Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Now I really don't understand.

"Memories. Like the borders of my mind." No masks. Less than six feet distance between humans. Hugging. Cheek kissing  . . . equals BAD judgement. Oh, Michael . . .  where hath thou . . .   

  • Smile 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Another reason to look at the goings on around the Q Continuum is to understand the psychology of others, since we do, after all, live in a society where both the leadership and voters have an impact

With the metaphysical threats of China, the wuflu attack on western civilization, the rise of a brazen global oligarchy, and totalitarian ideas like the Great Reset, and the recent elections and kanga

ThatGuy, Since World War II the U.S. has been in a new phase of degradation to which Rand was pretty much oblivious.   Socialism vs. Capitalism, Left vs. Right, Liberal vs. Conservative is now ju

Posted Images

5 hours ago, Peter said:

"Memories. Like the borders of my mind." No masks. Less than six feet distance between humans. Hugging. Cheek kissing  . . . equals BAD judgement. Oh, Michael . . .  where hath thou . . .   

Peter,

What a great example.

From the way you tell the story, what part of it is fact and what part is spin?

I bet this is the first time for that story this thought has come up for you.

The grand lady says, "Check your premises."

It's a good habit to get into...

:) 

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Strictlylogical said:

philosophy perhaps has run its course?

SL,

:) 

I wouldn't take it that far.

:) 

Besides, there is a rule of thumb I believe is always good to follow, especially with philosophy. When a person habitually says one thing and it conflicts with what a person habitually does, what the person does is the better indication of what the person truly believes and will do in the future.

A good example with Rand is that she constantly said evil was impotent. Yet in most of her fiction, one of the main conflicts is between a virtuous individual and an evil state. And the evil state was always there. It was not impotent, but always survived.

Her portrayal of the people running the evil state was great for illuminating one part of their souls, it was deeply insightful, but when I look out at reality, I see more. I see control freaks really get off when they abuse power. Their pleasure is visible.

So Rand believed in the power of evil. But she did not want to give it credit for anything.

Someone like Bill Gates did not compute for her. Robert Stadler is close, but he did not have a sadistic Lex Luther-like thirst for ruling the world like Gates has. Nor the messianic complex. Nor the visible transcendence when he felt powerful (like typical villains do when they go bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha... :) ).

Rand's evil monster was a drooling mindless beast, not a wicked smart technocrat with a ferocious sociopathic appetite for power, including lethal power over masses.

Weirdly enough, though, without Rand's philosophy, I don't believe the rational virtuous successful businessman producer would have become an archetype. All successful corporation owners would be treated as evil bullies chasing a buck like they still are in many stories in mainstream entertainment.

I don't believe the difference between American capitalism and what the fake news media calls Chinese Communist capitalism would have been so clear to so many without philosophy, so much so that President Trump had no difficulty selling the vileness of the CCP model of business to his supporters and stop their self-proclaimed intention to take over America.

That's still not clear to many people, including people within the O-Land community, just like they don't see the difference between a truly free-market capitalist like Trump was before becoming president and crony capitalists like George Soros and big tech owners. 

But enough people see it to make a difference. I believe Rand had a large hand in that, even among people who have not read her works.

She used philosophy to show, not just tell. Others picked up on it and showed in their own manners. And so on.

That's culturally powerful stuff.

Michael

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

When a person habitually says one thing and it conflicts with what a person habitually does, what the person does is the better indication of what the person truly believes and will do in the future.

A good example with Rand is that she constantly said evil was impotent. Yet in most of her fiction, one of the main conflicts is between a virtuous individual and an evil state. And the evil state was always there. It was not impotent, but always survived.

Her portrayal of the people running the evil state was great for illuminating one part of their souls, it was deeply insightful, but when I look out at reality, I see more. I see control freaks really get off when they abuse power. Their pleasure is visible.

So Rand believed in the power of evil. But she did not want to give it credit for anything.

Someone like Bill Gates did not compute for her. Robert Stadler is close, but he did not have a sadistic Lex Luther-like thirst for ruling the world like Gates has. Nor the messianic complex. Nor the visible transcendence when he felt powerful (like typical villains do when they go bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha... :) ).

Rand's evil monster was a drooling mindless beast, not a wicked smart technocrat with a ferocious sociopathic appetite for power, including lethal power over masses.

Hmmm...Gates's critics have claimed that he himself was not so much an innovator as much as an appropriator of other's work. Or, to reluctantly paraphrase Hussein Obama, "he didn't build that." :P

But then again, maybe he DID contribute some things on his own initiative. Taking that premise, and the Stadler comparison...I mentioned in another thread that Rand's framework is a reaction to Christianity, with a nod to Nietzsche, and that Jordan Peterson has said that we're culturally Christians in America. And Christians believe in a strict separation of good and evil (and the knowledge of being the "forbidden fruit"...)
So was it inevitable that Rand's conception would use that same framework?

Rand said that evil was impotent, and yet, she was preoccupied with it. Nathaniel Branden had even pointed out how many times the word was used in ATLAS. (I don't remember the count.) Sure, she said that evil only got by with the "sanction of the victim", but that also implicates the victims as evil for allowing the sanction...

Here, I have to point out that Rand didn't say that evil PEOPLE are impotent, not directly, but that evil itself was impotent, in the sense that it can't create, but destroy. Or, since evil is not an abstract devil, at least not in her philosophy, despite the Christian influence, the USE of evil, meaning irrational, in her view, only leads to destruction, not creation. But then, since people do have free will, and can make errors of knowledge AND breaches of morality, they can wind up using both rationality AND irrationality, and be capable of both good AND evil.

Which brings me to my point: because Rand was reacting against Christianity, she ultimately was using its framework.  But like Christians, she also believed in free will. So, why couldn't it have been a case of people having the power to be both good AND evil?
I don't remember the exact quote, but she did say something about morality being absolute, that one can't be 99% rational in one area, but backslide on a particular issue without consequence. So, while she sometimes gave lip service to "variations inbetween" a particular set of opposites, she still treated good and evil in strict divisions, black and white, no grey...(which is odd, in a way. Chris Matthew Sciabarra has written that Rand was a destroyer of false dichotomies, via the absorbtion of dialectics from her Russian professor, but on good and evil, she seems to accept that dichotomy. Perhaps she simply didn't see it as a FALSE dichotomy. Or, maybe there's something in that Russian sense of life; I can't remember exactly, but someone once said that,  Rand was still a VERY Russian writer, that she never lost that completely
...)

But what if  she had been reacting to Taoism instead of Christianity? Taoists, with its yin-yang symbol, don't believe so much in a strict "good vs. evil" as much as they do light and dark being interdependent on each other. But then, Rand outright dismissed eastern religions in ATLAS, pretty much mocking it. She didn't give it the same consideration as Christianity (she almost included a reformed Thomist priest in the Gulch before changing her mind), but she near mocked Buddhism. So much so that I wonder if she wasn't attacking the real thing as much as a straw-man conception of it.

(Maybe Rand was right about Buddhism, but then, she's been challenged on her accusations against Kant, so there's that. Or maybe it's something in the middle. Some say that Rand was reacting to bad interpretations or misrepensations of  Kant via Nietzsche or Shopenhauer, so maybe the same thing is going in her interpretations of Buddhism.)

I don't know enough about eastern religions to say this for certain, just a theory. But just that surface-level difference in the approach to good and evil shows how Christianity influenced her approach, and how maybe if she had looked at another version, she might have modified it to something less abstract.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's instructive to revisit The Fountainhead and see how Elsworth Toohey takes over The Banner only to have Gail Wynand  pull the plug or remove the sanction. Today the Tooheys have taken over the country, but it's up to Americans to remove the sanction.

Rand hung her whole philosophy on the impotence of evil and the sanction of the victim. Fundamentally she got it right, but no one that's not you is going to save your ass.

--Brant

we all sanction somethings we shouldn't and pay a price in potency

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

From the way you tell the story, what part of it is fact and what part is spin?

I saw hugging, kissing on the cheek, no social distancing and few if any mask on "that day" . . . on TV . . . with my own eyes. Of course it could have all been special effects.    

  • Smile 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The process is slow but it is moving along. Peter

From The Blaze: The Supreme Court is scheduled to consider a handful of high-profile election challenges at its mid-February conference taking place this week. If the court chooses to accept any of the lawsuits, they will likely be heard and decided in October. The cases include lawsuits filed by pro-Trump attorneys Lin Wood and Sidney Powell in Georgia and Michigan, a lawsuit filed by Pennsylvania Republican state Rep. Mike Kelly, and two lawsuits filed in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania by former President Donald Trump's campaign.

The lawsuits collectively allege that unlawful conduct took place in several battleground states during the 2020 presidential election, such as the unconstitutional expansion of mail-in voting by state election officials, the failure to enforce security measures for mail-in ballots, the denial of meaningful access for Republican poll watchers, and technical issues involving voting machines.

After the lawsuits were rejected by lower courts in the weeks following the election, attorneys representing plaintiffs in the lawsuits made their appeals to the Supreme Court in short order, but the court opted not to consider the cases during a turbulent transition period. Now, all of the cases mentioned above are scheduled for a conference taking place this Friday, February 19, according to records on the Supreme Court's website.

In nearly every plea, attorneys backing Trump's election challenges insisted their cases be heard prior to President Joe Biden's inauguration on Jan. 20, or else their success would be unlikely, the Washington Examiner reported. However, even now that Biden's inauguration has come and gone, the lawsuits have not been withdrawn.

"Our legal issue remains important and in need of the court's review," Trump lawyer John Eastman told the Examiner in reference to Pennsylvania's handling of the 2020 election. Kelly's lawyer Greg Teufel added that he has no plans to drop the lawsuit. The attorneys likely believe their lawsuits can set in motion the advance of election security legislation even if they did not affect the 2020 presidential election, as originally intended. Even now, Republican lawmakers across the country are pushing for legislation to reform elections, especially reining in widespread mail-in voting.

Link to post
Share on other sites

FYI, a couple links.  I don’t know what’s said in either, since you have to sign in to watch the first or read the second.

Lin Wood Fireside Chat 12 | Doubling Down on Justice Roberts, Mike Pence’s Betrayal, and Election Fraud

Quote

Rumble — The attorney Lin Wood shares his thoughts about the allegations against Justice Roberts, Mike Pence’s betrayal, why world-wide CEOs are resigning, deep fakes, why his ability to practice law is being threatened, and how he plans to protect attorney Sidney Powell who is being sued by DOMINION for $1.3 billion and by SMARTMATIC for over $1 billion

Epoch Times: Trump: GOP won’t win if they stick with McConnell, plans to back MAGA primary challengers

Ellen

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/13/2021 at 9:29 PM, anthony said:

I suspect everything that comes from CNN, and have avoided them like the plague, but sometimes they and the WaPo have to get some thing right. I've not seen this item get ANY exposure. Back in January, it is generally known to you guys, right? "Were not incited" - "part of a preplanned conspiracy".

https://capitalismmagazine.us12.list-manage.com/track/click?u=e6daac5bbabca715ce33f553e&id=f55b06a9b9&e=1ce5f80967

 

On 2/13/2021 at 11:22 PM, Ellen Stuttle said:

Note that the WaPo article quoted refers to 

"The arrests this weekend of several people with alleged ties to far-right extremist groups, including the Oath Keepers, the Proud Boys and the Three Percenters..."

Looks to me like preparation for classifying those groups as "domestic terrorism" organizations.

Ellen


Gateway Pundit article from today (2/16/21):

House Democrat Bennie Thompson Sues Trump and Giuliani; Accuses Former President and His Attorney of Conspiring With Proud Boys and Oath Keepers to Incite Capitol Riot

Quote

Thompson is suing Trump, Giuliani, the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers in his personal capacity, accusing the defendants of conspiracy to incite the riot and violating the Ku Klux Klan Act.

...

INTRODUCTION

1. On and before January 6, 2021, the Defendants Donald J. Trump, Rudolph W. Giuliani, Proud Boys, and Oath Keepers conspired to incite an assembled crowd to march upon and enter the Capitol of the United States for the common purpose of disrupting, by the use of force, intimidation and threat, the approval by Congress of the count of votes cast by members of the Electoral College as required by Article II, Section 1 of the United States Constitution. In doing so, the Defendants each intended to prevent, and ultimately delayed, members of Congress from discharging their duty commanded by the United States Constitution to approve the results of the Electoral College in order to elect the next President and Vice President of the United States.

 

Ellen

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

Ah, there was a twisted method in the MSM's truth madness. Now it is no longer only Trump's "incitement" of his general followers, we can now place Trump in bed with 'his' extremists. Giuliani said something interesting at the time, something like, by definition, the true Trump supporters wouldn't have been violent at the Capitol. I believe this in general.

As if a leader can and must be held responsible for everyone of his voters. Save me from my followers (AR)

How 'bout impeaching Kamala Harris? She gleefully told an interviewer in November that BLM/Antifa rioters (um, peaceful protestors) "should continue what they are doing" until during and after the election. Why? Clearly she saw some tactical gain.

Sanction of violence by a public official. Incitement, intimidation of opposition voters?

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/14/2021 at 5:33 AM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Tony,

Good God!

Capitalism Magazine used to be an ARI-friendly magazine.

What happened?

President Trump is supposed to be the equivalent of the Objectivist Satan to them.

:)

At least someone over there has some sense. On looking deeper, I see it's Andrew Bernstein.

That explains it. He's cool, although I have an issue or two with mixing Greek Gods and college basketball and tacking the handle Swoop on it.

:)

I noticed a few weeks ago on Facebook he started changing his mind about President Trump based on what he saw, started questioning the hatred, and started getting duly blasted by the "don't you dare" crowd.

He has now committed the ultimate sin and is looking with his own eyes. There is no turning back from that...

Michael

I didn't know much about Bernstein apart from a few articles, nor his affiliations, but it looks like he has distinctly broken ranks with the Orthodoxy. He wrote a very good essay arguing why collectivism is the greater evil, and sure enough Binswanger entered in a debate to (not effectively) counter that.

Seriously? It is controversial for O'ists to support individualism (by the dreaded religious conservatives) over collectivism (by the Left)?

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, anthony said:

Giuliani said something interesting at the time, something like, by definition, the true Trump supporters wouldn't have been violent at the Capitol. I believe this in general.

From Fox News: The Republican Party appears split after Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and former President Donald Trump exchanged harsh statements following Trump's impeachment acquittal by the Senate over the weekend, and Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., told "Hannity" Tuesday the feud has got to stop. "Mitch McConnell working with Donald Trump did a hell of a job. They’re now at each other’s throat," he said. "I’m more worried about 2022 than I’ve ever been. I don’t want to eat our own." "President Trump is the most consequential Republican in the party," Graham continued. "If Mitch McConnell doesn’t understand that, he’s missing a lot ... We need to knock this off."

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/16/2021 at 7:09 PM, Ellen Stuttle said:

FYI, a couple links.  I don’t know what’s said in either, since you have to sign in to watch the first or read the second.

Lin Wood Fireside Chat 12 | Doubling Down on Justice Roberts, Mike Pence’s Betrayal, and Election Fraud

Ellen,

I didn't have to sign in to watch the video on Rumble. I wasn't signed into Rumble and I clicked on the link you gave. It took me to the video. Then I clicked on play and the video started. 

As to the article at The Epoch Times, here is the link on the Wayback Machine.

:) 

For articles behind a paywall or where you need to sign up, bookmark the following link. Seriously. This is a great bookmark.

Archive Today 

Here's how to use it. Copy the URL of an article that is behind a paywall and paste it into the second field at Archive Today, not the first field. The second field is labeled "I want to search the archive for saved snapshots." Most of the time a link to the saved article will appear, sometimes with several options of the same article. Click and read.

If the article link does not appear, but instead a page saying "No Results" does, there are several links you can choose from on that page: 

search this url in Google Cache
search this url in Archive.Org
search this url in WebCite
search this url in Megalodon

That is where I got the Wayback Machine (archive.org) link for you.

That works for WSJ and many other sites. And it's all legal.

:) 

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

Gateway Pundit article from today (2/16/21):

House Democrat Bennie Thompson Sues Trump and Giuliani; Accuses Former President and His Attorney of Conspiring With Proud Boys and Oath Keepers to Incite Capitol Riot

Quote

Thompson is suing Trump, Giuliani, the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers in his personal capacity, accusing the defendants of conspiracy to incite the riot and violating the Ku Klux Klan Act.

...

INTRODUCTION

1. On and before January 6, 2021, the Defendants Donald J. Trump, Rudolph W. Giuliani, Proud Boys, and Oath Keepers conspired to incite an assembled crowd to march upon and enter the Capitol of the United States for the common purpose of disrupting, by the use of force, intimidation and threat, the approval by Congress of the count of votes cast by members of the Electoral College as required by Article II, Section 1 of the United States Constitution. In doing so, the Defendants each intended to prevent, and ultimately delayed, members of Congress from discharging their duty commanded by the United States Constitution to approve the results of the Electoral College in order to elect the next President and Vice President of the United States.

 

Expand  

Ellen

Ellen,

This will be a great thing if dork Thomson persists. I don't think this will go far, though.

Just think about the discovery phase. All the rebuttal evidence will go into a court record the court will not be able to ignore on a technicality.

And, man, is there a ton of it.

:)

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites

With the passing of Rush Limbaugh, President Trump did some media rounds today (Sean Hannity, Newsmax, etc.).

It was great to hear him again.

He mostly talked about Rush and his legacy, but in his interview with Greg Kelly, he openly said (I paraphrase) the election of Biden was a disgrace of corruption and dishonesty. And he intends to see it righted.

He also mocked Biden, who recently said there was no coronavirus vaccine before he took office. President Trump said that was funny since Biden got a shot before the inauguration.

:) 

I have a feeling he is now going to come back into the spotlight. Especially since the swamp idiocy of impeachment tanked and drained away.

If that happens, there will be more to post about. With Biden, I just don't feel like doing much about him or his bogus administration. If a real threat arises that cannot be easily undone by Trump or the MAGA people after things straighten out, I will probably start in.

Barring that, I will be focusing on normal OL things and Trump as he reemerges. This is no longer about hope like it was before the inauguration. It's about taking power back from cheaters and revenge. Which includes, of course, the gradual destruction of the Biden cartel when substantial blows happen.

Michael

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

A bag man for the Deep State goes down.

Convicted fundraiser who tried to work his way into Biden's inner circle sentenced to prison

The press is trying to spin this by painting Imaad Zuberi as a greedy sleazy mercenary, but notice that the politicians he raised foreign money for were all Deep State friendly.

If greed were the only issue, the political side would not be so important.

He must have pissed off someone important in the Deep State or he is taking the fall for someone higher up. I no longer believe in blind justice at the DOJ's law enforcement division. It's all polluted by swamp politics over there. The US DOJ law enforcement is nothing more than the muscle for swamp racketeers.

So Zuberi's fall is not much. I have no doubt he is guilty of breaking laws, but he was not too important. I also believe he's been targeted solely for political reasons.

However, it's something...

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites


Lin Wood re Q - link:

 

======

"I have been repeatedly accused of being a 'QAnon conspiracy theorist' by the enemy. I have never exactly understood why the propaganda media decided to make that accusation against me.

"On Twitter, I did have on my profile WWG1WGA. I proudly adopted that statement, 'Where we go one, we go all.' To me, it conveyed UNITY. I posted it after I saw Lt. Gen. Mike Flynn and his family take that pledge. I love and admire General Flynn. He loves liberty and God. So do I. 

"I know that TRUTH gets suppressed and censored by the enemy. I fight against pedophilia and child sex trafficking. I have been censored and banned by Twitter. I am attacked constantly by the enemy in a futile effort to suppress my right of free speech. 

"I am curious. What is the position of 'QAnon conspiracy theorists' on pedophilia and child sex trafficking?

"Asking for a friend."
 

 

======

Ellen

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

[Quoting Lin Wood]

"I am curious. What is the position of 'QAnon conspiracy theorists' on pedophilia and child sex trafficking?

"Asking for a friend."

Ellen,

If Lin Wood means: what is the position of people who take Q seriously on pedophilia and child sex trafficking?, it's obvious they despise it and want to eradicate it. (Ditto for me.) They especially find it heinous among the elitists and oligarchy since it doubles as a blackmail mechanism to keep people in power doing what their back room masters want done.

If Lin Wood means: what is the position of people who think Q is a conspiracy theory and nothing more on pedophilia and child sex trafficking?, they either love it or tolerate it in others as nothing too serious. The proof is they practice it or hang around with those who do and treat them as normal.

These last attack Q so hard not because of "hate," which is what they always say, but because Q attacks pedophilia and child sex trafficking and they feel threatened by that.

That hate charge is rich, too. I can't think of anything that displays hatred of fellow humans more than systemic abuse of children and human trafficking.

I need to catch up on Lin... He's one of my modern heroes. 

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites

From Sarah Huckabee Sanders who is running for Governor of the State of Arkansas: It's never been clearer: Republicans need to stand up and call out the media bias. They're twisting the truth, ignoring facts, and distracting the entire nation from the REAL problems facing our country. We cannot allow it to continue. We must stand up - as President Trump did. It needs to be all of us now.

As Governor, I will always fight back against media bias, but Peter, there’s so much more I plan to fight for in Arkansas. . . . . I couldn’t be more excited to share more with you about my plans to stand up to the radical left and fight for our country . . . .  As governor, I will defend your right to be free of socialism and tyranny, your Second Amendment right to keep your family safe, and your freedom of speech and religious liberty.

I will not be intimidated by the serious challenges we face. I will stand with our brave law enforcement officers, promote law and order, and keep our communities safe by eliminating sanctuary cities. I will fight back against the radical, socialist policies that threaten to destroy our jobs, and I will take on the bureaucracy and make government accountable to you. I will lower taxes to reward hard work, allow our businesses to compete, grow, and prosper, and create more good jobs.

Link to post
Share on other sites

At this very moment, SCOTUS is discussing the fate of several lawsuits about the election fraud of 2020, including Lin Wood's case. He made a couple of posts on Telegram while he is waiting.

First:

Quote

Many are watching and waiting on the U.S. Supreme today. In its conference, the Court will decide whether the cases from GA, Michigan, and Pennsylvania will proceed.

If the Court says NO, we will know the majority of the Court is corrupt. The cases are based on established, black letter law. The elections in those states were illegal and unconstitutional. They changed the election rules without approval of the state legislatures.

If the Court decides the cases will proceed, we will not know for sure if a majority of the Court is corrupt until final decisions are issued which could take months. Remember the decision in Obamacare?

Maybe the Court will allow the cases to proceed and buy time before the corrupt justices are exposed.

If the majority in the Court is not corrupt, a ruling should be issued today in Pennsylvania case. GA and Michigan should have cert granted with a reversal and remand to follow law in Pennsylvania case.

We are going to learn a great deal about the majority of our Supreme Court justices today whatever the rulings may be.

Keep praying that justice is done today.

God bless you. - Lin 🙏❤️🇺🇸
t.me/linwoodspeakstruth
/770
214.3Kviews
Feb 19 at 14:20

And second:

Quote

I have concerns about the following members of the U.S. Supreme Court:

Roberts (you know why)

Breyer (anti-Trumper)

Barrett (nomination and confirmation pushed by McConnell)

Kavanaugh (tied to Bush 43)

Sotomayor (attended what may have been fake Bribes inauguration proceeding & appointed by Obama)

Gorsuch (who knows - flip-flopper)

Kagan (nominated by Obama)

I have confidence in Alito (based on earlier PA injunction ruling)

I have confidence in Thomas (Patriot)

The Federalist Society has had TOO MUCH influence on recent SCOTUS nominations. That needs to change in the future.

The U.S. Supreme Court should never be guided by politics The rule of law is nonpartisan.

Lin 🙏❤️🇺🇸
t.me/linwoodspeakstruth
/771
165.1Kviews
edited  Feb 19 at 14:50

Lin bow his head to God, but does not bow his head to human authority.

Not even when they sit in legal judgment over him.

To say I resonate with this is an understatement.

Michael

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

To say I resonate with this is an understatemen

Amen brudda. That's Hawaiian for brother, though I only visited Oahu.

Michael. Damn! It’s years away but “they” are already “neutralizing” Ted Cruz for President in 2024. Spit. Sputter. Senator Cruz? You dirty rat. How could you take your kids to Cancun in the middle of a cold snap and lack of water? If DJT doesn’t run in 2024, who can we call on? Ghost Busters?
 

From Rand Paul. Dr. Paul- It’s Time to End the Forever Wars Now. Time is up to end our endless wars and return our troops back home. As I stated in the piece for Center for National Interest, “After almost twenty years, we have lost over 7,000 killed, suffered over 50,000 wounded, and spent over $5.4 trillion, in Iraq and Afghanistan alone. And that doesn’t even account for our total human and monetary costs in the greater Middle East over the same period of time."

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry about joking  / wishing Rand Paul was vying for President in 2024. It is probable a Libertarian Republican would not be voted IN by a percentage of Republicans. But of course, he is an excellent human being who would carry on the Trump legacy of making Americans freer, safer, and better off.  Sorry Rand. But who else is out there? Peter

Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like we will only find out something about the cases being discussed by SCOTUS on Thursday.

More from Lin on Telegram, all self-explanatory.

First.

Quote

No word from SCOTUS yet on whether they will allow the election cases to proceed.

The cases were set for conference today and while I claim no firsthand knowledge of how the Court operates, I assume the Justices confer together in private.

Perhaps we will learn the decisions on Monday on whether the writs of certiorari will be granted. If so, the cases can proceed.

A grant of certiorari requires that a minimum of 4 Justices vote in favor of granting the review.

Hope that helps.
t.me/linwoodspeakstruth
/773
265.9Kviews
Feb 19 at 18:43

 

Second.

Quote

Thanks for sharing the notice below, Holly. My educated guess form this notice is that ORDERS granting or denying certiorari review will be issued Monday. OPINIONS in certain cases will be issued next Thursday.

SCOTUS has very little transparency in how it functions. In my opinion, ALL courts should be considerably more transparent. I believe public confidence in the judiciary would increase as transparency increases.

After all, We The People pay their salaries and let them wear fancy black robes to convey in part that Justices are important,

Are they that special and important? Yes and no. We need referees to honestly enforce the rules but the game belongs to the players, not the referees.

Judges and Justices are no better than any one of us. They are people too. We just let them be referees.

Maybe the answer is to establish courts that truly answer to We The People. Perhaps a network of “Courts of the People” where disagreements can quickly and fairly resolved without the expense and delay that results from lawyers being involved.

Then we could enact my “Modified Shakespearean” rule. We could get rid of 95% of the lawyers. Wow. Wouldn’t that make our country less litigious and more civil to each other?

Maybe its my advocacy for serious reforms in the legal profession that has the State Bar of Georgia up in arms against me?!?

Uh oh, fewer lawyers would reduce the Bar’s revenue from license fees. etc.

Lawyers Club of Atlanta would also have fewer members and could not serve as much free booze and fancy foods at its annual “Holiday” party . . .

Just sayin’ . . .

Lin 🙏❤️🇺🇸
www.fightback.law
t.me/linwoodspeakstruth
/774
215.3Kviews
Feb 19 at 19:26

 

Third.

Quote

Forwarded from Holly Donovan

image.png

PLEASE LET LIN KNOW...this is on their website...WE HAVE TO WAIT TIL NEXT THURSDAY
t.me/linwoodspeakstruth
/775
229.1Kviews
Feb 19 at 19:26

For them to close the Supreme Court building itself means heavy news, one way or the other.

But it's not balanced. I think the Patriot side is so disgusted with SCOTUS, the risk of violence if they do not let the cases go forward is minimal. But I can see the left erupting like all hell let loose at once if they do.

I don't know if the people who control building access (and their bosses) see what I see, but I strongly suspect they do.

So until we know something for sure, I'll be in "I don't know" land, but leaning toward SCOTUS letting the cases go forward. Hope is alive for that.

To repeat what Lin said above: "A grant of certiorari requires that a minimum of 4 Justices vote in favor of granting the review."

That means to me that 2 are in the can (Alito and Thomas), and only 2 that President Trump appointed are needed to meet the minimum. Or any two Justices that get an attack of integrity, of course.

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's been a real pain waiting for crap like the impeachment circus and the SCOTUS schedule, etc., but things are starting to happen.

“Never Mistake My Quiet for Inaction” – Sidney Powell Speaks Out After SCOTUS Meetings Friday on Election Fraud — Expects Orders and Opinions Next Week

Quote

Attorney Sidney Powell, who was silent all day on Friday, posted updates on her Telegram page on Friday night.

Sidney Powell told her subscribers on Telegram that she expects orders to come out on Monday of next week. Sidney Powell expects opinions to be announced on Thursday.

image.png

image.png

Later, we can write a story about this episode. Maybe call it The Silence of the Kraken...

That will be the one right before Kraken Rising...

:)

On a serious note, it was damn good to hear Sidney talk about this.

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now