against adoptees, people born via cesarion, test tub-babies, IVF and so on? None of it is natural, in a sense.
Another way of reading the “…at the time of Adoption…” is this: From the moment the Constitution was adopted, only a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the US (so not necessarily born in the US) could be President. That’s what that sentence says. Hope that clarifies things.
Oh, I get the intent but I'm also quite used to the conflict between RAW and RAI; Rules As Written vs Rules As Intended.
It is clear that the correct intention is the way you explain it, but /as written/ surely it could be argued the way I (maliciously) interpreted it.
I ask because we sometimes run into similar problems over here, since our foundational laws (eq. to your constitution in function, basically) were written when Sweden was swedish, not a hodgpe-podge multiracial failing state, so the older laws use weaker verbs, the eq. of "should" and "may", rather than "shall" and "will".
And that has led to cases where people argue that since it says "may", interpreted as if there's a choice, the law cannot be enforced, but the meaning to a native speaker is clear as day intended as "shall/will".
I'm sure there are plenty of parallels to this in the US.
First use I've seen of "RAW-RAI".... But, 2 phrases, "letter of the law", and "spirit of the law", are both enshrined in various legal-criminal, and civil court cases..... same idea....
Oh sure. I misunderstood what you were asking. Yes, interpretation is everything, isn’t it?
Oh...and I don't think it's gonna be a pretty break
Good point Queen H
Dang. Thank you. I just learned a lot
Exactly when did “Osama” make his $2 contribution? The Barr DOJ ignored your letter, but the Garland DOJ will go full Javert on your violation. There’s a 5 year statute on almost all federal crimes.
Nobody ever accused me of being overly optimistic but I don't think the Democrats will allow Trump to be inaugurated regardless of the election results. Something will happen. Either they'll find a couple of million votes two weeks after Election Day that the courts somehow allow to be counted regardless of the law, or somebody will have a little accident. Or some supposed MAGA coup will be staged to give an excuse not to hold the election after all. And anyone who complains can expect to be sent to prison for decades.
Remember in 2020, the FBI entrapped and framed a gullible group of LARPers into thinking they were going to kidnap Gretchen Whitmer, all so they could be charged just before the election in order to paint Trump supporters as extremists. The FBI committed multiple felonies in the process but when the order of the day is "by any means necessary," that's what you're going to get. The stakes are higher now, and it looks like the AG is an active participant in DoJ lawfare.
It's ugly now and it's going to get a lot worse.
It happened in the 2004 WA state Governor’s race. Dino Rossi (R) beat out Christine Gregoire (D). Sooo - they did a recount & he won again. Then ( 3rd times a charm) another hand recount was done & they found ballots in the trunk of a car (yep) & Gregoire won by ~125 votes. Haven’t had a Republican elected since. BTW, last year our SOS (R) went to work in the Biden administration.
That's been the Democrat tactic for the past couple of decades. When you're behind, have recount after recount until the Democrat is ahead, then the recounts stop. You have to give the magic ballot machine some time to do its job, after all.
Sounds like Landslide Lyndon and Duval county.
After 70 years in Western Washington I opted for the only solution, a one-way U-Haul truck
It's not Your Daddy's F.B.I.
your daddys FBI was just as corrupt, or maybe worse. The FBI has only ever existed to act as a stasi for whomever is in charge. They are and never where any different than the USSR KGB. Crooked as feds that are totally worthless and serve no useful purpose for the citizenry.
Good point
They didn't target parents protecting their children from pedophiles and abusers.
They did a good job on interstate crime gangs, and still do a good job on interstate and international child porn.
The problem is that the DOJ is a politically appointed office and we’d need an amendment to fix that.
This is absurd. C’mon man! If you consult President Sisi from Mexico, he can step in to close all the Dairy Queens in Texas, which I’ve advocated since the Zulu wars of 1979. My good friend Sir Henry Bartle Frere will take your order now. Good night, Barack.
- President Joseph Robin Hood, Archduke of Sherwood Forest.
I guess they want a Trump / Kennedy ticket because now I only want to vote for the guys the unAmerican politicos are telling me I can’t vote for
Trump / Kennedy would be an awesome ticket.
not really, Kennedy is a wolf in sheeps clothing. Another big government guy. The only thing he's right on is vaccines, everything else hes just another big spending democrat.
Another thing that he is right on: HINB! (He Is Not Biden).
Say Hi to my cousins Kenny (Maple Ridge), Bobby (Van), Gary (Sumas Prairie), and Judy (Somewhere on the Upper Fraser).
Kennedy, unfortunately, has a very bad case of nuclear frisson [sic]—but he might be teachable.
“If we don’t jail all opposition leaders, they’ll be a threat to Our Democracy”
- The DNC (somehow with a straight face)
they did it in Greece
Matt Taibbi wrote recently about how they did something similar to Ralph Nader when he ran against Bush and Kerry, I think.
They've gotten away with this for so long, they've brought us to a crisis point. But I honestly don't know that getting rid of Kennedy would help them, for two reasons: (1) The polling isn't clear, and using me as an example, I voted for Trump twice, but Democrat before him all the way back to the aforementioned Kerry. If they use dirty tricks to keep Kennedy off the ballots, it won't make me more likely to vote for Biden. In fact, that might actually push me to vote for Trump, even though I'm right now leaning to Kennedy or just writing in Mickey Mouse. I have a feeling there are more like me. (2) The Dems have a razor thin majority for the presidential race. If they pull a stunt like that and then try to swap Biden out at the last minute (something it seems more and more likely they will try to do), they may just hand the election to Trump. It's a little hard to cry about "saving democracy" when you keep fighting to keep voters from choosing.
Every week that passes leaves me less and less confident that there will even BE an election this fall. The criminality has become so blatant, so in your face, fuck you, obvious, that I fear they will not even bother going through the motions.
I fully expect something like a declaration of martial law following the "unfortunate demise" of any non-D candidates who make it onto the ballot.
The "razor thin majority" is something they don't have, only what they want us to think they have.
They just say that so we think there's an actual election that's not going to be fixed.
If there are only paper ballots counted entirely on election day, by actual voters, it's Trump in a landslide. All else is theater.
Spot on
Never mind Mickey Mouse, go ahead and write in RFK Junior.
No paywall. https://www.racket.news/p/the-anti-democratic-movement-targeted
Thank you!
Alarming but not surprising. The Democrats have gone full fascist. To save democracy of course!
They passed go on socialism, didn't they?
Happens fast.
communist
No, some sort of new hybrid. Corporate fascism with communism's useful idiots.
With the media waging the tail to an extent.
They captured themselves.
What do we call that?
Sycophancy ?
But Zuck-Bucks is totally cool. What a mess.
Check out what they’re doing against No Labels.
https://search.app/oXfr6LYErU5F7u9F7
I hope and pray we are allowed to vote in November because it sure looks like the election will be called off by the democrats in control with some flimsy excuse about democracy and national interests. They will do anything to stay in control and our soldiers and law enforcement are going to be asked to put down Americans who just want a voice in how the country is run, but don’t want a one party dictatorship. Remember Ashley Babbit.
Don't worry about this. They can call off the election, but they can't call off the next inauguration. That date is written into the Constitution: Jan 20. If there was no election, there is no President or VP to swear in, and the Presidential Succession Act applies, thus making Mike Johnson acting President. The Democrats will not risk this scenario.
The new US Congress is sworn in well before the president; it could easily be a Democrat run Congress in January 2025. Then there would be a Democrat speaker for your succession prediction.
Elections are run by states (Art 1, Sec 4). We don't actually have a single election, we have 50 separate elections on the same day. An individual state could cancel their election, but the federal govt can't. But lets say they found a way to blackmail all the states into doing it. No election = no new Congress to swear in. Unlike the President, the Congress' end term date is not written into the Constitution. It simply says they are to be elected every 2 years and meet on Jan 3rd. Result: GOP is still in control and the Speaker becomes President on Jan 20th. (Since technically, the speaker doesn't have to be a member of Congress, that could get interesting.)
Note, I'm not saying the Democrats are above doing this if they thought it would work to keep them in power. After all, Trump is Hitler and you can't turn over power to Hitler. I'm just saying that there's no viable way that it works.
I think most of us understand the election process, but the Democrats are basically at the point where they don’t care what the US Constitution says, what the laws say, what the courts say, what some doctors say, etc. unless what is said is what they want. They do what they want and wait for the consequences—which are usually none. They call Trump Hitler so the masses support them and let them do whatever they want to keep Trump out of office.
As I said, I'm not saying they wouldn't do it, just that I don't see a path to victory and therefore any reason for them to attempt it. For Joe Biden to violate a SCOTUS order for him to vacate the White House on Jan 20th really would be an act of insurrection. It would break the republic.
I still want to believe that even the progressives aren't so stupid to break the toys instead of share them. However, once you've convinced yourself that your political opposition is Hitler, his voters are all little Himlers in waiting, political violence is a good thing, and you're the only thing saving 300M people from fascist dictatorship... "by any means necessary" takes on new meaning. So perhaps I'm wrong. I hope not though.
So who cares about the Constitution?
You thought you could challenge Dark Brandon and get away with it? Fools. Feel the wrath of Lawfare!
it didn't surprise me at all to see that his handlers out the glowing-red-eyed version of him on his campaign website.
this regime has been a lot more up front about how evil they are than I remember from the previous 40+ years I've been around.
"Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake." - Napoleon Bonaparte
Trying to imprison both the major opponents to your obviously senile, obviously corrupt candidate is a great look.