Biden


Recommended Posts

The Beatles.

ah

You say you want a revolution
Well, you know
We all want to change the world
You tell me that it's evolution
Well, you know
We all want to change the world
But when you talk about destruction
Don't you know that you can count me out

Don't you know it's gonna be
Alright
Alright
Alright

You say you got a real solution

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Peter said:

This is an old answer but may be relevant.

From Quora: Is it true that some states are going to "decertify" their electoral votes? James Keenly, BA History & English Literature, Northwestern University (1984). No, it’s utterly false. States do not have the ability to “decertify” their electoral votes, and even members of Congress do not have the ability to “decertify” the individual states’ electoral votes. All of the 538 electoral votes were cast, counted, and certified on December 14th. They cannot, and will not, be “decertified.” Congress will meet on January 6, 2021 to perform the official counting of the votes, in a process that is little more than a formality. While it’s true that an arcane section of federal law allows members of Congress to “object” to a given state’s electoral votes, that will have no effect on either a given state’s votes nor the outcome of the election. To move that process forward and have a state’s electoral votes set aside, it requires a majority vote in both houses of Congress. Given the fact that the Democrats hold a majority of seats in the House, the likelihood of their voting in favor is exactly z . . . .

Not really agreeing with that analysis but very appreciate the post! 

If I went this afternoon to a lawyers office and somehow managed to convince him to illegally transfer real estate to my name, and now I own 100 properties.

So then are you telling me that I can continue to own this real estate, because I have legal property rights, or are you telling me that my property rights are moot because the real estate transactions were fraudulent? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Peter said:

The Beatles.

ah

You say you want a revolution
Well, you know
We all want to change the world
You tell me that it's evolution
Well, you know
We all want to change the world
But when you talk about destruction
Don't you know that you can count me out

Don't you know it's gonna be
Alright
Alright
Alright

You say you got a real solution

"He said, quoting communist sympathizer John Lennon (while missing the forest for the trees...)"
Also Lennon on "revolutions":

Theme

Stridently political,[1] the song is a commentary/criticism on the difference between social classes. According to Lennon in an interview with Jann Wenner of Rolling Stone in December 1970, it is about working class individuals being processed into the middle classes, into the "machine".[2] Lennon also said, "I think it's a revolutionary song – it's really just revolutionary. I just think its concept is revolutionary. I hope it's for workers and not for tarts and fags. I hope it's about what Give Peace a Chance was about. But I don't know – on the other hand, it might just be ignored. I think it's for the people like me who are working class, who are supposed to be processed into the middle classes, or into the machinery. It's my experience, and I hope it's just a warning to people, Working Class Hero."[3]

The refrain of the song is "A working class hero is something to be".

The song was not Lennon's first political song. His string of political songs began in 1968 with the Beatles' "Revolution" and further continued in 1972 with the release of Some Time in New York City.[1]

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Marc said:

So then are you telling me that I can continue to own this real estate

Tell it to the judge. The Electoral College system is a bit weird and outdated but I don't see it changing soon. The American peoples 'will' could be expressed in doing what they tried to do with President Trump.  From Rasmussen Reports: President Biden Job Approval, Monday, September 27, 2021. Approve 40, Disapprove 58, Spread: Disapprove +18. If this trend continues . . . crap . . . I can't remember the term to kick someone out of office. 

edit. Impeachment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Revolution vs. Putsch

The New Left does not portend a revolution, as its press agents claim, but a Putsch. A revolution is the climax of a long philosophical development and expresses a nation’s profound discontent; a Putsch is a minority’s seizure of power. The goal of a revolution is to overthrow tyranny; the goal of a Putsch is to establish it.

Tyranny is any political system (whether absolute monarchy or fascism or communism) that does not recognize individual rights (which necessarily include property rights). The overthrow of a political system by force is justified only when it is directed against tyranny: it is an act of self-defense against those who rule by force. For example, the American Revolution. The resort to force, not in defense, but in violation, of individual rights, can have no moral justification; it is not a revolution, but gang warfare.

Tyranny is any political system (whether absolute monarchy or fascism or communism) that does not recognize individual rights (which necessarily include property rights). The overthrow of a political system by force is justified only when it is directed against tyranny: it is an act of self-defense against those who rule by force. For example, the American Revolution. The resort to force, not in defense, but in violation, of individual rights, can have no moral justification; it is not a revolution, but gang warfare. [“From a Symposium,” NL, 96.]

 

Ayn Rand, “From a Symposium,”
Return of the Primitive: The Anti-Industrial Revolution,

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

“I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.”

Jefferson—and the other Founding Fathers—meant it. They did not confine their efforts to the battle against theocracy and monarchy; they fought, on the same grounds, invoking the same principle of individual rights—against democracy, i.e., the system of unlimited majority rule. They recognized that the cause of freedom is not advanced by the multiplication of despots, and they did not propose to substitute the tyranny of a mob for that of a handful of autocrats . . . .

When the framers of the American republic spoke of “the people,” they did not mean a collectivist organism one part of which was authorized to consume the rest. They meant a sum of individuals, each of whom—whether strong or weak, rich or poor—retains his inviolate guarantee of individual rights.

http://cultureofreason.org/style/img/theominousparallels.jpg

Leonard Peikoff,
The Ominous Parallels, 111

---

"The world crisis of today is a moral crisis—and nothing less than a moral revolution can resolve it: a moral revolution to sanction and complete the political achievement of the American Revolution. Evasions, equivocations and guilty apologies will not work any longer."

Ayn Rand. For the new intellectual: the philosophy of Ayn Rand (Kindle Locations 879-880). New American Library.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, ThatGuy said:

Revolution vs. Putsch

The New Left does not portend a revolution, as its press agents claim, but a Putsch. A revolution is the climax of a long philosophical development and expresses a nation’s profound discontent; a Putsch is a minority’s seizure of power. The goal of a revolution is to overthrow tyranny; the goal of a Putsch is to establish it.

Tyranny is any political system (whether absolute monarchy or fascism or communism) that does not recognize individual rights (which necessarily include property rights). The overthrow of a political system by force is justified only when it is directed against tyranny: it is an act of self-defense against those who rule by force. For example, the American Revolution. The resort to force, not in defense, but in violation, of individual rights, can have no moral justification; it is not a revolution, but gang warfare.

Tyranny is any political system (whether absolute monarchy or fascism or communism) that does not recognize individual rights (which necessarily include property rights). The overthrow of a political system by force is justified only when it is directed against tyranny: it is an act of self-defense against those who rule by force. For example, the American Revolution. The resort to force, not in defense, but in violation, of individual rights, can have no moral justification; it is not a revolution, but gang warfare. [“From a Symposium,” NL, 96.]

 

Ayn Rand, “From a Symposium,”
Return of the Primitive: The Anti-Industrial Revolution,

""The effects of climate change are already here. On a new episode of #NewYorkerRadio, a climate activist suggests that the environmental movement rethink its roots in nonviolence and instead embrace 'intelligent sabotage.' Listen here."

 

TNY_final.jpg
WWW.NEWYORKER.COM

Andreas Malm insists that, instead of waiting on the Glasgow climate conference, environmentalists target fossil-fuel infrastructure. Also, a...

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, ThatGuy said:

Revolution vs. Putsch

The New Left does not portend a revolution, as its press agents claim, but a Putsch. A revolution is the climax of a long philosophical development and expresses a nation’s profound discontent; a Putsch is a minority’s seizure of power. The goal of a revolution is to overthrow tyranny; the goal of a Putsch is to establish it.

Tyranny is any political system (whether absolute monarchy or fascism or communism) that does not recognize individual rights (which necessarily include property rights). The overthrow of a political system by force is justified only when it is directed against tyranny: it is an act of self-defense against those who rule by force. For example, the American Revolution. The resort to force, not in defense, but in violation, of individual rights, can have no moral justification; it is not a revolution, but gang warfare.

Tyranny is any political system (whether absolute monarchy or fascism or communism) that does not recognize individual rights (which necessarily include property rights). The overthrow of a political system by force is justified only when it is directed against tyranny: it is an act of self-defense against those who rule by force. For example, the American Revolution. The resort to force, not in defense, but in violation, of individual rights, can have no moral justification; it is not a revolution, but gang warfare. [“From a Symposium,” NL, 96.]

 

Ayn Rand, “From a Symposium,”
Return of the Primitive: The Anti-Industrial Revolution,

https://twitter.com/KurtSchlichter/status/1442492103636881409?s=20https://twitter.com/FrischReport/status/1440614470703730688?s=20

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Peter said:

There are some predictions for a Republican House and Senate majority (it's now 50/50?) after the elections in 2022. After that, prepare for 2024!  

Unless we resolve Arizona and 3/11, 2022 will be a moot point and 2024 will not even happen.

Its now or never.

Jean-Claude Duvallier will be POTUS.

This is THAT hill, my friend.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If someone like or someone who actually is MTG isn't the Speaker , it won't much matter congressionally. A senate majority with Cocaine Mitch and letter writin' Lindsey ain't no way to save a republic.   (It would be better still to have an America first agenda amongst the board of Alphabet and Twitter and the FBorg).

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, tmj said:

If someone like or someone who actually is MTG isn't the Speaker , it won't much matter congressionally. A senate majority with Cocaine Mitch and letter writin' Lindsey ain't no way to save a republic.   (It would be better still to have an America first agenda amongst the board of Alphabet and Twitter and the FBorg).

Right? As if the treasonous RINO's have done so much for liberty up to now...

(But the Charlie Brown's keep on trying to kick that ball...)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Peter said:

This is an old answer but may be relevant.

From Quora: Is it true that some states are going to "decertify" their electoral votes? James Keenly, BA History & English Literature, Northwestern University (1984). No, it’s utterly false. States do not have the ability to “decertify” their electoral votes, and even members of Congress do not have the ability to “decertify” the individual states’ electoral votes. All of the 538 electoral votes were cast, counted, and certified on December 14th. They cannot, and will not, be “decertified.” Congress will meet on January 6, 2021 to perform the official counting of the votes, in a process that is little more than a formality. While it’s true that an arcane section of federal law allows members of Congress to “object” to a given state’s electoral votes, that will have no effect on either a given state’s votes nor the outcome of the election. To move that process forward and have a state’s electoral votes set aside, it requires a majority vote in both houses of Congress. Given the fact that the Democrats hold a majority of seats in the House, the likelihood of their voting in favor is exactly z . . . .

Peter,

It's not relevant. It's hogwash.

To use an analogy, your Quora BA essentially states that once I steal your car and falsify the license on it, I now own the car. You can't get it back. You can buy it from me, though.

:)

Fraud invalidates any and all legal processes.

Criminals may not like that. But that's the way it is.

What is the form for the remedy to this? Since this crime was so massive, it is a first and nobody knows. But one thing is for sure. Right and wrong exist. You cannot have law and have fraud, call them the same thing and say that is Constitutional. It isn't.

In other words, the Constitution was not created to be a vehicle to legitimize fraud. It was created to organize society around individual rights and checks and balances.

Fraud is not a proper check or balance. It is crime, the opposite of law.

Michael

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The certification was on January 6, not December 14. The latter was the preliminary count. Mike Pence had the power and frankly the duty to spike that. He fell down on that just like the SCOTUS did earlier by stating Texas had no standing in its lawsuit.

I don't see how decertification can end the Biden presidency. But de- legitimatization is in the cards.

--Brant

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

I don't see how decertification can end the Biden presidency. But de- legitimatization is in the cards.

Brant,

From what I have seen, the election does not get decertified. The electoral voters of a state do since they were certified under fraud. Decertification is a legal remedy for the fraud.

That removes that state's electoral votes from the electoral college tally for being illegitimate votes.

Whether the state will be allowed to present certified voters is one of the things up in the air.

Also, if the audits happen in all 50 states, or most of them, and massive fraud is found, they all could decertify their electoral college voters. Then we would have a Constitutional mess.

For Biden to continue under any of these proven fraud circumstances would be to demand the law be preserved by fraud. Form without content, so to speak. A constitutional structure to legitimize fraud. A full-blown contradiction.

And heaven for wannabe dictators.

Presumably, this is where SCOTUS would make a ruling. 

But civil war works, too. :) 

Michael

 

EDIT: Let's not forget that a core part of decertifying electoral college electors will be criminal referrals, investigations and convictions. Not of the electors themselves, but of the people who made it so they could be appointed fraudulently.

EDIT 2: In the video below, Arizona State Senator Sonny Borelli gives a much better explanation of this process than I did. He also explained that "decertify" is the wrong term. The correct term is to nullify the parts of the election that are proven fraudulent, then reclaim the affected electoral college electors.

To my ear, on a word level alone, that even sounds better. :) 

And he talks about how the media is misrepresenting all this up the wazoo.

bkItc.qR4e.jpg
RUMBLE.COM

Leftist Media Conducting Psychological Warfare After AZ Audit

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't like the idea of another insurrection or Civil War. The President is Commander in Chief of all the armed services in America. If a section of the military's commanders decide the election was fraudulent and attack Washington Biden better get General Grant to lead and Trump will need a modern day Robert E. Lee.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Peter said:

I don't like the idea of another insurrection or Civil War.

Peter,

I don't either.

In fact, who does?

I also don't like massive fraud in choosing a Commander in Chief, especially of the armed forces. That's a lot of fire power for a criminal to hold.

Are you comfortable saluting a superior officer who got there by breaking the very law you are sworn to protect and uphold?

In my understanding, the fundamental oath is to uphold the Constitution and the Laws of the United States, not ignore them. And certainly not uphold any particular person.

So best to use the laws to take out the gangsters, no?

Enter election audits, due process etc., the very things you said you wanted me to stop posting about...

But they sure as hell beat assassinations and civil war. 

Ignore that at your peril. Nature will not be denied. Especially not human nature. If the laws are continually flouted by the leaders on a fundamental level, like a credible election system based on objective rules and laws, assassinations and civil war will be the result. That's just what humans do.

And not just good guys. Hell, even the gangsters who take over governments by fraud luv them some assassinations...

No opinion or syllogism on earth will stop that from happening.

Only a fair rule of law where all citizens have equal rights will. I don't mean just on paper. 

Michael

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Peter said:

I don't like the idea of another insurrection or Civil War. The President is Commander in Chief of all the armed services in America. If a section of the military's commanders decide the election was fraudulent and attack Washington Biden better get General Grant to lead and Trump will need a modern day Robert E. Lee.

Is an insurrection something that is orchastrated by one side and then call in Congress in the middle of the night ( by the same side) to certify the election right as the speaker knew that Sydney Powell was going to go to the courts after documents were served? 

We are in the midst of a civil war, not just in the US, but world wide.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Was Ike's farewell address the first shot across the bow? Was JFK another salvo? The Tea Party movement another?

I think in some sense(s) the world is /has always been embroiled in a civil war between the haves and the have nots, the redirection of that cliche was perpetrated by the haves . The redirection was framing of it in economic class warfare, it isn't. The perpetual struggle is between those that have power and those that do not.

Scott Adams was right when he described Trump as tearing a giant, glaring, gaping hole in the fabric of reality. And a shit ton more people are starting to peer in , that's a very good thing.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
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