Why?
Because democracy's rule of man/majority playbook says everyone can play however they want.
Thus America's long, long losing streak goes on.
The Constitution's republican rule of law IS America's playbook. Virtually every one of America's unnecessary problems on the political field today stems straight from not adhering to that playbook.
Why? Because democracy's rule of man/majority playbook says everyone can play however they want. Thus America's long, long losing streak goes on.
0 Comments
American socialists said abortion was all about the health of the mother, not convenience. They lied.
American socialists said they weren't pushing for gay marriage, just civil unions. They lied. American socialists said it wasn't about abolishing biologically traditional sex identity. They lied. American socialists said they'd never tear down American historical monuments, and mocked POTUS for claiming they would. They lied. American socialists insist the Marxist Black Lives Matter movement is peaceful, that it isn't about displacing the American nuclear family and overthrowing the current constitutional American government in order to FORCEFULLY establish totalitarian socialist government over all. They lie (just read blacklivesmatter.com itself). American socialists continually swear under oath "to support and defend" America's guaranteed "republican form of government". They lie. Domestic enemies to the Constitution always do. The first of the four pillars of American Organic Law, The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America, establishes inalienable individual liberty as what American government is specifically constituted to guarantee and protect. The fourth pillar of American Organic Law, the Constitution for the United States of America, guarantees "a Republican Form of Government" to every State in its Union to ensure and protect inalienable individual liberty to all under its jurisdiction. Democratic socialism pledges to use "democracy", the popular vote, to bolster the collective's power over the individual (socialism), completely antithetical to what America is politically founded and constituted upon. American socialists, whatever flavor they choose to identify as, are direct domestic enemies to the Constitution's guaranteed "Republican Form of Government". When socialists swear "to support and defend the Constitution", which they must do to legally enter elected office, they intentionally perjure themselves, an impeachable offense. Islam is not simply a religion, it is a total way of life for Muslims: culturally, economically and politically. Islam literally means "submission" or "surrender", not only to Allah but to the wholesale governing of Islam itself. Which, obviously, just like socialism, naturally obliterates the foundational American political concept of inalienable individual liberty entirely. Thus, when American Muslims swear "to support and defend" the Constitution's guaranteed "Republican Form of Government", which totally renders Islam's dismissal of individual liberty moot, they too, just like their other socialist allies, intentionally perjure themselves and should be impeached and removed from office for their taqiyya. American socialists like Cortez and Talib, and Somali socialist Omar cannot be publicly honest and publicly admit they do not support the Constitution, simply because they cannot legally hold office under the Constitution without swearing to support and defend it. So, like all socialists, they lie to enter office simply for the POWER socialism naturally craves over the individual. And then, once they illegally gain office, socialists do what they intended all along: subvert the Constitution by championing their collectivism over America's political gift to human history, government-guaranteed and -protected inalienable individual liberty for all. September 17, 1787: The Constitutional Convention adjourns. September 28, 1787: The Confederation Congress agrees to send the Constitution to the states for debate and ratification. Approximate population of the united States at this time: 4 million. State Convention ratifying dates and votes: December 7, 1787: Delaware ratifies. Vote: 30 for, 0 against. December 12, 1787: Pennsylvania ratifies. Vote: 46 for, 23 against. December 18, 1787: New Jersey ratifies. Vote: 38 for, 0 against. January 2, 1788: Georgia ratifies. Vote: 26 for, 0 against. January 9, 1788: Connecticut ratifies. Vote: 128 for, 40 against. February 6, 1788: Massachusetts ratifies. Vote: 187 for, 168 against. March 24, 1788: Rhode Island popular referendum rejects. Vote: 237 for, 2708 against. April 28, 1788: Maryland ratifies. Vote: 63 for, 11 against. May 23, 1788: South Carolina ratifies. Vote: 149 for, 73 against. June 21, 1788: New Hampshire ratifies. Vote: 57 for, 47 against. 9 State minimum requirement for ratification met. Constitution legally goes into effect. 724 for ratification votes cast, 362 against ratification votes cast. June 25, 1788: Virginia ratifies. Vote: 89 for, 79 against. July 26, 1788: New York ratifies. Vote: 30 for, 27 against. August 2, 1788: North Carolina convention adjourns without ratifying by a vote of 185 in favor of adjournment, 84 opposed. March 4, 1789: First United States Congress convenes. April 30, 1789: George Washington inaugurated as 1st President of the United States of America. November 21, 1789: North Carolina ratifies. Vote: 194 for, 77 against. May 29, 1790: Rhode Island ratifies. Vote: 34 for, 32 against. 724
for ratification votes from Delaware to New Hampshire, fulfilling the 9 States constitutional requirement to make the Constitution the law of the land. Total votes: 1,649 1,072 for ratification 577 against ratification In Honor of Patrick Henry Section 1.
The words "We the People of the United States," are hereby repealed so that the preamble to the Constitution for the United States of America reads: We the States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. Section 2. The last words "or to the people." are hereby repealed so that the tenth article of amendment to the Constitution for the United States of America reads: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively. Section 3. The seventeenth article of amendment to the Constitution for the United States of America is hereby repealed, Born 275 years ago today (1743), Thomas Jefferson was a staunch champion of both State sovereignty and ratification of the Constitution for the United States of America, and served as Virginia's second Governor and the new federal government's third President. Alas, favoring two such political opposites hardly seems to ever end in satisfying compromise, and in the last years of his life Jefferson seemed to come to rue what the new federal government had repugnantly become within just its first 30 years of existence. Letter to John Holmes, 1820: I regret that I am now to die in the belief that the useless sacrifice of themselves by the generation of 1776, to acquire self-government and happiness to their country, is to be thrown away by the unwise and unworthy passions of their sons, and that my only consolation is to be, that I live not to weep over it. Letter Nathaniel Macon, 1821: Our government is now taking so steady a course as to show by what road it will pass to destruction. That is: by consolidation first, and then corruption, its necessary consequence. Letter to Samuel Johnson, 1823: I have been criticized for saying that a prevalence of the doctrines of consolidation would one day call for reformation or revolution. Letter to William B. Giles, 1825: I see with the deepest affliction, the rapid strides with which the federal branch of our government is advancing towards the usurpation of all the rights reserved to the States, and the consolidation in itself of all powers, foreign and domestic; and that too, by constructions which, if legitimate, leave no limits to their power. Thomas Jefferson died on July 4, 1826, exactly 50 years after the public proclamation of The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America (aka The Declaration of Independence), of which he is its most famous author. I remember sitting on the end of an Orlando hotel bed watching television, burning some time before leaving to catch a flight, and watching President Clinton point his finger directly at me and proclaim, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky.” I discerned he was lying, intentionally, straight to my face, and I instantly lost any respect I had for him. Later, of course, Clinton would become only the second President in American history to be impeached by the House of Representatives; one of his charges, ironically, being perjury (the other: obstruction of justice). Clinton, though, would also join Andrew Johnson as escaping conviction by the Senate. An American President intentionally lying to the American people is totally unacceptable to me. An American President committing perjury concerning relations he had is an impeachable offense, obviously. So, what about an American President who unconstitutionally commits an act of war against a sovereign nation and who then intentionally lies to Congress about the only reason he'd be constitutionally permitted to act? The intent of the framers in commanding a declaration of war by Congress was to prevent exactly what President Trump unconstitutionally committed last Thursday, April 6, in America and last Friday, April 7, in Syria: a unilateral act of war that had nothing practical to do with defending the national security of the United States of America at all. Yet, after committing his intentionally unilateral, unconstitutional act, President Trump further compounded his intolerable constitutional crime by intentionally lying to Congress: Dear Mr. Speaker: A President's only constitutional permission to commit an act of war unilaterally - without the Congress declaring war itself - is if national security is, indeed, threatened in any way, shape, or form. But, by any logical evaluation, America's national security was in absolutely no way - and is in absolutely no way - threatened by a chemical gas incident involving Syrians in Syria.
Plainly, then, the President Trump's "vital national security" offering to Congress is just as intentionally deceiving as President Clinton's equally intentional lie to the American people, and to the court, which resulted in his impeachment. How much more is worth impeachment, then, than intentionally and unilaterally committing an unconstitutional act of war against a sovereign nation, killing people by doing so, and then lying to Congress trying to justify that illegal act? Mr. Trump, like Mr. Clinton before him, has totally lost this American's respect. Just as the Trump inauguration gave reverent, record-setting glory to God (six prayers in total: three invocations and three benedictions), so too will his next four years in Office bring forth even more righteously-rising opposition to the cold-blooded, intentional killing of the most innocent and vulnerable human beings among us. And a significant surge of opposition against that murder of convenience is arising from within the ranks of American feminism itself:
Views on Abortion Strain Calls for Unity at Women’s March on Washington As the revolutionary political document – upon which America's very civic existence is declared – lays out for all eternity to read, it is the Creator who endows mankind with certain inalienable rights, that first listed among them is "life", and that government is instituted among men to specifically secure those rights: not debate them, no power to amend them, but to "secure" them with all the omnipotent power the Constitution specifically charges the uniquely American, republican form of federal government with. And, of course, as The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America also purposely adds, when any government becomes destructive to those inalienable rights – instead of defending them with all the omnipotent power the Constitution specifically empowers it with to do so – that government no longer enjoys any right itself to exist. President Trump, without boasting of intent, (walking instead of just talking) is quietly leading America back to its revolutionary political root. His own declaration's great effectiveness during his inaugural speech Friday of returning a government gone socialist back to the People is easily rated simply from the widespread "populist" revulsion to it glaringly displayed immediately after and ever since by the mainstream socialist media and press. Creator > the People > government is America's revolutionary political gift to the world, and Donald J. Trump, in his very first words to the world as President of the United States of America, reestablished the proper role of America's republican form of empowered government, instantly reversing over a century of socialism's unconstitutional bastardization of government > the People in, literally, one fell swoop. With the growing number of feminists who find abortion to be the outright murder of God-given life it naturally is, President Trump will find his way of leading the overturn of the unconstitutional, socialist government sanctioning of such murder that much easier. Having honored the Creator as was done during his inauguration, having reestablished the People to their American revolutionary political role, now President Trump must cement his own constitutional political revolution by fully and precisely putting American government back in its constitutional place of securing the inalienable right to life, instead of unconstitutionally acting as socialism's agent of outright murder. Having boldly and gloriously trod back this revolutionary far, the new American President must take this final inalienable step, or his entire Presidency is doomed to fail as just another charade against the despicably deadly menace of socialism itself. Can you guess what some progressives are planning on doing? What's amusing is they seem split about why they're saying they'll challenge many Elector votes; some, like Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas), claim: ...that she and her allies plan to challenge the validity of electoral votes in multiple states, where she argued voter suppression tactics may have tainted the outcome. She said a separate batch of challenges will focus on disqualifying electors who may have been ineligible to serve at all. Other Democrats, like Rep. Ed Perlmutter of Colorado, are even more disingenuously creative by claiming: ...the House Democrats' protest “is not about trying to stop Donald Trump from becoming President,” but “the fact that our liberty, freedom and democracy were compromised by Russia’s intrusion into America’s election." I wonder if one of his colleagues could possibly trouble themselves to clue Mr. Perlmutter in to the fact that America is purposely constituted not as a democracy? You know, as long as these Congresspeople who should already know such constitutional facts obviously don't have anything better to do while on the taxpayer's time than to so partisanly waste that time.
All of the 538 Elector votes can be challenged at will by these House Democrats, but they must do so in writing and convince a Senator to also do so in writing for any challenge to go any further. If that criteria is met, then the House and Senate split up to debate the challenge separately (max debate time is 2 hours, with 5 minutes max allocated for each debater). Feasibly, then, 538 challenges debated for the 2 hours max could take up 1,076 hours, or forty-five 24-hour days, which would take us to February 20th. But the Dems aren't going to challenge any Hillary votes, so challenging Trump's 304 debated for the max would consume 25 days, which takes us to January 31st. After the House and Senate separately debate all challenges, they reconvene in Joint Session to announce the results of those debates, and then Congress must simple majority vote to agree to reject each and every challenged Elector vote put forth from the debates. The political Party makeup of the 115th Congress is 293 Republicans, 240 Democrats, and 2 Independents (the other 3 of the 538 are the Elector votes from the District of Columbia, which has no Representatives or Senators). The result of all that effort? Any Elector vote Congress votes to reject is simply not counted, so 35 Elector votes for Trump need to be rejected by the majority Republican Congress for any different result from present President-elect Trump reality to occur. What odds would you offer on that actually happening? Figurative last call for Democrats for at least the next two years begins at 1:00pm EST today; let's see how ugly they get before the lights go out. |
|