Deep State Unraveling

[william.scherk]

Rush Limbaugh on the Supreme Court, Deep State. I found two items that might be what Ellen seeks. 

1 hour ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

Somewhere in a post within the last few days, I think I noticed someone saying that Rush Limbaugh called all the Supreme Court Justices deep staters.  I was just glancing through some posts rapidly when I noticed that comment (as I recall), but I haven’t been able to find it.  Maybe it was on a Twitter thread someplace else.  Or maybe I'm misremembering.  Does anyone have a reference to Limbaugh remarks about the Supreme Court ruling in the Texas (et. al.) suit?

I found a Rush transcript (from Dec 16) that says this: "I think the Supreme Court is so invested in Democrats controlling things and the deep state being put back in power that the assumption that the Supreme Court would not want to touch this is a long shot."

In context (title is 'The Turtle Is Determined to Stop the One Long-Shot Scenario Left for Trump'):

The 'Show Notes' from the Rush Limbaugh podcast posted Dec 16 includes this summary description of the first hour of this program:

Quote

Rush apologizes for missing a few days. Rush takes on the secession controversy. Rush is not for secession! Montage of media saying Rush is for secession. Geraldo, Martha MacCallum, Meet the Press on Rush. Rachel Maddow tries to explain the magic of Rush, fails spectacularly. The Supreme Court rejected the Texas case because the court, like the rest of Washington, wants to get rid of Trump. The Turtle congratulates Biden and Harris. Washington Establishment, Deep State wants to get rid of Trump, happy to have Biden as president and use the Hunter Biden crimes as leverage to control him. When California liberals discuss secession, nobody said a word. Billionaire Bill Gates says we should close down restaurants and bars for 6 months.

The Rush Limbaugh Show Podcast - Dec 15 2020 from The Rush Limbaugh Show | Podcast Episode on Podbay

-- Michael has also served some Rush immediately below this comment.

Edited December 17, 2020 by william.scherk
Added note

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

(NOTE: William's post and mine crossed just now.)

1 hour ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

WHY did the three Trump appointees accede in the verdict???

Ellen,

I have no idea. But I am almost sure they will regret their decision in the end and issue some blah blah blah about it.

1 hour ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

Somewhere in a post within the last few days, I think I noticed someone saying that Rush Limbaugh called all the Supreme Court Justices deep staters.  I was just glancing through some posts rapidly when I noticed that comment (as I recall), but I haven’t been able to find it.  Maybe it was on a Twitter thread someplace else.  Or maybe I'm misremembering.  Does anyone have a reference to Limbaugh remarks about the Supreme Court ruling in the Texas (et. al.) suit?

That was a post by William and the comment was in an embedded tweet. But he either deleted the tweet or deleted the post because I can't find it anywhere. This was around the time he posted two articles trying to debunk Sidney Powell's claims about the involvement of Military Intelligence gathering evidence of election fraud. I was going to comment on that tweet, also, and I did look into it. But I never got around to writing it. 

Anyway, using my search super-powers on Twitter, I did find the tweet.

[SOME TIME LATER]... I found it. William's post is here with that tweet in it, although I have no idea why it was so damn hard to find.

Anyway, like I said, I looked into it, especially since people on the left butcher what Rush says all the time. But Rush actually did say something close to that. The guy butchered it as usual, but at least this time Rush said something near the ballpark.

Since that tweet by Deacon Blues is dated December 15, he had to have been talking about this segment (my bold):

The Supreme Court’s Texas Decision Is Easy to Explain

Quote

CALLER: I wanted to talk about the recent court cases, and especially the Supreme Court case with Texas and the kinds of precedent it’s setting for election lawsuits. Basically I’m of the opinion — I’ve been following these things a lot and it seems that no one’s really willing to hear the case on the merits. They basically kind of suggest that, well, we don’t have jurisdiction, or we don’t have an acceptable remedy or the case is moot or the person doesn’t have standing. I’m kind of wondering, are they basically all saying that it’s impossible to bring an election lawsuit because it’s just impossible to bring an election lawsuit on the merits?

RUSH: No, I don’t think that’s what is being said because if it’s a case they wanted to take, they would take it. You know, a friend of mine sent me a note after the Supreme Court refused to hear the Texas case. And the note is, “Supreme Court just said that a state that cheats in a national election, which screws everybody in the nation, is the only entity that’s allowed to do anything about it? It’s asinine. It’s like saying the only person who can prosecute a murder is the murderer.”

His point is the Supreme Court said we cannot allow one state to start suing other states because it would soon be out of control and so forth. I think there’s a common denominator in all this that people — I mean you know this, but you may not have put it in your equation. This is strictly about getting rid of Donald Trump. There isn’t an entity in the American deep state, Washington establishment, whatever, that doesn’t want to get rid of Donald Trump, including enough justices on the Supreme Court.

I think there’s some additional reasons why and the court gave its reasons, but the bottom line is that this is the best chance they’ve ever had to get rid of Trump and they’re not gonna hear these cases. They want him gone. It’s no more — in my humble estimation — no more complicated than that. The precedents that are being set, precedents are made to be broken. Supreme Court can break any precedent it wants any time it wants down the line, depending on if they get a case that they want to hear, if they get a case that they want to decide.

I just now found that quote because I looked at Dec. 15 transcripts. When I looked into this yesterday, it didn't occur to me that it was the 16th. And, still, I found something, so in the interest of being more complete, here is that quote, too. (As usual, my bold.)

The Turtle Is Determined to Stop the One Long-Shot Scenario Left for Trump

Quote

Look, this is a real long shot, but you’re gonna see a lot of talk about it, and I want you to try to have a base understanding of what this is as you hear it discussed elsewhere on cable news and wherever. So “empty presidency at noon on Jan. 20, with Trump tweeting that it should remain his, Democrats saying Pelosi or Biden and some Republicans secretly hoping it’s Pence. And if you’re thinking that the Supreme Court would save Biden, think again. It would probably rule the question to be a political one,” and not want any part of it and not touch it, although that’s a long shot too. I think the Supreme Court is so invested in Democrats controlling things and the deep state being put back in power that the assumption that the Supreme Court would not want to touch this is a long shot.

If you read the whole paragraph, it doesn't click until you realize that Rush is quoting someone else in the first half. This is a long section and I have not read it yet, so I don't know who he is quoting. I couldn't get it from a quick scan.

Neither quotes are flattering to SCOTUS and the motives of the Justices (some of them), but both quotes are a far cry from accusing "the 9 justices of the Supreme Court as being part of the deep state."

That's all I've been able to find.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

To be fair re Deep State and SCOTUS, this looks really Deep Statey, plenty enough Deep Statey to qualify calling part of SCOTUS Deep State.

and 

I don't know who the source of this is, but I can take an educated guess.

There is a lot of news around that Julian Assange formally asked President Trump for a pardon and, before that, a rumor was circulating that President Trump was going to pardon him.

Or, maybe something from from Jeffrey Epstein archives that no one knows where they are (except maybe Ghislaine)? After all, Epstein did record his guests without their knowledge.

Either that, or this is a show of muscle about the DNI's surveillance capabilities.

Or maybe something else I haven't thought of.

One thing is for sure. I find the idea that Lin would put this out without having a credible source impossible.

Once the audio becomes available, this is going to be like the Access Hollywood audio was for candidate Trump. Let's see if Roberts and Breyer figure out how to deal with it the way Trump did his headache. I don't think they have the talent to pull it off.

Man, talk about a perfect-fit-with-no-daylight pretext for martial law...

Michael

 

EDIT: Later tweet.

 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

More.

and

I suspect an article will be coming soon, possibly at The National Pulse since Lin also tweeted a link to there without comment.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

However, the article might be this one since Lin just tweeted about it:

‘Theft By A Thousand Cuts’ Report Conclusive On Election Fraud, Slams Media Cover Up

Quote

A new report detailing massive fraud plaguing the 2020 election alleges there was a widespread, “theft by a thousand cuts” strategy “across six dimensions and six battleground states.” The report cites comprehensive evidence, and blasts the media for its failure to cover the matter accurately.

In the report, Peter Navarro, also a White House Trade Adviser, outlines a “coordinated strategy to effectively stack the election deck against the Trump-Pence ticket” occurring in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.

The full report is embedded at the bottom of this article.

Here is the direct Scribd link of the report. It looks like anyone can download it.

I haven't read it yet. But I am going to very shortly.

Navarro Report

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Man, this SCOTUS scandal with Roberts is moving fast and from different directions.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

As I suspected.

Lin is preparing the people for what is about to come. This is why he lays it out raw. It's to generate buzz.

As gravy, then he (or law enforcement or whoever) can slay the enemy heads that pop up.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

More Lin.

I'll just leave that right there.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

This is actually win-win.

Just like President Trump pardoned Gen. Michael Flynn to counteract a corrupt judicial system, this provides him with fodder to replace a corrupt judicial system with military courts for a cleanup and delousing duration.

An argument could be made that Sidney's suits are more valuable when rejected without reasons than accepted for hearing and shot down without good reasons.

When corruption exposes itself, it becomes a target.

Michael

[Ellen Stuttle]

4 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Anyway, using my search super-powers on Twitter, I did find the tweet.

[SOME TIME LATER]... I found it. William's post is here with that tweet in it, although I have no idea why it was so damn hard to find.

Michael,

That's what I saw.  Thanks.

Thanks also to William for information.

You quote Limbaugh as saying on Dec. 15:

"This is strictly about getting rid of Donald Trump. There isn’t an entity in the American deep state, Washington establishment, whatever, that doesn’t want to get rid of Donald Trump, including enough justices on the Supreme Court."

You and William both quote Limbaugh as saying on Dec. 16:

"I think the Supreme Court is so invested in Democrats controlling things and the deep state being put back in power that the assumption that the Supreme Court would not want to touch this is a long shot."

I agree with your statement that:

"Neither [quote is] flattering to SCOTUS and the motives of the Justices (some of them), but both quotes are a far cry from accusing 'the 9 justices of the Supreme Court as being part of the deep state.'"

Presumably, Limbaugh wasn’t meaning the 3 Trump appointees.

We still have the question why they agreed about not hearing the Texas (et. al.) suit.

On that question, you say:

"I have no idea. But I am almost sure they will regret their decision in the end and issue some blah blah blah about it."

It occurs to me that maybe they thought that the rest of the Court would rule against the suit if the case was heard, so better not to have it heard and leave other avenues open.

At any rate, I'm glad to get Rush's actual words, which don’t say what the Tweeter said Rush said.

Ellen

 

[william.scherk]

Reported by enemy of the people, Aaron Rupar -- Michael Flynn talks 'military capabilities' and Marsha La.

 

[Marc]

23 minutes ago, william.scherk said:

Reported by enemy of the people, Aaron Rupar -- Michael Flynn talks 'military capabilities' and Marsha La.

 

65 times by my count

[Marc]

It must be the most bizarre feeling in the world knowing that in 34 days from now people will either be calling you President Biden or inmate #1234567.

Either/or

 

[Marc]

8 hours ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

Quoting a section which Michael quoted from The Richardson Post:

Repeating the first paragraph:

"This hapless hack of a Court—with the notable exceptions of Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Samuel Alito—dismissed the most cogent and valid suit to cure this election fraud ever filed in the history of the Republic."
 

WHY did the three Trump appointees accede in the verdict???

I don’t get it.

Somewhere in a post within the last few days, I think I noticed someone saying that Rush Limbaugh called all the Supreme Court Justices deep staters.  I was just glancing through some posts rapidly when I noticed that comment (as I recall), but I haven’t been able to find it.  Maybe it was on a Twitter thread someplace else.  Or maybe I'm misremembering.  Does anyone have a reference to Limbaugh remarks about the Supreme Court ruling in the Texas (et. al.) suit?

Ellen

Never murder a man who is committing suicide.

My question is when Roberts and Breyer are gone, can President Trump put two more on before January 20 2021?

Five first term, that's gotta be a freaking record!!!!!

[Ellen Stuttle]

3 hours ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

It occurs to me that maybe they [the 3 Trump appointees] thought that the rest of the Court would rule against the suit if the case was heard, so better not to have it heard and leave other avenues open.

 

4 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

An argument could be made that Sidney's suits are more valuable when rejected without reasons than accepted for hearing and shot down without good reasons.

Michael,

Considering the stuff you posted from Lin Wood about Roberts and Breyer, I'm thinking that my suggestion is likely.

Where does Chief Justice Thomas stand in all this?

—

I really, really like Lin Wood.

Ellen

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here is something for people who want to take a walk on the wild side.

Monkey Werx interview: Military assets now positioned globally, awaiting "GO"

If you have never seen a video by Monkey Werx (not his real name, of course  ), you are missing a treat.

This guy looks at air traffic from transponder communications--mostly military air traffic. Not the secret stuff, but the public domain air waves. As he had 30 years in the air force working at a high level with this stuff and a lot of classified programs, he knows what planes are generally used for what, and what plane clusters and flight patterns mean. He supplements this with tips he gets from people he knew in the military who are still there. Best of all, he is really gifted at putting all his comments, for as technical as they get, in plain language.

There is a super interesting thing he likes to talk about because it caught his eye one day while looking at flight patterns. He identified four other black site prisons that are similar to Gitmo (which he calls "The Spa"), and his peeps confirmed. The one in Iceland is supposedly so big and elaborate, Gitmo is a vacation center by comparison. He identified these places through patterns of air traffic.

If you want to see what I mean, here is his site, but he is still permitted a YouTube channel: Monkey Werx US

Here are a few images to get the feel.

He gets you caught up in this stuff better than anyone I have seen

But you won't see these kinds of pictures in the interview with Mike Adams. Instead, the interview will give you an overall picture of what he is about--and that is super-interesting, too.

Mike is a really good interviewer. I like him much better interviewing than I do his solo videos.

Both he and Monkey Werx love talking about advanced weaponry, like from DARPA, and they both are convinced that if Biden gets sworn in, there will be a physical armed uprising from Patriots, who believe Biden will hand over a lot of this stuff to the Chinese. (They also mock the Chinese capability of building high-tech things, even as they recognize the danger.)

As it is, they are awaiting President Trump to trigger the powers in his Executive Order from 2018 on foreign interference in US elections. They say there are troops all throughout the US waiting, too. And if President Trump takes too long, they will start to act on their own.

It's a fascinating interview. When you get worried about President Trump not getting formally reelected, listen to these guys a bit and they will make you feel a whole lot better.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

6 minutes ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

Where does Chief Justice Thomas stand in all this?

Ellen,

From what I can tell, both Justice Thomas and Justice Alito are rock solid in seeing the Constitution the same way Sidney Powell, Lin Wood,  Rudy, etc., see it. They both wanted to accept the Texas suit.

9 minutes ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

I really, really like Lin Wood.

Men and women of that level of integrity are goddam inspiring...

 

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Latest word from President Trump.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

There's an issue I want to clear up just in case there is anyone who reads OL and has an image imprinted on their brains by the mainstream media.

What do you think when you see something like the following?

Do you think white power Christian nuts are going to cut loose on the country like an army of Timothy McVeighs?

Do you think this is all about reelecting Trump at all costs?

Do you think this is nothing but sore loser syndrome?

Do you think this is bigotry?

Do you think this is the beginning of a violation of the non-initiation of force principle?

 

Well, think again.

Rather than take these in order like a series of strawmen to knock down, let me mention some principles and I will deal with them and similar questions along the way.

The same people

1. The people who make statements like the above are the same people who accepted the inauguration of President Obama--twice. Many of them and/or their families even voted for Obama. So where's the bigotry in that? These are the same goddam people.

Morality

2. Why did they accept Obama and are not accepting Biden? Because Obama was elected in a fair election whereas the Biden case is massive visible fraud. The issue is not re-electing Trump at all costs. It is refusing to accept the election of Biden at all illegal and immoral costs with coverups. They won't stand for it. They will not comply, especially with theft and coverup that blatant and on that scale.

Fudging vs. swindle

3. Americans accept fudging on technicalities. The do it all the time. In contracts. In sports. In court cases. Everywhere. The American hero in novels and movies constantly fudges the rules to get the bad guy.

But Americans do not accept an in-your-face ruling class swindle on a massive scale that will enslave them. What do they do when that happens? They dump a shipload of ruling class tea into the water and go to war. That's what this is about. They will not abide by a ruling class swindle to take over the American government.

Slavery

4. There are no provisions under US law where people can sell themselves into slavery and have such a contract be upheld under US courts. On the contrary, America was built on the idea of freedom of the individual, not slavery. That idea--freedom of the individual--eventually abolished what slavery existed at the time America came into being. It took a Civil War to do it, but the idea prevailed.

In the current context, China wants to enslave the individuals in other countries by taking over the countries they live in, including America. And Biden is soaking in Chinese money and blackmail. He is a puppet of China (and the Deep State, which is equally compromised.)

Even if he were elected fair and square, which he wasn't, he still would not have the right to sell the US into slavery. People like the one in the tweet above are emphatic about this. What's more, they don't see how Biden would not sell the US out, seeing that he spent his entire political career--almost half a century--doing just that. Biden is not a freedom fighter. He is a fighter to impose slavery at root.

NIOF

5. China already initiated an attack by releasing COVID-19 on the world. If that isn't the initiation of force, I don't know what is. And according to NIOF, even at the most libertarian extreme, people have the right to bear arms in self-defense. So what is the Biden response to this attack? Self-defense? Hell no. It's enslaving more and more people with muh masks and muh lockdowns and on and on. Biden joined the initiation of force. There is no way to ignore this and still claim one is interested in freedom.

Way of fighting

6. As to Patriots running amok blowing up buildings and so on, that is not their way. That is the way of Antifa and BLM and so on, especially if they are ever able to get their hands on military grade ordinance. The way Patriots fight is to choose a bad guy target, make a plan, and execute that plan with as little collateral damage to innocents as possible. Patriots do not trash and loot small businesses. They do not burn down buildings and cars. They do not attack old ladies in the street or kill random people. Antifa and BLM have done all that and much, much more in that vein.

 

The limits of reasoning

I could go on, but if this doesn't show a person the difference between laying down and rolling over in submission to authoritarianism gained by deception and looting as opposed to standing up for freedom and the American system, there is no point arguing with such a person.

That person wants to rule me, to enslave me, and I don't want him or her to rule me.

It's just that simple.

That is why I support people like the one in the tweet above. Once they've thrown the bums out, they get back to freedom. That's the kind of people they are. That's how they created America in the first place.

On the other hand, when the authoritarians like the people running Biden get power, they get to work consolidating their enslavement of the population by any and all means necessary--by any and all means they can get away with.

I, for one, won't stand for it.

I will not accept submitting to enslavement by China based on technicalities. (Ditto for the Deep State authoritarian globalist assholes.)

And I will do something about it if the time ever comes.

I'm not alone, either. There are well over 70 million people with me.

I didn't start this fight. But I will join in to help finish it. In fact, that is exactly what I am doing right now.

Rand

To tie this to Rand, in my view of her, there is not a single thing I just said that I can imagine her disagreeing with.

Not one.

In fact, I don't want to channel her, but as I see her, I think she would be outraged, furious, fit to be tied, and spitting in unrelenting hatred at the number of people in O-Land who march steadily in her name on the path to communism and the variant, technocratic dictatorships like globalism.

Michael

[ThatGuy]

1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

In fact, I don't want to channel her, but as I see her, I think she would be outraged, furious, fit to be tied, and spitting in unrelenting hatred at the number of people in O-Land who march steadily in her name on the path to communism and the variant, technocratic dictatorships like globalism.

Indeed. She didn't write WE, THE LIVING for nothing...

[Ellen Stuttle]

3 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

There's an issue I want to clear up just in case there is anyone who reads OL and has an image imprinted on their brains by the mainstream media.

What do you think when you see something like the following?

Do you think white power Christian nuts are going to cut loose on the country like an army of Timothy McVeighs?

Do you think this is all about reelecting Trump at all costs?

Do you think this is nothing but sore loser syndrome?

Do you think this is bigotry?

Do you think this is the beginning of a violation of the non-initiation of force principle?

I think, HOORAY, AMERICANS!! (real Americans)

I haven’t read your subsequent dissertation yet.  

Ellen

[william.scherk]

In re Roberts SCREAMING, via Hot Air: 

No, John Roberts Didn’t Demand That Texas’s Lawsuit Be Dismissed For Fear Of “Riots”

 

On 12/17/2020 at 5:28 AM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

For later readers, below is the link to the article on the original website in case Twitter removes this tweet. But for current readers this link will probably not work. There are just too many people trying to access the article for the server to handle.

SUPREME CAUGHT: CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS & SCOTUS ARE COMPROMISED

This appears to be the source of the hooey:

 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

William,

That's not the source, that's one source because it's a different case than Epstein island, and you're late on the draw.

Do I really have to look up the OL link where I posted that CSPAN video 2 or 3 days ago?

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

4 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Do I really have to look up the OL link where I posted that CSPAN video 2 or 3 days ago?

Here.

I did it anyway.

And it was only one day ago.

22 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Man, this SCOTUS scandal with Roberts is moving fast and from different directions.

 

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Allahpundit sounds scary.

He even threatens with indirection.

 

Michael