Dinesh D’Souza is an intellectually honest patriot of temperate disposition. In this brief video D’Souza provides a short encapsulation about how the Supreme Court decision against Texas doesn’t make any sense. If the Supreme Court will not take up a state’s right to stop wide-scale election fraud in another state then what exactly is SCOTUS role in the framework of a three co-equal branches inside our constitutional republic.
I doubt attendees to the constitutional convention would have ratified any agreement that said intentional corruption and manipulation in one state election system can nullify the senate votes of another – and there is no legal redress or grievance venue.
If SCOTUS continues to deny their institutional responsibility to defend the constitutional framework of the republic, then why the hell are they empowered as ‘co-equal’.
.
Surely the Supreme Court is awake to the reality if they shirk their duty, then rifles will end up on the hands of men who will settle cross-state disputes…. ‘surely‘
The ghost of Evelyn Farkas hovers.
Everyone in the Washington establishment has now convinced themselves (including SCOTUS) that Donald Trump was the source of all their troubles. They’ve reached nirvana.
The outcome of the election? The House is nearly divided 50/50. After the Georgia special Senate election that body may well be literally 50/50. And the nearly invisible Biden will remain a nearly invisible President. Out of sight, out of mind?
The Uniparty has achieved a perfect sharing of power. The one-party state is nearly here. China has taught them well.
Dinesh makes an important and reasonable point.
Clarity—-Thank the Lord for Dinesh—someone sees things as they are and makes it exceedingly clear to the rest of us.
We’ve all known in our heart of hearts it was going to come to this.
They’re rabid animals. They’re trapped, cornered. they know it.
Can you talk to a rabid animal? Can you subdue and domesticate a rabid animal?
You all know the answer.
This is ‘The Big Ugly’.
It could never end any other way.
10 days of darkness?
Be prepared. Godspeed.
I hope I’m wrong but if sniffy doesn’t concede there’s no other way.
Stop with the revolution stuff, you know that will not happen.
It’s happening and it needs to be stopped. Trump is strong enough but he needs your backing.
“then rifles will end up on the hands of men who will settle cross-state disputes…. ‘surely‘ “,
We The People surely will.
In that the presidential election affects all American citizens, everyone has legitimate standing to bring suit when illegal actions in a different locale affect who becomes president.
I am compelled to yet again post the following. For far to long our Republic has been assualted and maligned by thise who seek another way of governance where only the few self appointed guru’s of all things endevor to teach us how to bow at the crack of a whip. I say never. I will never bow to the dragon or his will. I will indeed bow to the most glorious high manetic KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS.
Our constitution is rooted and founded on the principals of Christs kingdom and instructions. This infernal cabal of wickedness is rooted in the filth of hell and I will not submit. To God be ALL the glory power and worship forever!
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute .
The ends never justify the means. D’Souza is wrong at that point. The statement about ends and means concerns the moral law, of which we all must submit.
Suicide pact, then? No, thank you. I will leave the poisoned drink for you to drin.
Wrong. And you missed Dinesh’s point.
The point is to take the particular means and ends on a case by case basis. Were the Catholic crusaders justified in fighting the Mohammedan Turks at the Battle of Lepanto? Sure – no excess in brutality was ordained by the Church. The means were acceptable for the desired outcome – defense of Europe and Christianity. Now if the Church decided to take as many Mohammedan hostages as possible and subject them to the rack until death, to deter further Mohammedan aggression, would that be acceptable morally? No, since that would be too grave an affront to the individual and to the incalculable worth of the human as created in God’s image.
The framework by which this “case by case” basis is made intelligible is virtue ethics.
The Germans threw ethics into confusion, probably because of their incorrigible nature (apologies to any Germans in the audience) with the introduction of their idiotic “deontological” ethics ie Kant. Further confusion into moral reasoning came along with English “consequentialist” ethics ie Bentham and Mill.
These two failed ethical frameworks have created the tension today in man’s mind between ends and means. The “consequentialist side” believes ends are of primary concern in ethical reasoning, the “deontological side” believes means are of primary concern – “fulfill duty because it is duty, and for that reason alone”. Both errors were conceived as solutions to a problem that never existed. The Ancient Greeks got virtue ethics, as the basic framework for reasoning ethically, precisely correct.
What is moral law? Simply stated this phrase is the value that one places on the “ends” and then a value on each of the “means” that maybe necessary for achieving the “ends.” The “ends” and the “means” can be constrained by society norms, religious doctrines, laws, regulations, etc. etc.
I have been down about Trump’s prospects after SCOTUS made the dodge on Texas, but it is just impossible for Biden to become President. There is so much obvious fraud and everyone knows it. The elites know we know it. Joe Biden knows it.
If the Dominion machines are proven to be inaccurate, I do not see how the State Legislatures can give electors to Biden. Otherwise, it is as Sundance says, up to us to take back our country.
The ruling class cannot govern without the consent of the governed.
And we do not consent!
I like your sentiment Linda, but what you fear is going to happen.
I am now working to insulate myself from the negative effects of the bad polices that are going to be coming during the next four years.
Hey SCOTUS Judges. You have to take a side.
There are three of you on the Left that have always taken a side and always the same side.
For three of you I hope this is nothing more sinister than a childish act of not wanting to side with the one that brought you to the dance? You know to show how independent you are.
Otherwise smarten up! Or you will rapidly move from the nine most prestigious Lawyers/Judges in the world to 21 monkeys in clown suites!
A most interesting and important comment Paul Gallant.
The Supreme Court is an “institution” one organized and handled by people, humans.
We The People will give respect to the Court but not to the humans who sit on it if they annoy us.
As Paul Gallant has pointed out so well they have just moved from nine justices who were once given respect because we believed they had possibly earned it to a bunch of of chuckleheads in black robes.
It will be very very difficult for them to now earn that lost respect back.
We will now see where the Supreme Court of The United States goes from here.
I think all of the Treepers here can make a pretty good guess as to where that is.
100 million American voters will be giving these “Justices” the finger to every single “ruling” they hand down from now on no matter which way it lands, for or against us, from now on.
Really sucks to be them.
Except for Thomas and Alito, I really don’t think they care about the number of judges increasing.
Heck, they probably feel less pressure on them… the dilutive effect is a relief to them.
Lots of armchair Presidents saying that PDJT made a bad choice in choosing ACB
I will say that I’m just as shocked as them since I thought that she was a good pick.
SCOTUS judges are human, and therefore flawed. In a realm of pure non partisanship, all of these judges should come at least close to being on the same side of an issue regarding the constitution, yet over the years it has been muddied by judges and lawyas that just like to beat their own chests.
The Pharisees have come to roost in our once great land creating so many decisions and laws that no one can possibly follow them all. So may I ask the armchair presidents here: who is the pure as the wind driven snow judge that PDJT should have picked?
The Righteous Ones would have been rejected by the “Turtle”
Did you here the one about the Turtle and the Panda?
Please- give it a rest. She failed – failed miserably as did the other 2 stooges. Do your damn job or get the hell out of the way. Time to punt her back to South Bend.
The SCOTUS just set a precedent with the Texas case. I’m not convinced they hurt his path, yet.
Secession…..whatever it takes.
I feel like Lincoln on the subject of secession. Nobody gets to keep the rest of my country. I would not consider secession unless it was with the determination to defeat and take back what is part of us
I’m inclined to agree. Restore the rule of law, faith in our government, purge the Chinese influence wherever we find it. In EVERY state.
Like our Civil War, we will have a foothold in a significant landmass. I’m not willing to give them the coasts because they think they own them. County results tell a different story.
Here’s a map by country in 2016 from U of Michigan:
Secession likely doesn’t solve the perceived issue, since the notion of state loyalty nowadays is nothing like it was mid-19th century. Secession based upon lines of red & blue drawn by internet pundits leaves behind 10’s of millions of good people trapped “behind the lines” as victims of a couple of leftist metroplexes.
Historically, the issue of secession is thought decided simply because brute force wielded by one group against another group carried the day to render the issue moot. In my view, Lincoln was a closet despot who ignored entreaties put to him for peaceful resolution, just as the Founders first implored King George and ultimately put their grievances in writing signed by Hancock, et al. Lincoln’s “Divinely inspired” goal would cost over half a million lives, even when sued for peace during the conflict. And he was a fan of suspending habeas corpus on more than one occasion.
That said, the notion that secession should be fought because of a perception that all is owned by one stakes out a side away from justice and tosses individual liberty out the window. Poor idea in my view, and it’s been shown to only work through brute force. Carried to its end, it is genocide. Individual states & localities need to sweep their front porches first, and be about it quickly.
We know the worst case scenario, that the Texas case ruling means that the court is subverted and will do nothing to stop the steal. But I think we need to keep better possibilities in mind, that they will intervene at some point soon, but they felt that Texas just wasn’t the right case. I think they really would feel more comfortable taking the side of aggrieved citizens in each state, rather than one set of states against another set. I think the they feel the latter would appear too divisive and could set a bad precedent. Also, by not immediately siding with our side’s requests, they have set themselves up to be more impartial, so that it will be harder for the left to attack them when they start giving substantive rulings. I hope that these or other similar concerns are influencing them, and that they will still act to stop the fraud.
Your reasoning is solid except on one point. “It will be harder for the left to attack them when they start giving substantive rulings.” There is no way that will happen. The left will scream bloody murder anytime they don’t get their way. They are like spoiled, petulant children who will stamp their feet and take tantrums without any reason just because they are denied what they want.
By the way, thank you Sundance, ad Rem, and all others involved in fixing the line-wrapping issue in the comments. The improvement is very much appreciated.
The left are evil. Face it – they are the enemy. It’s up to us now to treat them as such and give them no quarter.
I like Dinesh, but his examples of how Texas and other states are harmed by the actions of a few during the election was weak. If you lack standing, it means you haven’t been harmed by the challenged actions. SCOTUS just said voters in states that follow both state law and the Constitution aren’t harmed even if a few swing states open the floodgates to fraud and throw a national election.
Are you joking?
Except for the states initiating the fraud, there is no harm if a national election is decided by their fraud?
Only in the minds of those who think the legal system needs to be preserved even if it means the nation goes down the shi*ter.
The more I think about it, the more PT comment was correct – no courage, no wisdom.
I disagree. In my opinion Texas had standing in protecting the full vote of all of their citizens, as well as the states that joined them.
In Texas, and all the states that joined them, their citizens had one full vote by following the law.
In states that cheated, their votes counted for 1.5-2 full votes, because their states did not follow the law.
A vote in a cheating state should not be counted as more than one full vote in a state that did not cheat.
Two PERFECT analogies. If a state doesn’t have standing, then WHO the hell does? The Supreme Court is a disgrace.
Only the CCP has “standing” in our institutions.
Refile the suit.
Let the court and legislatures have one more chance to fix this corrupt shyte they have allowed to fester for a century.
I am done. Give them this last chance to clean the damn cell pool up. We need to come together now and pick up our rifles
And show ourselves to the crooked politicians and judges. They must understand there will be CONSEQUENCES.
They understand perfectly that a massive rage is boiling under the surface of 80 million honest voters in this country.
We need a massive demonstration with everyone armed to the teeth.
We have reached this point by greed of our government representatives. This what has a war about to break out.
We the honest voters did not commit the fraud. We the honest voters did not agree to selling out this country. BUT
We will fight for it.
Over the weekend, I have read quite a number of articles and the accompanying comments. What stands out is this; almost everyone agrees that We the People must do something, but most don’t see that happening in a way that will change things. The reason most cited is that our side has things to lose; jobs, careers, wealth, property, family, etc.
However, when people realize that what they value is at stake and unless they fight, that which they value will be lost, then they will be motivated to do what is required. THAT is what must be communicated, explained and sold to those of us who will listen. Now is zero-hour, go time. We do it or we lose it.
I thanked you for a well stated comment. Your ability to state what is at stake perfect.
I do not know where my reply disappeared to.
prayers starting now
:LIVE NOW – Global Prayer For US Election Integrity | 13 | Adam W. Schindler (adamschindler.com)
the above one was for last wednesday. today is this one
LIVE NOW – Global Prayer For US Election Integrity | 14 | Adam W. Schindler (adamschindler.com)
Everyone of us that stood in line for hours to vote,
Where harmed by the 4 counties that stole those hours from us. Those are hours from my life that I can never get back.
They stole from us!
We have standing in court or we can have standing citizens armed ready to take what has been stolen.
We the people that obey the laws and vote by the law, are the ones that have been too peaceful. The time to ignore the law is just a few moments away.
We are not asking for any special treatment in the courts or the legislatures or the executive of our government. We are demanding honesty and the rights in our constitution to have harm be remedied.
Serious question for legal minds, if states have no standing in this matter, do individual citizens?
Could we do a class action suit against the states that deprived us of our Constitutional right to a free and fair election?
I keep remembering, and I wish I had bookmarked it, a thread written sometime before the election. People like me were sounding the alarm that the Democrats intended to cheat by finding out first how many boats they needed, and then “finding“ those votes in the mail in ballots that were allowed to continue arriving for days afterwards. He explain at great length that there is a finite amount of cheating that can be done. He compared it to two mountains, where the mountains are votes. Cheating piles snow on top of one, but if the first mountain is higher no amount of snow can be piled up to make up the difference. trumps landslide was going to be so huge it would overwhelm even the most extreme cheating the Democrats could muster.
His conclusion: “F**K YOUR FEAR.”
Boy, that one sure hasn’t aged well.
I’m not sure I understand who “he” is?
trump tweets about SCOTUS showing lack of wisdom & judgment in the texas ruling . so, in support of that conclusion, my theory is perhaps gorsuch behaved like an arrogant pedant, with some obscure procedural reasoning which may have carried the day. (I remember his transgender ruling siding with the libs in June where he wrote majority opinion. ) my theory would be that kavanagh reacted like a fraidie cat, wanting to avoid the dizzying spotlight of national circus with 1000 amici briefs. my hunch might say that barrett reacted like a young mama, highest priority is spending xmas with the kids in south bend, so if
there is any truth to my reasoning, then the three of them didnt think much about the future of the republic
You remember the patriot who filed a lawsuit against BARACK Obama and the DNC saying that Obama was not a natural born citizen and was ineligible to run as a candidate for President. The federal judge ruled that the patriot, a citizen, a taxpayer and a registered voter did not have standing to sue. Well, how much more injury could you effect on an American than having a person clearly ineligible to become President of the United States?
“Surely the Supreme Court is awake to the reality if they shirk their duty, then rifles will end up on the hands of men who will settle cross-state disputes…. ‘surely‘ “
Indeed. In state disputes as well.
About the only thing what can be said about Amy is, “Hello darlin”
Dear Lord –
Please grant me the strength to change the things that I can.
Please grant me the serenity to accept the things that I cannot.
And, Dear Lord, please grant me the wisdom to know the difference.
Amen.
Very interesting extension to the examples Dinesh used…another “division” or another “table”.
But if you narrow that illogic down some more…why couldn’t “they” say “you don’t have standing regarding what any of your current opponents at the table or across the net do to give themselves an unfair advantage??
Although just a layman regarding law, could it be that that the crimes being inferred are not civil in nature? If a state is showing very real evidence that other states are not following the constitution, would the scope of these charges exceed federal crimes? What kind of crimes exceed the Federal level which then be exempt from civil courts like SCOTUS? The inference is we’re looking at high crimes which will involve the military imho.
Interesting blog post – Loud Arguments in US Supreme Court Chambers over Texas Lawsuit – COURT INTIMIDATED. Roberts was overheard to chastise “junior Justices” saying “You’ll vote the way I tell you”. Justice Thomas retorts, “John, this is the end of democracy”. Short story, but read for yourself…if true Roberts must be IMPEACHED.
https://halturnerradioshow.com/index.php/en/news-page/news-nation/loud-arguments-in-us-supreme-court-chambers-over-texas-lawsuit-court-intimidated
It wasn’t a very good idea for D’Souza to use the analogy of dropping nukes on Hiroshima & Nagasaki to illustrate the utilitarian point about “ends justify the means” … first, the Joint Chiefs argued against it because the blockade was working and therefor felt there was no need to do wreak hellfire on civilian populations – Japan already was finished. Others argued – mostly after the fact – that dropping the nukes saved many American servicemen’s lives during fighting hand-to-hand with the war dragging on. The truth is scientists and other civilian advisors associated with the Manhattan Project, frankly, were eager to test-drive their new nuke toy, and their views prevailed with Truman. It is interesting to note these same advisors were NOT eager to test-drive their nukes in Europe. Just sayin’.