Amici,
See also Sidney Powell discuss the need for the E.O. to be implemented here.
If they have that level of evidence, then they must act. Full force.
Or if the President doesn't act, maybe it's time for these guys:
There's another reason it's time for E.O. 13848, however: because we're drowing in legal "red tape" that stands the U.S. Constitution on its head.
The Supreme Court's raison d'être
Just
consider the juridicial world we live in: the U.S. Supreme Court has
over the last 200 years – since Chief Justice John Marshall (a true
Revolutionary War combat hero, mind you) – has slowly but surely made
itself the final arbitrator of all things Constitutional and legal in
the U.S. And I mean, all things constitutional, legal, moral, ethical, even religious and
biological. Yet its original raison d'être was to solve
problems arising between the first two branches of the U.S. federal government, i.e. the national legislature (Congress) and the executive (President); the second of was equal importance: solving issues between the states. But Marshall (chief justice from 1805
to 1835) set the Court on the path to being a final arbiter in all things remotely invoving either the federal
government or the states.
That broader role has grown while it's actual purpose has withered. Thus, the Court dismissed the Texas lawsuit (six other states were signed in on that, with eleven others filing amicus curae briefs). The Supremes dismissed the suit for "lack of standing", a way of saying, "None of your business."
- N.B. One reason for the Supreme Court's ever increasing power is Congress has abdicated its basic function: writing laws. It passes laws created by special interests and lobbyists (like Obamacare, a law about which no one in Congress even knew what was in it; as Pelosi said, they had to pass it to find out what was in it!).
- Ever try to read a modern law passed by Congress? Utter gobbledygook. Of course they need multiple levels of interpreters.
- These laws let the federal bureaucracy "manage" us all, and that in turn generates lawsuits wherein the judges rule on whether what the bureaucrats did is "constitutional" – when the whole system has become utterly unconstitutional, immoral, and even irrational.
More of the same, really
But
even before the rise of the "Deep State", the Supreme Court declared
Blacks to be truly sub-human, as Chief Justice Roger B. Taney did in the
infamous Dred Scott decision back in 1856 (along with a number of other
incredible nonsense, too involved to go into here, but note that the
actual Constiution said nothing about the nature of Africans) and the
Supremes could 50 years ago find a right to abortion carte blanc,
up to and including birth, or again lately rule that two men (or two
women – so why not two women and one man or two men and one woman, or
more?) can marry, and on and on. But yet somehow they can't hear the
case of one state suing another because the latter is run by thugs and
Communists who have flagrantly and fraudulently elected a mentally
challenged Potemkin candidate who is a facade for foreign interests? Texas has no standing to argue that it has been harmed in that? So much for the Supremes' raison d'être.
- Let's try a thought experiment. Suppose the Texas legislature and governor were so outraged at the Supreme Court's blow off, their "dodge" as Kayley McEnany said of it, that they vote to declare war on the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Would that be worthy of the Supreme Court's attention?
The
Supreme Court decision gobsmacked me (as the Irish say: that's an
unexpected punch in the kisser). I was like a cartoon character with my
mouth hanging open. Not because of the legalities of it, mind you:
whether Texas had standing to sue, as whether it could show real harm
done to it (of course, by dismissing the case, they didn't get the
chance to argue it before the Court and the nation). I think we all
know, as with the cases I mentioned above, that should the Court want to
find a reason to involve itself, it will indeed find one, no matter how
facetious the reason might be.
What's really going on
For your consideration:
- The Judiciary, state and local, isn't about "justice" but about managing Public Opinion.
- Honestly, what is "the Law" but a series of social rules decided upon by the people, their elected representatives (or in this case, representatives appointed by "the powers that be") the main purpose of which is to manage social tensions so society doesn't blow apart.
- N.B.
Well, in the slave-creating Leftist Ideology, Law is a tool to
manipulate people to achieve the results desired by the "Dictatorate of
the Proletariate". (In Sharia Law, the law is a tool to achieve the
results desired by the "Dictatorate of the Umma".)
- Otherwise,
be very certain of this: those who run the Law (judges, lawyers,
courts) would like to maintain the fiction that they are truly neutral
and engaged in a truly noble endeavor, something higher than mere
societal management.
- But we no longer have Sacred Law in
the West, a law derived from God, or even the philosophical
contemplation of natural realities (Natural Law).
- For every
lawyer or judge who really wants to arrive at a just decision, to serve
the people rather than manage them, there exist multiple lawyers and
judges who manipulate the law for whatever axe they have to grind. We're
drowning the Republic in such right now.
Look
at it this way: Alf kills Beta, shoots him down like a dog. Alf is
hauled before the court. Yet here is the question: Is Alf being judged
because he broke one of God's laws? Nope, he isn't. God no longer has
any interaction in the U.S. government, according to the Warren Court
(and even the Constitution itself, to be honest). Not in today's world.
In the past, pre-1776, when the Law was God's Law, Alf would indeed so
judged. But now the Law is decided by public opinion. It "floats" like an untethered interest rate.
So as long as public opinion frowns of murder, Alf can be judged. If
the court let's Alf off "on a technicality" in such a public opinion
environment -- what happens? Society becomes a tad more unstable than it
was before because what people expect is not being fulfilled. But no
one expects God to be outraged. Still less, to intervene.
- Yet what happens when abortion eats away at public opinion? Young human life is worthless. What then?
- And euthanasia eats away from the other end of life?
- And
the idea that one has to be a fully functioning person to have any
rights? (Remember Terri Schiavo, died back in 2005? Actually, she was
starved to death back in 2005.)
- Or even now, today, when it is patently obvious Republicans have fewer rights than Democrats, or when Blacks (only those who think correctly, mind you) have more rights than whites? This, too, is patently obvious.
See
what happens? Public opinion changes. It wanders about like the blind
leading the blind. Without a Sacred Law from God as a roadmap, we're
just lost. And lost, then we muddle about and just make up law to suit
ourselves. In the 19th century, the phrase "Vox populi, vox Dei" meant
public opinion is the voice of God. General Sherman, who would have made
a great dictator, BTW, said contempuously, "Vox populi, vox humbug".
(The latter word meaning what is expressed by today's male bovine
guano.)
We've known
since FDR's administration that Leftists of various sorts were "pushing
the envelope" in taking over our lives. Slowly, the Supreme Court of the
1930s -- which had initially resisted FDR -- came around to rubber
-stamping whatever he wanted. The pressure on the 1930s Supremes was
intense. Roosevelt tried to pack the court, if you remember. Things went
downhill from there with the infamous Warren Court in the 1950s, taking
all mention of God out of the public sphere and finally imposing
abortion -- and more -- upon us.
- I think the turning point was the assinasstion of Jack Kennedy. I now believe Lyndon Johnson had it done, for the various reasons in the following book by political gadfly Roger Stone: The Man Who Killed Kennedy: The Case Against LBJ. So blatant a charade the Warren Commission was that the bad guys have just gone from strength to strength ever since, deposing Nixon, trying to depose Reagan and Trump, and conspicuously and flagrantly stealing the election from Trump.
So,
after getting over my shock at the Supreme Court's reckless stupidity
of not letting the contending parties argue their case in court, for all
to see and as our adversarial system of justice demands, I immediately
thought: this is the 21st century's Dred Scott decision, just as
Roe v. Wade was the 20th's. Why? Because a shooting war resulted from
the first Dred Scott decision, and an unending social civil war from the
second. What will result from the third?
- Are the justices on the Court not in effect saying that the publica of the Res publica no longer has any standing to try to legally right wrongs in the Res? ("Republic" comes from the Latin "A thing of interest to the people" i.e., res publica.)
- As
I understand it, "standing" has a lot to do various considerations. But
such legal niceties aside, all law in a "sovereignty of the people"
state is based on pubic opinion, what public opinion will bear.
- It
is not like in Ancient Israel where the law was from God, and sacred,
sacrosant, and immutable. Today, law is like cash money: it only has
value if the people give it value.
- Otherwise, the law, like the money, is worthless. If the people do not give it value, after all, it's not worth the paper it is printed on.
- But the Supremes seem to be utterly uncaring about all that. Two of the other three political branches are nearly at open war, states are running grotesquely fraudulent elections and instead of being a referee, their "original jurisdiction" and the ultimate reason they exist, the Supremes "duck and run".
A comment from an author at American Thinker is brilliant: The
Court has opened the gates to secession themselves by their refusal to
grant Texas and its 18 allied states so much as a chance to plead their
case. The refusal to hear sends the message that anything goes in the
states.
Truly,
if anything goes, what's to stop secession? (Though the article is
about what Allen West meant when he mentioned secession the other day,
not the secession of Texas per se. That one state could very well
secede, of course; it's economy is bigger than Russia's! And I remember
reading somewhere that one part of the deal to bring it into the Union
was that it could secede if it wanted to; after all, it was an
independent republic for 10 years. It's the only state with the right to
fly its flag just as high as Old Glory.) Or one state declaring war on
another. Remember, law is about perception of what the people will
tolerate at any given time in history.
- This
morning I was thinking it seemed like two neighbors having a dispute
about a line fence. Neighbor Alf says Neighbor Beta built the line fence
on Alf's property, thereby taking property that didn't belong to Beta
and forcing Alf to pay for the fence maintenance.
- So Alf goes to court and the Judge says Alf has no standing to sue Beta, because of legal X, Y, and Z shop talk.
- Therefore, Alf's choices are either to "embrace the suck" as Jody says, or simply shoot Beta and uproot the fence.
Now
a host of commentators, including the President's legal team, are
writing that there's a number of other cases under consideration, and we
should focus on those. For example:
https://www.citizenfreepress.com/breaking/update-wisconsin-supreme-court-shows-deep-divisions-as-it-hears-trump-lawsuit/, for two examples.
But
while that is true and one of those might actually "work", I'm not
sanguine. The judiciary, both state and federal, seems to be scared to
death of this election and what its theft will do to the country; either
scared to death or two ideologically divided. Remember what this article said that I sent around a while ago?
The relevant excerpt:
Success in the law is based on using magic words. It really is. If you don’t use them, the court has no obligation to fix your pleadings. But if you know the spell, and you know how to cast it on paper, miracles can happen. Revolutionary arguments surface even when long standing practices appear to have firm judicial support.
We
haven't got time for using the right magic words. Time is too short,
the situation too desperate, the stakes too high, for such games. (And
alas, the President's legal team didn't have this author on their
staff.)
In any event, for an
in-depth review of how legally complicated this all is at this stage of
Trump's legal challenges, check out Shipwreckedcrew's long article at RedState.
Political Thuggery
Many
commentators are saying the Supremes – whatever the actual quality of
their legal reasoning as to whether Texas really does have "standing" to
sue Pennsylvania – are "taking a powder" politically, running away
from a tough one. True leaders have to stand up to problems and address
them, not "pass the buck." (Others say they're simply "bought" by the
Deep State, or as Dick Morris suggests, they've been warned by
"the-powers-that-be that they'll be "packed" if they don't surrender.)
- But again, it seems like this was a massively important political issue to actually have presented in court and the litigants given a hearing. The modern judiciary is more like a steam valve, letting society shed overloading steam, than any actual attempt at "justice". So slamming the door in their faces means, once again, either surrendering or fighting. It builds up the pressure till the boiler explodes.
So, to sum up, forget the courts. Invoke Executive Order 13848.
Executive Order 13848
If
President Trump doesn't invoke his Executive Order, declare a national
emergency, and arrest a host of these creeps, we've lost the country
because even if one or two courts "worked" (as one single judge in PA
tried to do before the state Supreme Court smacked her down), still, it
most likely won't be enough.
No comments:
Post a Comment