Former Apostolic Nuncio Writes Letter to President
I don’t often post things like this, as I’m more inclined to let things stand on their own merit. In this case, the information is so important that I think my readers should acquaint themselves with the discussion. If you’re not familiar with the ongoing battle within the Catholic Church, or you’ve not encountered discussions of the Great Reset, it’s time you become familiar with the global movement to strip you of your liberties. Clearly, former Apolostolic Nuncio Carlo Maria Viganò is familiar, and issued the following letter to President Donald J. Trump on the 25th of October, 2020. Whether you’re a Catholic or not, the struggle described pertains to all Americans, as it outlines the critical nature of this election in the global struggle between good and evil. Please read the attached PDF:
The Pre-Election Death of RBG Threatens the Democrat Plot
It was so simple. All the Democrats needed to do was to create a contested situation in the wake of the Presidential election. Their phony mail-in ballots as a vehicle for the steal was only one part of the plan. The ultimate plan was to culminate with a showdown in the Supreme Court. Too many conservatives have falsely consider Chief Justice Roberts a safe vote, but the Democrats own him. This is why he concocted a ruling on Obamacare that was legally farcical and logically absurd. This is why he’s gone along with every farcical leftist position on ballots and the election this entire election season. John Roberts is mortally compromised, so that a supposed 5-4 majority did not function as such, but instead became an effective 4-5 conservative minority on many of the most critical issues. Examine the record. Since 2011, anything involving significant questions where Democrat hegemony would be augmented, and he was the deciding vote, it was passed right along by Chief Justice Roberts. Whatever his actual political positions might be in a vacuum, we’ll never know, but what’s clear is that somebody has him by the throat. If the 2020 election were to come down to a decision of the Supreme Court, have you any doubt where Roberts would fall? The death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg threw a monkey-wrench into all of this. If President Trump is able to nominate and get Senate approval for another solid nominee, the dirty little plot of the Obama Clan will face serious obstacles. It will cut off the Democrat and DC establishment’s last, best hope of stealing the election, and this is why, as both Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin have noted in the last three days, the Democrats have reversed their advocacy on mail-in balloting. Suddenly, after months of mail-in ballot advocacy, the Democrats have changed their tune. Why the sudden change? Listen closely, and Democrats will tell you their bad intentions. It has everything to do with the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
Limbaugh got closest to catching it completely, while Levin noted that Democrats have realized that because so many of their voters are “low information,” (to use a Limbaugh term,) they’ve realized they can’t rely upon their voters to successfully complete and mail back their ballots without risking massive ballot disqualification for various failures in filling out the forms. While I have no doubt that this is true, the Democrats already knew that about their voter-base before they embarked on the mail-in ballot scam. Instead, what they have realized is that they probably will not be able to stop Trump’s nominee from being seated in time to weigh-in on any election-related Supreme Court decisions that their intended contested election might well necessitate.
Understand that this is what has begun to drive the left to change directions. Roberts’ compromise will not be enough to subvert the Supreme Court decisions necessary to overturn the election in the case of a contested situation. This leaves us with a couple of problems, one of which is the necessity to swell conservatives to the polls during early voting and on election day. We must make our numbers an impenetrable fortress behind which to protect this presidency. Whether we are particular fans of Trump or not, the simple truth of this election is that we are confronted with a plot to overturn not just a single election, but also the whole American system of governance. The DC establishment is now at the cusp of a vast exposure. Their collusion with powerful globalist oligarchs and communistic regimes is manifest, but more than this, their willingness to turn over the entire American system to a global order has become more plain. Donald Trump is not now engaged in a mere battle for re-election in a fair election, nor even to prevent the defilement of the American system at the hands of conspirators, but instead to rescue the entire American constitutional order from a globalist revolution that threatens every person on the face of the Earth.
On its face, this sounds incredible, even farcical. To make such an assertion requires evidence. Obviously, the people involved aren’t exactly forthcoming about their intentions, but some of them are just foolish enough to make some of their motives plain. Senatory Cory Booker(D-NJ) went on record stating that if seated, newly nominated Judge Amy Coney Barrett must recuse herself from all 2020 election-related cases. From NBC’s Meet the Press:
Ladies and gentlemen, the Democrats have tipped their hand. This is all about the steal, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death has thrown a monkey-wrench right into the gearbox. We’ve figured out their plot: De-legitimize the election results, contest them, and push it to the Supreme Court where they expected Chief Justice Roberts to hand down the decisive fifth vote in a deadly blow to the Trump presidency. No person can say with certainty how any of the justices would vote, but with Roberts as the “swing vote” prior to the death of Ginsburg, their motive was clear, and this push to have Amy Coney Barrett commit to recusing herself from 2020 election-related decisions is the tell. They intended to use the court to steal the election from Donald Trump. Now that the composition of the court is changing, and they won’t have a reliable fifth vote for their agenda, they’re moving to a backup plan: Try to force Barrett to recuse herself from election-related cases, but failing that, they’re now scrambling to get their voters to cast ballots in person. Folks, this is the steal right before your eyes, and if you listen closely, the Democrats will always tell you what are their bad intentions. Always.
As the media begins to go absolutely nuts over the idea that the President might declare an emergency and re-allocate military funds to build the wall, it would be useful to review all the sorts of authorities any President has in time of emergency. The radical statists who comprise the left are in favor of such power, but at the moment, such power, in the hands of President Trump, is contrary to their political interests. Their whole shtick is “resist.” Their rabid, anti-America base will oppose him simply because he’s not them. The NeverTrump republicans, including opportunists like Mitt Romney, will undoubtedly oppose him. Before the shrill voices grow louder, confounding our ability to understand the issue, let’s look at the law to see if we can easily surmise whether such an action by the President is authorized by the constitution. After all, the constitution must be our yardstick. With that in mind, let us examine why it is that President Trump is fully within the bounds of his constitutional authority to declare an emergency and build the wall, using the military to do so if need be.
First, let’s see what the President has to say on the matter, this past Friday in the Rose Garden:
One of the things always available to any president is the powers of Commander in Chief. Article II of the United States Constitution makes one thing expressly explicit in Section II:
“The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.”(Emphasis mine.)
The bolded portion here is easily understood. He’s in charge of the military. He decides how and when federal troops and state militia[national guard] will be deployed. He, solely, is vested with the authority to determine their mission, and their day-to-day activities in pursuit of that mission. Not Congress. Not the courts. Not the Secretary of Defense(who works for him directly.) Nobody else trumps the President in the deployment of the armed forces. Nobody can countermand him in his role as Commander in Chief. Not John Roberts. Not Nancy Pelosi. Not Mitch McConnell. Got it? Seriously, if you have any doubt whatever about this, I have doubts about your reading comprehension.
The President can, within his authority, bring all of the soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines, be they active or reserve components, or National Guard components, and assign them the mission of building the wall. He can, within the scope of his authority, redirect EVERY MEMBER OF THE UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES, up to and including the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and also all DoD civilians, shovels and pick-axes in hand, to begin building the wall. He has this authority.
Some will point out that this is all well and good – that the President has the manpower available – but he does not have the money for the materials. Wrong. Since the President determines the disposition of the Armed Forces, he also has some significant latitude in determining a number of things. He can, at any moment, instruct the SecDef to cancel a contract. Imagine all the whining Congress critters who have significant defense contracts in their districts who would lose their collective minds when he redirected funds in this manner. It’s within his authority. Also, he can call all active forces to support the Army Corps of Engineers, who he can command to direct the construction. There are all sorts of caches of “emergency funds” built into various budget areas that can be put to work in this way. Congress is powerless to stop it because they’ve already appropriated and authorized the funds.
The President of the United States has broad powers already delegated to him by Congress to meet various emergencies. For instance, while I believe the War Powers Act is probably unconstitutional if any President wanted to challenge its limits, there is nothing to prohibit a president from feigning compliance. A president could very easily declare a national security emergency arising from our porous Southern border, and deploy our forces in support of that mission. At the very least, he’d have 60 days to make an initial report to Congress, and a further 30 days to withdraw forces(which means the limit is effectively 90 days, where US border operations would be concerned.) He need only be able to show that there is an attack of any sort on the United States. Did you happen to notice those Soros-funded idiots throwing rocks and Molotov cocktails and other weapons at our border agents recently? That’s an attack against the United States, folks.
Readers would do well to acquaint themselves with Title 50 of the United States code. It would also be useful to examine the Insurrection Act of 1807, as amended. This, by itself, may provide all the justification Trump would need under existing law. Congress would be powerless to impede him. Under the auspices of the National Emergencies Act, the President can do all manner of thing, but all Congress may do is pass a joint resolution of both houses of Congress to stop it. (And this may be open to Presidential challenge in courts.)
As readers are well aware, the United States of America has been at war since 2001. Due to this fact, the President’s general set of authorities are somewhat broader than they might otherwise be during peacetime. Folks, President Trump has so much power that he hasn’t even begun to exercise that he could build a wall from San Diego to Manhattan before the courts could untangle it all. The simple point is that the President has this authority. You may not like it. Hell, generally speaking, I don’t like it because it has been abused constantly to the detriment of the American people. Wilson and Roosevelt were monsters. They did so many things under “emergency doctrine” that still carry the weight and force of law that I shudder to consider it. If President Trump finally acts to build a wall along our Southern border, it will be one of the rare legitimate uses of such powers in my lifetime.
Democrats and NeverTrump RINOs might hate it, but if President Trump pursues this course, he’s certainly got every manner of precedent to support him, and there is every conceivable loophole in existing law to support it. If he really wants to, nothing can stop President Trump from building that wall, except perhaps impeachment and removal, and while the Democrats may be able to carry out the first, there’s next to zero chance they can remove him in the Senate. The American people would revolt. Bank on it.
It was more than fifty years ago when, while campaigning on behalf of Barry Goldwater in October of 1964, Ronald Reagan asserted that America had arrived at one of those moments in history when the choice before the nation would set out direction for generations to come. He called it “A Time for Choosing,” and parts or all of his speech is still replayed on talk radio shows, and quoted extensively in conservative media. What’s not often mentioned often enough is that American chose incorrectly in that election, and we’ve paid a steep price ever since. I’m no Ronald Reagan, but I contend that we have again arrived at “A Time for Choosing,” although in this case, the choice is not about an election. This time, we’re confronted by something far more terrible. This time, it’s not about our politicians, or even our laws, but instead about us. It may or may not be resolved be elections. It may result in a mass resort to violence. Ladies and gentlemen, we now exist in a period not unlike 1860-61, a nation so thoroughly divided that it may not be held together. The Special Counsel is using his offices and authority to gather and impound all of the evidence against himself and his co-conspirators. Robert Mueller is attempting a new sort of coup d’etat, and if we permit it, we will never see liberty again. Neither will our great-grandchildren. It’s time to choose, and now, you must choose a side. Will you stand for our republic as you have so often pledged, or will you let the feral swine who have corrupted our system continue to run riot on our nation? I, for one, will stand.
The Republican Party is a bankrupt institution. They set aside conservative principles long ago in favor of pragmatism and electoral success. They were also morally compromised, and easily gave over to extortion. The Democrat Party is even worse, corroded over long decades by all sorts of communist and socialist radicals who have finally converted their party into the overt manifestation of Bolshevism in the United States. The fact that Robert Francis O’Rourke(D-NY) could come so close to victory in Texas is evidence enough of the dire straits into which our nation has drifted. That a bumbling, moronic dimwit like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez(D-NY,) perhaps challenging even Houston’s own Shiela Jackson Lee(D-TX) for the title “dumbest person in Congress,” would not be possible but for the fact that America has chosen wrong regularly since Reagan put that choice to her people more than fifty years ago. Our elected officials either seem unaware of what’s happening, or they seem to want what is coming. They exhibit no concern whatever for the future of the country, and no remorse whatever for what they will do to our children. Meanwhile, the vast body of the people stands by silently, letting it happen with little or no opposition.
You might ask me what I’m on about. After all, this isn’t the first time I have issued a dire warning about the condition of our republic, and probably won’t be the last. In this case, however, the cause is encapsulated in the speech of Dan Bongino, below. He outlined what has really happened, and what’s worse is that he explains what’s likely to be the result. Watch it:
If Bongino is correct, inasmuch as he suggests that justice will not come for the corrupt bastards running the show, our republic is dead. Dead. The trouble is that you will decide that matter. Either you will insist on justice, or your will not. This isn’t about whether you like or hate Donald Trump. It’s not about any of that political claptrap. This is about whether we’re going to have a republic of the sort to which we claim to pledge our allegiance, or instead a sort of banana-republic with a mere facade of “liberty and justice for all.” Is this going to be the Potemkin village of liberty? Were all our war dead sacrificed for that?
I want you to think most thoroughly about the meaning of what Bongino has laid out. Just like Bongino, Trump was not my pick in the primaries of 2016. Just like Bongino, I’ve come to admire the fact that for all his myriad flaws, it seems that Donald Trump loves the country, and that he at least fights like Hell. What bothers me most in all Bongino says here is a notion he confirmed in his podcast of Friday, the 30th of November: There will be a deal.
His proposition is that this scandal has been so broad and so vast and included large numbers of figures in the Clinton-Obama orbit that there is no way to bring them all simultaneously to justice, and that to attempt it would be to throw the country into anarchy, chaos, and turmoil. His implication is that the Clinton-Obama crew has intentionally fomented a hair-trigger reaction from their political adherents such that we’d have an insurrection of some sort, were all the criminals simultaneously rounded-up.
Obviously, this is too small a blog for Mr. Bongino to know of, but I wish I had a way to convey to him a few things:
1.) This is personal. The toll the Clinton crime family, and all those connected to them, have exacted upon the people of this country is large, real, and thorough. I don’t care what the cost may be any longer. After almost three decades of watching these people make utter wreckage of our nation, it is time they are brought before the bar of justice, and if we must have civil strife to bring them to justice, then let me sign first on the dotted line to be among the instruments that will quell that strife. My life, my fortune, and my sacred honor. All these, whatever token value they may be, I pledge to the preservation of the republic.
2.) This is a matter of Justice. Our US Department of justice has been an incredibly corrupt joke ever since the Clintons began using FBI files to blackmail members of Congress and their staff, members of the bureaucracy, and also members of the judiciary back in the 1990s. The entire US Federal government, including segments of every department, have been hollowed-out and undermined by this stinking, festering rot of corruption, favoritism, and extortion ever since. There can be no restoration of the Department of Justice, never mind justice itself, if any sort of deal is made. These people must all go down, whatever the cost. If we must make a deal with the villains, there can be no justice, and the restoration of our Republic will remain out of reach, foiled this time by those who ought to have been its champions.
3.) It is said that the American people will not be able to process it all if such were to happen in one fell swoop. I disagree. I believe people of good nature and good faith have lost their trust in the righteous nature of the most of the American people. Perhaps too long in and amongst the villains, some seem too willing to accept the villains’ assessments of the American people. It’s as if they believe we “can’t handle the whole truth.” I assure you, this is a faulty notion and belief. If the President and his cabinet and other relatively clean leaders in DC and around the country go forth to tell the American people the whole truth, the American people will hear it, but those who do not and who will not are likely of the same corrupted class as the villains.
To Mr. Bongino, I would say that the idea that it would be too much for the American republic to survive is to underestimate the heart of what is the republic. At no other time in history has the republic been more ripe for such a revival. Our young people don’t believe in America’s greatness, we are told. If those who had known better will now shrink from justice because it might incite a brief but calamitous fight, is their cynicism not justified? Wouldn’t it be to surrender and thereby prove the purveyors of their anti-American indoctrination correct?
I don’t speak for any person but myself. I’m just a guy with a few remaining brain-cells and a keyboard. In this instance, and in the name of the republic, I need a president who won’t make a deal. I’ve heard it said that the true art of the deal is to know when to say: “No deal.”
Now is that time for choosing again, but this time, if we fail – if we choose incorrectly again – there will be no chance at redemption. Mr. President, the American people have been betrayed too often by their leaders, with too many bad deals. Now it is time for you to say “No deals.”
Burn them all, and let us rebuild the Republic in sight of their ash-heap.
I’ve made no secret of the fact that while I admire certain aspects of the way Donald Trump conducts himself, I also have a few problems with his historical behaviors and a number of his policy positions. I have also noted when President Trump does the right thing with respect to policy, and I’ve also defended him against the outrageous and phony “Russian Collusion” hoax because I value the truth, and I revere justice. Fighting off the dishonest leftist hordes is a common aim of this blog, but now, I’m faced with the predicament that I feared most about a Donald Trump presidency: I’m going to have to fight against this president’s moments of foolishness, and his own attacks on the constitution. In this case, President Trump has decided and announced to a gathering of the nation’s governors that he intends to ban bump-stocks without Congress. Let me apologize in advance for the poor video quality, but in the interests of haste, sometimes you take what you can get:
My response to this is simple: Mr. President, making or amending laws is not your role under our constitution. Also, your technical ignorance is not sufficient excuse to simply strip Americans of their property rights. In order to carry out such a thing, Donald Trump will need to ignore the fact that all legislative powers of the United States are vested in a bicameral Congress. Article I of the constitution is explicit on this point:
“All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.”
This could neither be more plain nor more definitive.
At the same time, hundreds of thousands or perhaps millions of Americans own bump-stocks. This being the case, even if Congress wanted to ban these items, they cannot simply do so without considering the dicta of the Fifth Amendment:
“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”
Most of these “bump-stocks” range in price from around one-hundred dollars to upwards of five-hundred dollars. More, some companies exist that manufacture these devices, and such legislation would effectively put them out of business. Where is the “just compensation” Mr. President?
This is the sort of thing that will lead to people walking away from Mr. Trump in 2020. If he goes forward with such a thing, I will not only fight him, but I will vote for his opponent, or a third-party alternative in 2020. I’m sorry, but if Mr. Trump can’t respect the limits and bounds of the Constitution, then I have no more respect for him than for previous autocrats who have recently occupied the Oval Office. This is not acceptable, Mr. President.
This was just posted on Drudgereport. Please go read the details, to the degree we have any, here. When you have read the facts of Justice Scalia’s death to the extent they have been reported, I need you to come right back here and finish reading. It’s urgent.
We are at a constitutional breaking point. Without Scalia, the most reliable conservative on the court, we’re in desperate trouble. More than that, I want you to look around at how conservatism is under assault on all fronts. In the Primary campaign for the presidency, conservatives are madly running off in this direction and that, hurling insults back and forth in a manner that will make it nearly impossible to come together for any purpose any time in the near-term future. More, it’s not just that conservatives are running off on their own, but that they’re being driven in a predictable pattern. Look around. How many people you once trusted as conservatives are now mad at you, or you at them? How many? How much of this is natural, and how much of it is being driven by something else? Ladies and gentlemen, please consider this before you send out another tweet; Facebook or blog posting. We’re being divided and conquered, and it’s happening from the top to the bottom of the conservative movement. It will now be the method by which we are prevented from saving our nation. It’s how the death of Antonin Scalia, the most consistently faithful constitutional jurist in my lifetime will come to spell the end of the Republic, and how conservatism will be neutered and helpless to stop it. Listen to me: Elections come and elections go, and the upcoming election will be frightfully important to the future of our country, but we MUST NOT LET OURSELVES BE DIVIDED over transient political campaigns. Candidates will come, and candidates will go, but if you’re really concerned about the country, and if you’re reading this, I know you are, we must stop the pointless, hurtful bickering and understand that we’re being driven toward an inevitable result, and it doesn’t matter who you’re supporting at this moment. What will matter is that at the end of this process, we are going to be ripe for domination because we have permitted ourselves to be torn asunder. STOP! Who benefits when conservatives are at war with one another? Who? No, not just Obama and the Democrats… It’s worse than that. Stop yelling at one another. Think about what’s happening and how our vaunted conservative “spokespersons” are being neutered, one right after the next. It’s happening now. It’s hard to see because we’re in the midst of it all.
Think, people. We’re being played. All of us. We’re being divided and set up for conquer at the moment we can least afford it. More on all of this later.
This morning, in promoting the day’s broadcasting schedule, CBS News tweeted out the following:
If you had any doubts about the diabolical nature of Barack Obama’s ideology, it should now be clear. Here we have the man entrusted with safeguarding the nation, and upon the circumstance of a terrorist attack within our own borders, an attack possible only due to the faulty vetting of his immigration enforcement policies that have created a virtual open border, Obama does not seek to close the door, or go after the terrorists, those who inspired, funded, and/or trained them, or any logical course of action at all. Instead, Barack Obama seems poised to turn the entire country into a “Gun Free Zone” wherein only the bad guys have guns.
We know conclusively that gun violence is down almost everywhere in America, except for one class of location: Gun Free Zones. Therefore, President Obama is going to do the most destructive thing possible in response: He’s going to broaden Gun Free Zones to encompass the entire nation. That way, we’re ALL TARGETS, EVERYWHERE, ALL THE TIME. (Unless we’re surrounded by men and women with guns because we’re under Secret Service protection.)
That’s right, ladies and gentlemen, the White House is not a “Gun Free Zone.” President Obama doesn’t live in a “Gun Free Zone.” In fact, wherever he goes, he’s in a bubble of protection that is filled with guns aimed at protecting him. Oh, sure, he’s not wielding any himself, but the men and women of the Secret Service who surround him are armed to the teeth. Yes, the President exists in a “Gun-Enhanced Zone.”
Once again, what’s good for Emperor Obama is not good enough for Americans. It’s good to be king.
I suspect that before this evening’s address is over, as he goes on to announce new Executive Orders clamping down on your right to protect yourself, your family, and your home and property, from the length and breadth of America, minus the statist havens on both shores, we will hear a loud refrain of these most famous words:
*** Caution: Strong Language ***
It’s time to say what needs to be said: Barack Obama, stop blaming and punishing the victims of your intransigent maladministration of our immigration laws, and your senseless policies on defense of the nation. It’s time for you to understand that you don’t run anything that the American people don’t want you to run.
The following is a list of United States Senators who today voted for cloture on a bill in the Senate they have not yet seen. The bill purports to impose new background check requirements that will act to infringe on your right to keep and bear arms. I consider these people to be traitors to the US Constitution, each and every one of them. These people decided that your rights are open to periodic diminution at their whim, irrespective of the guarantees of the US Constitution. I don’t care what other issues these turncoats are said to be “right on,” or “good on.” From this day forward, this list of tyrannically-minded dim-wits will be known collectively as the “anti-republicans” on this site. These people have lined up with the likes of Charles Schumer(D-NY) even though at least one of them explicitly didn’t want to be seen with the vicious NY schmuck. Why won’t they seek to amend the constitution, the legitimate process? They know you wouldn’t let them. Instead, these snakes are slithering around to attack you from behind:
Lamar Alexander (Tenn.)
Kelly Ayotte (N.H.)
Richard Burr (N.C.)
Saxby Chambliss (Ga.)
Tom Coburn (Okla.)
Susan Collins (Maine)
Bob Corker (Tenn.)
Jeff Flake (Ariz.)
Lindsey Graham (S.C.)
Dean Heller (Nev.
John Hoeven (N.D.)
Johnny Isakson (Ga.)
Mark Kirk (Ill.)
John McCain (Ariz.)
Patrick Toomey (Pa.)
Roger Wicker (Miss.)
The cowards listed above voted to open up Harry Reid’s gun control bill for debate even though most will walk away from the legislation in the end. This is a procedural trick. Understand: Allowing this bill to come up for a vote means it will pass because the Democrats hold a majority. The only way this bill could be stopped is to prevent it from coming to the floor, but these worthless Senators made sure this bill would pass the Senate, but as of this moment, they don’t know what’s in it. There could be ANYTHING in it.
On that future day when your Second Amendment rights are cast aside by a tyrannical Federal government, you can thank the people on this list for screwing you, your children, and all posterity. I don’t want to hear excuses. I don’t want to hear “the NRA rates me 95%” (because the NRA won’t count this cloture vote against them.)
Ladies and gentlemen, don’t be swayed by the apologists: These people hate you. They hold you in contempt. They fear you, so they seek to disarm you as they work together with Democrats to bring about the kind of world in which they would have every reason to fear you if you’re armed. They are collapsing the country together with the Democrats. In 2014, most of these people are not up for re-election, and that should be your key indicator. There are plenty of other cowards who would have joined with them if they weren’t up for re-election in 2014. These people will either retire, or will not come up for re-election again for 3-5 years, meaning they have time for you to forget their betrayals. I’m not forgetting.
Neither should you.
There is still some chance to defeat this bill in the House. That said, Boehner will do as he always does: He will bring it to the floor for a vote, and some weasel anti-Republicans along with the whole body of Democrats will vote for it. You’d better burn up your phone lines as these rotten bastards attempt to burn your constitution.
Allen West is in the fight of his life. St. Lucie County Florida’s Election Supervisor seems to be playing shenanigans with the counting of ballots, and at around midnight Eastern time on Friday night, she finally decided that it was time to count the military ballots. Shocker. Delayed until the middle of the night, when it would be hard to have sufficient observers on hand. At this late hour, if you can get there, you are needed. The address is:
7865 Central Industrial Dr. Riviera Beach
You can still help if you’re close and can get there quickly(and safely.) The reported turnout in that district so far is 141% of the eligible population. I want you to think about what kind of vote rigging that implies. They’re attempting to flank Col. West with this sneak attack.
Somebody asked the question about what can be done if the Democrat machine succeeds in ousting Col. West from Congress so that he still has a role. I won’t get into details now since time is of the essence, but there damned-well is something we can do. The Speaker of the House need not be an elected member. We need to replace Boehner anyway. We could hound our Republican representatives into making him the new speaker whether he is ultimately re-elected or not.
Now, back to the matter at hand, because the idea posited above is a long-shot, and we know what kind of fraud he’s up against. If you can get there in a timely fashion and do so safely, please lend a hand to a patriot in need. If you’re a Facebook member, you can get additional updates and information by joining the group located here:
The vote shows a slight lead for Allen West at this hour. The long knives are out. People ARE showing up even at this late hour to help with the observation of the counting. The people already there are undoubtedly exhausted but soldiering on. Good news is that Breitbart is carrying the story now. That will help.
THIS JUST IN
From the group linked above, Gary Angelo Galiano posted:
Update: Please put the word out we have enough people now! Thank you everyone!!!
Thank you to every one who responded to this call. They now expect to have a final tally within an hour or two, and they have plenty of people!!! Thank you Patriots!!!
I’ve been keeping tabs on the Ohio count, and what I’ve noticed is that with roughly 20% of the vote still out, it’s still basically a dead heat. Karl Rove(of all people) has made a good argument that the calling of Ohio by the FoxNews decision room was a bit premature. This is a tremendously dangerous thing. What if Mitt Romney winds up winning in Ohio, Florida, and Virginia? Then it’s President Romney, and there are going to be a lot of really angry people talking riots. For once, I agree with Karl Rove that it is irresponsible(he didn’t use that word – he said “premature”) to call a state that is that close with that much of the vote remaining out. This rush to call races could ultimately result in hot-headed people becoming violent if it switches up as the counting gets closer to the end.
I too find it curious that with so much of the vote remaining to be counted, the race in Ohio was called. It may turn out that Obama wins all three states, but I think most Americans were prepared to wait this out. Was this the pre-emptive strike the Obama camp talked about? There are people still voting in Columbus at midnight eastern, meaning that we’re calling the race as people are voting. Are you kidding me?
Ladies and gentlemen, we have a serious issue, and for all of those who say it’s wrong to condemn a whole religion for the actions of a few, I may hear that argument but its weight is diminishing as the entire globe lights with the fires of violent Jihadi protests. There’s no more disguising it: The radical global Jihadi front is on the march, and it includes elements of the Muslim Brotherhood, but it also includes elements of Hamas, al Qaeda, and various other groups around the globe. In London, our embassy is seeing increasingly violent protests. In Berlin, the same thing is true. Let me explain what is happening: They are using the fraudulent claim of a Youtube video as the grounds for what they’re doing, but that’s not what those driving this have in mind. They wish to drive the US out of the Middle East, and ultimately, out of Europe, and they’re gambling that weak-kneed Europeans will be glad to comply, since they have a long history of capitulating to the Islamists who have gained increasing influence in their countries due to liberal immigration policies and ridiculous welfare programs.
They have their toe-holds in Europe, and it is now their intention to begin to take it all over. They’re not quite strong enough to do so, but what they have in mind is to create enough chaos in Europe and the US that we will withdraw entirely from the Middle East. It’s an attempt to isolate Israel, but also the United States.
This is a day of rampage for the “Religion of Peace.” This is at least partly the result of a foreign policy directed by an affirmative action Nobel Prize recipient. America is under attack. The West is under attack. It is only a matter of time until Israel comes under ferocious attack. What is President Obama doing about it?
Nothing.
Barack Obama isn’t merely a failed President. He’s failed as an American.
There’s a piece on Time’s site alleging the following exchange between Sarah Palin and Eric Bolling:
BOLLING: Governor, a lot of people are saying it can’t happen. I don’t necessarily agree with them. If one of the nominees, one of the GOPers, doesn’t get enough delegates, it could go the a brokered convention.
If it does get to that and someone said, Governor, would you be interested, would you be interested?
PALIN: Well, for one, I think that it could get to that. And I — you know, if it had to — if it had to be kind of closed up today, the whole nominating process, then we would be looking at a brokered convention.
I mean nobody is quite there yet. So I think that months from now, if that’s the case, then, you know, all bets are off as to who it will be willing to offer themselves up in the name of service to their country. I would — I would do whatever I could to help.
BOLLING: That’s — that’s fantastic.
Bolling himself reported that this was a fifteen minute interview, and this is maybe thirty seconds worth. We don’t know yet what came before and after this brief snippet of the exchange. What I’m suggesting is that rather than get too terribly excited about the meaning of this small piece of the alleged transcript, let us wait and see, since it’s only two hours distant until the show airs.
I can imagine many ways that this conversation could be led in, and I can imagine more ways on how it could continue. The phrase “I would — I would do whatever I could to help” could mean anything from accepting a nomination to just helping whomever would be picked in that scenario. Let us not get too wild over this until we see the interview with out own eyes.
I would love for it to be true, but for this alleged transcript to be leaked in several places makes it seem suspicious to me. People are running wild with it, and I have little hope of changing that, but I also believe until we see the interview, we should be cautious about drawing conclusions. I’m not trying to spoil anybody’s party, but we’ve been here before. I’d hate to see another let-down.
“The Five” became six for a short time on Wednesday evening when Governor Sarah Palin joined the other participants. They discussed many topics, but near the end of the segment, Eric Bolling teased his own show Wednesday night. Governor Palin was interviewed, and will answer definitively the question: If a brokered convention picked her, would she accept the nomination and run. Bolling played coy about the answer, and said we’ll need to tune in to find out. This should be interesting. Bolling tweeted earlier about the interview saying it was the one that could change everything. This will be the last interview on Bolling’s “Follow the Money” on FBN as the show is being axed.
The show airs at 10pm Eastern. So what do you think? Will she say “yes” or “no”?
The reports coming from CPAC in Washington DC suggest that the theme we have heard, that “Sarah Palin is no longer relevant,” has been exposed irrevocably as a lie. At present, the lines into the event are being described as enormous, and this is more than two hours in advance of her speech scheduled for 4:30 eastern. CPAC has actually gotten an overflow space set up in an adjacent conference room in order to try to accommodate more of this crowd. As I predicted, Sarah Palin’s speech would be the biggest draw of the event, for all the reasons we’ve discussed.
Matthew Sheffield, posting via Twitter provided the photo at left, and as you can plainly see, the line inside is gargantuan, and it extends out and around the building. Meanwhile, spotted in an brief press interview, Governor Palin said that a brokered convention would not be a negative for the Republican party.
You can watch the video of that brief exchange here:
Update: It’s now being reported there are three overflow rooms for the growing crowd waiting to hear Sarah Palin speak at CPAC.
Romney has fallen directly into the trap laid by CNN, and this clip will be used in Obama campaign ads on television indefinitely. This is the sort of thing Romney should have gone out of his way to avoid, and while I understand the point he was trying to make, his clumsy way of making that point will ultimately be used against him, and will play directly into Barack Obama’s class envy theme for the general election. Romney clearly has no idea what he’s just done to his own prospects, because when further questioned on it, he doubled down. Mitt Romney just doesn’t get it, and you can bet that will be the media refrain as they help Obama in September and October.
Exposing another lie, Dan Riehl exposes how Gingrich’s remarks are being taken out of context to create a false impression. The forces of Romney are desperate, aren’t they?
Clemson University is reporting the results of a poll that shows Gingrich up by six points over Romney in South Carolina. This tends to confirm suspicions that Gingrich may have stabilized despite attacks with a solidifying lead because Romney admitted earlier on Friday that Gingrich would win some primaries. Clemson’s Palmetto Poll evaluated the impact the revelations about Gingrich might have on the election outcome, but they still draw the same conclusions as in December, although it has closed:
“We expect a reaction by the electorate to the personal revelations about Gingrich to be registered on Saturday, however, we do not think it will be substantial enough to erase the lead Gingrich has over Romney,” said Clemson University political scientist Dave Woodard.
“Our head-to-head matchup of the candidates has consistently shown Mitt Romney competitive. The margin for Romney has evaporated this week, and we believe that Gingrich — who led our December poll with 38 percent to Romney’s 21 percent — will win the South Carolina primary,” he said.
In the newest poll, Gingrich had slipped to 32%, and Romney had climbed to 26%, meaning the race is tighter than a month ago, but considering the full-court press of negative advertising Romney had done throughout December, and has continued in New Hampshire and South Carolina, it’s not really surprising that this race has tightened, but the effect of the re-aired story of Gingrich’s second wife’s allegations surely had some effect. The Clemson poll showed respondents to this poll had the following priorities in choosing their candidates.
“After choosing a candidate, respondents gave a wide variety of answers as to what they liked most about the person they selected, but the two most popular appeared to be: “he has honesty and integrity” and “his overall political ideology” — meaning conservative principles.
“Much has been made of the ‘electability’ issue of the candidates, but in our poll the response: ‘He has the best chance of beating President Barack Obama,’” was the fourth choice of voters, after “‘He has better ideas for strengthening the economy,’” said Clemson political scientist Bruce Ransom.”
Saturday should be an interesting match-up, and Gingrich’s performance in Thursday night’s debate almost certainly helped him, while Romney’s performance was rather flat, and his meandering explanation of why he hasn’t released his tax returns is sure to take a toll on his support in the Palmetto state.
If you want to know a media outlet’s slant, just compare their headlines to the stories that accompany them for a little while, and you’ll know the truth. CNN is reporting that “Report: Iowa results show ‘virtual tie’ between Romney, Santorum,” because Santorum will actually be recorded as the victor by thirty-four votes, but back when the story from Iowa was different, showing a Romney victory by eight votes, we were instead treated to “Romney wins Iowa by Eight votes” and similar language. So what’s the point? When it was believed Romney had won Iowa by a slim eight votes, “a win’s a win,” but when Santorum turns out to have won by thirty-four, well, then it’s just a “virtual tie.”
To summarize:
Romney victory by 8? “Romney wins!”
Santorum victory by 34? “Virtual tie”
This is why the media is dangerous. Romney received almost all of the good press associated by having his name accompanied by the word “win,” but now that it turns out he didn’t, he will not be slapped with “loss” or “lose” and Rick Santorum will not get the acknowledgment of his victory that Romney had gotten. There won’t be any “Santorum Wins!” headlines over at CNN. Say what you will, but this, along with the Gingrich smear story that Drudge is still pushing, serve as just two small examples of how media uses headlines to push an agenda.
ABCNews is reporting that Todd Palin is endorsing Newt Gingrich in the primary for the GOP nomination. Coming ahead of Tuesday’s New Hampshire primary, this may provide something of a boost to Gingrich, because many Palin supporters have been holding off to see how the former Alaska Governor and 2008 Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin would endorse. That still hasn’t been answered, but the fact that Todd Palin is endorsing Gingrich will be seen by many so-called “Palinistas” as a tip to who Sarah Palin may herself endorse.
Barack Obama’s tyrannical actions must be challenged. This is going to be in the form of what Donald Rumsfeld once explained when he said to cat-calls: “You go to war with the army you have – not the army you might want or wish to have at a later time.” We are now in that sort of fix. John Boehner is a weak leader, at least in terms of his willingness to make waves or engage in battle, but this is no time for whimpering. President Obama has openly declared by his actions of Wednesday that the Constitution is fungible, and that he has no need to obey it due only to a technicality otherwise known as the law. This cannot be permitted to go without challenge, and whether the United States Senate will take it up or not, the Speaker of the House must move to begin impeachment proceedings on the basis of Barack Obama’s willful disobedience of the US Constitution. Members of Congress must assemble to denounce him, and this must be brought to the light of day. What Barack Obama has hereby argued is that the constitution only matters when he permits it to be the controlling legal authority, but that in all other cases, it is secondary to the whims of his willingness to enforce or abide by the law.
If you haven’t kept up with this issue, or like so many, haven’t heard a peep about it, let’s make it simple to understand: What’s at stake is our constitutional form of government, and the checks and balances about which you may have been taught when you were a child in school. Those checks and balances provide that presidents do not possess unlimited authority to act without reference to the other co-equal branches of government. What the President has done in this case is to make a “recess appointment” without the Senate actually being in recess. In so doing, he is violating the law, and he has more than one motive with this plot. Obama intends not only to give a new hand-out by virtue of mortgage write-downs for qualified persons, but also to set the precedent for undermining all law.
This is extraordinary, and for the President to undertake this action is a treason against the United States Constitution. What he is attempting to do is to pull the rug out from beneath his opponents by buying off enough of the electorate to swing the vote in his direction, and he’s willing to violate the law to carry it out. This sort of reckless indifference to the rule of law is unprecedented in American history, and it cannot be stated loudly enough or often enough that it must be opposed by every American, but particularly our political leadership. This demonic assault on the separation of powers embodied by our Constitutional Republic must not be permitted.
Congress must act. We haven’t the luxury of waiting for an election. Every member of Congress must stand and in one voice denounce this violation of law. Every American should be upset by this, because what it means is that one man, Barack Obama, has arrogated to himself the power of law. Ladies and gentlemen, let none persuade you that this had been a trivial matter. Presidents swear an oath to uphold the Constitution, and here, Barack Obama has taken it upon himself to simply ignore the law. At the American Center for Law and Justice has an excellent piece on the specifics here.
Let none be mistaken: Your lives are under attack by this action as surely as by the act of a foreign aggressor. If you’re not writing and calling and raising a ruckus, what you’re doing is to participate in the surrender of our nation. This isn’t just another act by Obama in defiance of some statute, or some judge’s ruling, all of which are bad enough to impeach him, but instead a direct head-on assault upon your US Constitution. Why do so many shrink from this? I realize the media is downplaying it for the most part, so it’s not really caught on with most people who aren’t even aware of the situation, much less its details. This, I submit to you, is when you can be most effective if you’re inclined to fight for your country. Pick up the phone, call your Representatives and Senators, call your friends and family, and call anybody you know who will give you a few minutes of their time.
Explain to them the simple facts, direct them to the ACLJ link above, and make it known that this is a serious issue with which we must contend. I read many oaths in the comments section, some of which do not get published because they’re too profane, but a constant theme is how you will fight for the country. This is one of those times. It’s Friday, and the press is putting the week to bed, but if you wanted to, by Monday morning the country could be a sea of uproar over this issue, with or without the media’s reporting.
I have long feared that for too long, this nation has suffered a surplus of sports fans and a dearth of active citizens. I would hate that my surmise had been proven correct over an issue of such glaring national effect. Will we have the rule of law, or the rule of one man? It’s time for you to decide. It’s time for you to place those calls. It’s time to make the start of a resistance to a growing, grasping dictatorship. Unopposed, he will grow to love his newly discovered power, and he will make ever greater use of it.
Hotair is reporting that Rick Santorum appears to have beaten Romney, but due to a typo, 20 votes were counted incorrectly. That’s astonishing, because it would flip it from a win by eight votes to a loss by twelve. At this hour, I have no further details, but this is an interesting story because it points out how close things really were, and how thoroughly weak the alleged “front-runner” is in fact.
This makes Santorum’s rise all the more astonishing, as it seems he pulled off the upset after all. I guess when you are willing to visit voters one at a time, you’re entitled to a positive turn of events.
As the media begins to go absolutely nuts over the idea that the President might declare an emergency and re-allocate military funds to build the wall, it would be useful to review all the sorts of authorities any President has in time of emergency. The radical statists who comprise the left are in favor of such power, but at the moment, such power, in the hands of President Trump, is contrary to their political interests. Their whole shtick is “resist.” Their rabid, anti-America base will oppose him simply because he’s not them. The NeverTrump republicans, including opportunists like Mitt Romney, will undoubtedly oppose him. Before the shrill voices grow louder, confounding our ability to understand the issue, let’s look at the law to see if we can easily surmise whether such an action by the President is authorized by the constitution. After all, the constitution must be our yardstick. With that in mind, let us examine why it is that President Trump is fully within the bounds of his constitutional authority to declare an emergency and build the wall, using the military to do so if need be.
