The way it could and should be but America has allowed the radical, hypocrite Democrats to take over.And:Pelosi thanks George Floyd for "sacrificing" his life for justice | |
Headline: Democrat Nancy Pelosi Ignites Firestorm By Thanking George Floyd For ‘Sacrificing’ His Life, Calls Grow For Resignation The First take: We were scratching our heads watching this one. Nancy Pelosi was thanking George Floyd for being murdered? Yeah yeah, we know she said "sacrificing" his life. There was an immediate backlash on social media, including calls for her resignation. (That's not happening.) We also wonder why all of these people are wearing masks outside in the sunlight... | |
|
Tom Fitton's Judicial Watch Appeal (edited.)
I am a small contributor:
|
From: Howard Milstein
Fine expose— and disgustingly true!
Rarely does the generation experiencing the actual events and decisions that lead to their nation’s demise fully appreciate the calamitous enormity of their oversight until sometime after their culture’s destruction has been rendered incurable. Largely it is not due so much to their negligence as it is to most of them being too preoccupied with simply living and making a living for them to fully appreciate the significance of the events that are leading them into a slow descent toward eventual totalitarianism.
Perhaps that would explain why, in just the
first four months of 2021, the Supreme Court issued four decisions—or, perhaps
better viewed as non-decisions—that should have caused all legitimately patriotic Americans to
be alarmed and called to action … but did not seem to.
Only a few weeks ago, without offering any
substantive explanation, the Court summarily refused to even look at—much less,
seriously consider—any of the evidence
of the 2020 election irregularities offered by attorney Sidney Powell and others. Evidently, the Supreme Court of the United
States of America was not interested in doing what it could—and should—to let
America know decisively whether or not its presidential election had been
shamelessly stolen by those now in power.
Why would they not do this?
Perhaps the answer is best revealed by the
fact that, at the same time, the Court was also apparently too busy to halt a
New York prosecutor from obtaining former President Trump’s tax returns. The
practical effect of which was for SCOTUS to give that prosecutor an assist with
his unconstitutional effort to search for any crime that might make President
Trump’s ouster from office permanent.
Clearly, these two SCOTUS decisions alone
evidence the fact that the agenda of the Justices have become politically
driven.
But it doesn’t end there.
Two weeks later, the Supreme Court—again without explanation—summarily refused to reverse the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals’ denial of Judicial Watch’s request that it be allowed to take the deposition of a member of this country’s ruling political elite—Hillary Rodham Clinton. At the end of the day, Judicial Watch was only asking the Supreme Court to uphold the Rule of Law by finding that all Americans—including elites like Hillary Clinton—are to be treated equally under the law. Instead, however, the Supreme Court, unfortunately—and inexplicably—declined the opportunity to do even this.
Then this week, SCOTUS put the final nail in
the coffin containing the GOP’s 2020 election disputes with its denial of a
petition for a writ of certiorari in Bognet
v. Dagraffenreid. Again, it refused to rule on whether a state’s
courts are qualified or not under Article 2, Section 1, Clause 2 of the
Constitution to modify that state’s presidential election laws. In short,
whether Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court violated the U.S. Constitution by usurping
the state legislature’s authority to extend the time allowed for counting
mail-in ballots is apparently not an issue worthy of this SCOTUS’s time.
From such glaring displays of indefensible
Supreme Court inaction, the following incontrovertible truths have been set out
in plain view before the nation’s very eyes:
1. The Supreme Court today is thoroughly
politicized … and thus, corrupt;
2. In America, the Rule of Law … is now dead;
and
3. Worse yet, by these decisions, America’s
Supreme Court has put on open display its utter disregard—and absolute
contempt—for whatever the American people may think about the future
unavailability of equal justice in a nation that once promised that such
justice would be available to all.
Such truths should be cause for greater alarm for the American people than even the now almost Orwellian silence of John Durham. Consider the following recent words of attorney Sidney Powell:
“The Supreme Court’s failure to date to
address the massive election fraud and multiple constitutional violations that
wrought a coup of the presidency of the greatest country in world history
completes the implosion of each of our three branches of government into the
rubble of a sinkhole of corruption. It is an absolute tragedy for the Rule of
Law, the future of the Republic, and all freedom-loving people around the
world.”
She is not overstating the matter in the
least. An American government unleashed from the constraints set in place by
the Rule of Law can only be headed in one direction: toward some form of
centralized dictatorship that is limited only by the whims of those in
power—i.e. a tyranny. That place where corrupted institutions of government
exist to serve only the purposes of those in power, who, in turn, are free to
use their power unfettered by the Rule of Law to command the masses they rule
to submit completely to the diktats of the state.
For instance, a state that would order its
people to accommodate its importation of a new class of indentured slaves is
encouraging to enter across the borders of this country that it has opened at
the same time that state is endeavoring to seize the weapons of anybody already
here—i.e. patriotic citizens—who might object. And all while the state uses an
imagined pretense—e.g., a fraudulently hyped pandemic—to terminate the rights
of those patriotic Americans to engage in commerce, speak freely, and even
freely assemble to either peacefully protest or even worship. A place where
unquestioned obedience is expected and dissent from any of the state’s
propaganda narratives can expect to be silenced, censored, shadow-banned and
de-platformed.
Sound familiar?
It should.
It is where America is today.
A place where all of us—both
conservatives and liberals— would do
well to take off their government-mandated masks long enough to read out loud
and seriously reflect upon the following words of a woman—Ayn Rand—who knew
more than just a little about how to identify a tyranny:
“When you see that in order to produce, you
need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing—When you see that money
is flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors—When you see that men
get richer by graft and by pull than by work, and your laws don’t protect you against
them but protect them against you—When you see corruption being rewarded and
honesty becoming a self-sacrifice—You may know that your society is doomed.”
Leaving America to ask: does America still
have the option of reversing course, or in its march toward some form of
tyranny, has it already put the Rubicon in its rear-view mirror?
After all, how is a nation supposed to
lawfully remedy the corrupt silence of a politicized Supreme Court from which
there are NO readily apparent peaceful means for appeal?
Clifford C. Nichols is an attorney
and author of A Barrister’s Tales. He
may be contacted regarding this editorial athttp://www.cliffordnichols.com/contact.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Rashida Tlaib Gets Called To RESIGN
She brought this upon herself. [READ MORE]
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
While Biden pushes for gun control, if Republicans had guts, they would respond by pushing for Biden control. To allow him to appoint the current Amb. to The UN is sinful.
The women is a disgrace, a racist and a total idiot.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Threats from China, Russia and Iran mount while our government protects us through the Labor Department:
THEY ARE ACCEPTING APPLICATIONS, INTERESTED ???????
Finally, a relevant question which Congress will have to debate:
Who pays the Checker?
There are important questions to be answered about recent LGBT bathroom legislation and whether transgender people will be permitted to use a restroom of the gender that they "identify" with or be required to use the restroom of their biological gender.
If the latter, would public restrooms be required to have a Genital Inspection Station posted at the entrance to all public restrooms?
Who will have to pay these Pecker Checkers, the people using the restroom, or the entity that owns the restroom?
And how much money will a Pecker Checker be paid to check peckers?
Or, do we pay a Pecker Checker by the number of peckers checked?
How many peckers can a Pecker Checker check if a Pecker Checker could check peckers?
What has this country come to when the U.S. Department of Labor has to create a new job description of Politically Correct Restroom Service Inspectors?
Want to guess their motto? "If You gotta pee - We gotta see
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
No comments:
Post a Comment