As Congress prepares to do its duty, validate the Electoral College vote, and declare Donald Trump the 47th President of the United States, the bitter-clingers pushing the discredited "Trump is an insurrectionist" trope are making a final push to have their peculiar theory taken seriously. The latest iteration of this nonsensical twaddle was posted in The Hill in "Congress does not have to accept Trump's electoral votes."

The theory goes like this: Trump is an insurrectionist. The Constitution disqualifies insurrectionists from holding office, so Trump cannot be president. Given the right light and the correct amount of psilocybin, it makes perfect sense.

To the extent that sane people think there is one, the controversy starts with Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. //

Instead of a fraudulent vote count, they want to use a fraudulent accusation of insurrection. As damaging to the nation as this move might be, this strategy is open. All it takes is 20 percent of the House and Senate members to sign a petition to trigger a vote. If a majority of both houses vote to exclude votes, they can, and the Supreme Court has no role in the process. Their conceit is thinking that once their side does this, everyone will forget about an indisputable electoral victory being set aside by way of backroom dealing. That is the quickest way for armed men to take control of the process and turn us into Pakistan. But that seems to be what the authors want.

Senate Judiciary Committee
@JudiciaryDems
·
Follow
BREAKING: A group of Senate Democrats introduce bill to abolish the Electoral College, restoring democracy by allowing the direct election of presidents through popular vote alone.
1:47 PM · Dec 16, 2024

First, we hold elections to determine who the electors will be, and they vote for the president. That's not the way it's generally described, but that's how it works. The apportionment of electors is a brilliant system that ensures that every state will have a say in presidential elections; otherwise, every presidential election would be decided in a few major cities.

But most of all, these "Senate Democrats" clearly do not comprehend that they cannot just pass a bill to abolish this system. This would require a constitutional amendment, meaning a two-thirds vote in both the House and Senate, followed by ratification by 3/4 of the 50 states - 33 states. Good luck with that.

Second, on the claim of "restoring democracy," one cannot restore what has never been the case. The United States was founded as a constitutional republic and remains a constitutional republic to this day. //

Also, "restore" means "return to a preceding state." The Electors system has been in place since the Constitution was ratified. There's nothing to restore. //

Finally, there is no popular vote for president. None. The Constitution does not allow for it. Oh, the "popular vote" is oft-quoted as a statistical curiosity, and it can be interpreted as giving an incoming president a mandate - and Donald Trump's 5-million vote lead over Kamala Harris seems to have done.

Have none of the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee ever even seen a copy of the Constitution?

Of all the classes of people who ever lived, the American woman is the most privileged. We have the most rights and rewards, and the fewest duties. Our unique status is the result of a fortunate combination of circumstances. //

If the women’s libbers want to reject marriage and motherhood, it’s a free country and that is their choice. But let’s not permit these women’s libbers to get away with pretending to speak for the rest of us. Let’s not permit this tiny minority to degrade the role that most women prefer. Let’s not let these women’s libbers deprive wives and mothers of the rights we now possess.

Tell your Senators NOW that you want them to vote NO on the Equal Rights Amendment. Tell your television and radio stations that you want equal time to present the case FOR marriage and motherhood.

Jake Schneider @jacobkschneider
·
🚨 BIDEN: "We've run a campaign that's basically scandal free. That's hard to do in American politics."

(Except covering up his obvious cognitive decline, peddling his family's influence, hiding classified documents, etc etc etc)

6:39 PM · Dec 15, 2024

It goes without saying that all such claims by the enfeebled president are demonstrably false. Consider: Bidenflation. Botched withdrawal from Afghanistan. Pardon-palooza. Mishandling of classified documents. Weaponizing his Justice Department. Failing to secure the release of the hostages in Gaza.

All of that barely scratches the surface of just how bad of a president Biden has been. The fact is that Joe Biden will go down in history as one of our country's worst, with a recent poll showing his abysmal performance over the past four years has earned him the bottom-most position.

What's a washed up politician to do to save his legacy with scant little time to do it? Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) thinks she has the perfect solution: Make the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) a Constitutional amendment. //

The Sunday version of The New York Times published a grotesque leftist wish list of things a weird assortment of people — Rick Steves and weed? — want Biden to do before he's booted from The White House. The premise? Biden couldn't debase himself anymore than he did by pardoning his own son, so he might as well do all sorts of additional shameful things. //

Gillibrand is running with the idea, writing:

With Republicans set to take unified control of government, Americans are facing the further degradation of reproductive freedom.

Fortunately, Mr. Biden has the power to enshrine reproductive rights in the Constitution right now. He can direct the national archivist to certify and publish the Equal Rights Amendment. This would mean that the amendment has been officially ratified and that the archivist has declared it part of the Constitution.

She thinks she's got it all figured out, saying “I’ve never done more legal analysis and work since I was a lawyer.” Here's the gist of it:

Both houses of Congress approved the amendment in 1972, but it was not ratified by the states in time to be added to the Constitution. Ms. Gillibrand has been pushing a legal theory that the deadline for ratification is irrelevant and unconstitutional. All that remains, she argues, is for Mr. Biden to direct the national archivist, who is responsible for the certification and publication of constitutional amendments, to publish the E.R.A. as the 28th Amendment. //

The late Phyllis Schlafly wrote her seminal "What’s Wrong with ‘Equal Rights’ for Women?" essay back in 1972, and every one of her points from then holds true today.

Why should we trade in our special privileges and honored status for the alleged advantage of working in an office or assembly line? Most women would rather cuddle a baby than a typewriter or factory machine. Most women find that it is easier to get along with a husband than a foreman or office manager. Offices and factories require many more menial and repetitious chores than washing dishes and ironing shirts. Women’s libbers do not speak for the majority of American women. American women do not want to be liberated from husbands and children.

Schlafly circa 1972 is pure gold: "The 'women’s lib' movement is not an honest effort to secure better jobs for women who want or need to work outside the home. This is just the superficial sweet-talk to win broad support for a radical 'movement.' Women’s lib is a total assault on the role of the American woman as wife and mother, and on the family as the basic unit of society." //

Devin
10 minutes ago
The deadline the states missed is completely relevant - it was in the amendment itself. So since they didn't meet the deadline, it failed. To pass it, it has to be re-introduced and voted on again

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has delivered a landmark decision striking down Nasdaq’s board diversity rules, marking a significant setback for corporate diversity initiatives imposed by regulatory bodies.

While the rules aimed to increase representation of women and minorities on corporate boards, the court found them inconsistent with federal securities laws, emphasizing limits on the authority of regulatory agencies to shape corporate governance. The Fifth Circuit's ruling deals a blow to recent, progressive trends in the corporate world - pushed by government agencies like the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) - calling for more diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) on corporate boards. //

The ruling redefines the landscape for diversity efforts in corporate America. It underscores that DEI goals must be pursued voluntarily and market-driven rather than through regulatory mandates. Nasdaq, acknowledging the court’s decision, stated it would not seek further review. Meanwhile, the SEC is evaluating its response.

“…as a condition of participating in the modern economy, Americans are forced to disclose details of their private lives to a financial industry that has been too eager to pass this information along to federal law enforcement.”

A report from the House Judiciary Committee and Government Weaponization Subcommittee exposed the FBI for abusing the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) to spy on Americans’ bank accounts without a warrant.

“Documents show that federal law enforcement increasingly works hand-in-glove with financial institutions, obtaining virtually unchecked access to private financial data and testing out new methods and new technology to continue the financial surveillance of American citizens,” according to the report.

The very idea that a blanket preemptive pardon would be handed out is an anathema to the very idea of justice because it would occur before any charges were made. And it would prevent any charges from ever being leveled. As such, the idea of preemptive clemency simply gives one carte blanche to act in any manner he/she sees fit while in office, provided they have the expectation of pardon. //

I don't see how this leads to anything but a pathway to the abuse of political power. //

If you cannot ever have a trial, then a guy like Mayorkas can treat the entire country like his own little fiefdom and forever change the United States culturally, socially, and legally. All on his own. And with a blanket and preemptive pardon, presidential cabinet members, NGOs, and partisan bureaucrats have the freedom to make policy that we didn't vote for and probably never would.

What the progressives could gain, if Markey were to get his Christmas wish, is a short-term insurance policy against prosecution for guys like Mayorkas, or John Brennan, or Mark Milley, but it will set a precedent for long-term abuse by presidents in the future. Trump could employ the same tactics, and while the progs would scream and shout, there wouldn't be much they could do about it legally, not to mention the fact that they were the ones who started rolling that snowball down the hill in the first place. //

Now, for Trump, if he were to find himself in the position where he could not prosecute certain individuals for treason or malfeasance, perhaps he could at least have them investigated. The products of such interrogatories might not lead to any charges because of the pardons, but at least such "fact-finding endeavors" might illuminate what abuses (if any) actually occurred so that we could avoid more in the future. This information would be made public to the electorate, and from that, what happens happens.

Tearing down institutions and traditions tears apart a society, a country. Sure, things can evolve over time, but to rip stuff out by the roots all at once is very reckless. Issuing preemptive pardons before any charges are even leveled prevents justice because we never have an opportunity to find out if it was ever being served in the first place. Did Mayorkas break the border all of his own volition just because he felt like it? Was he instructed to do it? If so, by whom? Who does he report to? Oh...the president. //

Billy Wallace
20 minutes ago edited
Pardoning everyone in your administration will be the new normal if Biden does it

if Biden does it, Trump most certainly will in January 2029, and why wouldn't he? I would

it will just become standard operating procedure, as will issuing an executive order declaring any and all records and documents in your possession to be declassified personal records

The pardon power has seen some... questionable uses throughout the history of the Republic.

Neither House Speaker Mike Johnson nor soon-to-be Senate Majority Leader John Thune had the power to call a recess and force through a nomination. While they both indicated they would allow that to happen, that was never the question because it wasn't up to them.

Instead, it would have taken a full vote by both chambers to recess. In the House, that can happen with a simple majority. In the Senate, a recess vote can be filibustered, making 60 votes the threshold. What that means is that Democrats and the Republicans who opposed Gaetz could easily block any attempt at a recess appointment.

But what about the theory that Trump could force a recess with executive power? That would have also been precarious because the Constitutional language specifically applies to a disagreement between the chambers on when to recess. To trigger that, you would first need both chambers to vote to recess on different days. That wasn't going to happen. It's also worth noting that three of the five conservative justices on the Supreme Court have already made it clear they believe recess appointments are unconstitutional, which means any challenge would have likely succeeded given the makeup of the court.

Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody has filed a federal lawsuit alleging that FEMA Director Deanne Criswell and FEMA reservist Marn'i Washington violated the civil rights of conservative Floridians by denying services to anyone displaying Trump campaign signs or banners. //

This saga began with a whistleblower leaking internal FEMA communications to the Daily Wire after they were ordered to avoid residences displaying items supporting President-elect Trump's candidacy. //

The supervisor who, in imitation of an episode of The Wire, documented a criminal conspiracy to violate the civil rights of Trump voters, has confirmed in television interviews on two occasions, the last being today, that what she did was carry out agency policy. According to her, workers were told to treat the homes of Trump supporters as though there were vicious dogs on those properties. //

charlie
an hour ago
This behavior is reminiscent of Hitler's treatment of Jews, gays, and gypsies. Yet we on the right are called fascists, and Trump is called Hitler. Seems to me there is a tremendous amount of projection in the thinking and behavior of the left. If there had been rainbow signs in those yards rather than Trump signs, the left would be exploding with rage. Why isnt this behavior considered a "hate crime" and punished as such? IMO, the FEMA employees who crafted and implemented this 'rabid dog' policy should be facing 25 to life sentences

On October 11, 1798, John Adams wrote to the Massachusetts Militia that

Because We have no Government armed with Power capable of contending with human Passions unbridled by morality and Religion. Avarice, Ambition, Revenge or Gallantry, would break the strongest Cords of our Constitution as a Whale goes through a Net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

But are we still a moral and religious people? In “The Real American Founding: A Conversation,” professors of politics David Azerrad and Thomas West help us answer that question.

In the fifth lecture of that course, titled “Morality and Virtue,” professors Azerrad and West discuss the fact that government always legislates morality, but what that morality consists of depends on the beliefs of those who make the laws. The nature of the legislative power is to tell people what they can and cannot do, what is right and wrong.

In the Founders’ understanding, they believed that government ought to support true morality and virtue. That is, morality and virtue grounded in the laws of nature and of nature’s God, from which they derived man’s natural rights and duties.

The Founders also believed that the laws of nature and of nature’s God, along with the natural rights and duties derived from them, were in accord with their Christian beliefs. Government therefore ought not to be hostile to Christianity, but rather should support it with laws that are friendly to it and encourage its flourishing among the citizenry.

Merz added: "I don't need to tell any of you how important it is that Leader Jeffries is serving as Speaker Jeffries when it comes time to certify the election on January 6, 2025."

Why? What have they got in mind? When it comes to certifying the election, which will be done by the incoming Congress, what difference does it make whether it's a Speaker Johnson or a Speaker Jeffries (shudder), if they are going to honestly follow the process defined by the Constitution and statute? Why is it important that Hakeem Jeffries be the speaker when this happens? What is Julie Merz driving at? What do Democrats have in mind, here? //

Democrat-controlled House will almost certainly start the Impeachment Express up again. //

SDN INTJ
an hour ago
They are planning on refusing to certify Trump's election.

DKnight SDN
43 minutes ago
Then it’s civil war time…

Biden and Harris can’t stay in the White House beyond Jan. 20th, 2025. It there’s no POTUS or VP available, who is 3rd in line for interim President? Yes, the Speaker of the House. So the one that hogties the succession directly benefits by becoming temporary king.

Like I said, civil war in the offing if that occurs.

Joe Swyers
12 hours ago
The following was written by Robert Teesdale decades ago.
I've not found it again on the net, yet. Maybe others here more adept at internet sleuthing
So I post it in full here. Please pass it along.
Maybe the censors got to it -- and you will see why when you read it.

Coming Trials
There are moments when one is chilled... when one feels the truth of a spoken word, or a gesture - or when one hears with the heart, and not merely with the imperfection of the ears.
Such a moment came to pass in my own life, many years ago.
It was a lingering summer in southern Ohio, hot and dusty and lazy in the dying afternoon. I sat in a small-town barbershop, having my hair cut and trading quiet conversation with the locals.
The conversation turned to hunting, and then to guns - and as always, to the inherent rights of our people which have always been held as a bulwark against the natural tyranny of Men.
We discussed the latest gun-control laws, and how they infringed upon those same rights. We spoke of the anger we each felt. Of the simple wrongness of it, and of the consequences of this progression.
Our words were carefully chosen - for even then, before the ascension of William Clinton to the presidency and the disgusting abrogations of freedom that followed - we were aware that such talk amongst the People was not approved of.
It was dangerous, we knew. Seditious. Militias ran amok, and the force of the law waited with eager anticipation to intervene.
Young and old, we sat there. Talking. Sharing our thoughts quietly... and asking each other where it was leading.
Someone said with a shake of the head, "I don't like where this is headed." We all nodded agreement... and then I sat in sorrowed fear as I heard the next words spoken.
An old man, sitting in a leather-and-steel chair by the entrance, leaned over and spat grimly into the dust of the Midwest that blew gently along the road outside. His words were cold, and contained a sad and unmistakable finality.
"It's coming," he said.
We all fell silent.
....

Our people are marching in the streets, demanding justice - and demanding that our rights be respected, lest they be defended by more than merely passionate arguments.
Men are no longer afraid to speak their minds. The power of fear that was held over those who dared to give voice to their patriotism has subsided... and now it is openly asked in our homes, in our shops and in our places of work.
What will happen when that line is crossed?
For there is no longer any question that it has been drawn... and no longer a question of whether to draw it was right.
In this day, when I speak to people and hear their words... when I look into their eyes and take their hands in my own - the question is no longer if revolution is possible, or if it could be done.
The questions now are how...
...and who will lead.
I fear for our nation.
For we stand at the brink. And those who bring us there, with a blind faith in their own special privilege and a dismissive contempt for the rights of the People - ignore the fearful resolve that burns within the breasts of millions of souls that will not acquiesce.
Our nation is not immune to civil war. It is not immune to the deadly and horrific strife of citizen against citizen... of brother against brother, of fathers leading sons against cousins.
There are ninety million firearm owners in America. Such a serpent should bear respecting... rather than used as a convenient scapegoat for the hypocritical lashes of those who seek to rule this nation.
And how close are we?
I see leaders arising. And rather than exhorting men to action, I see them working desperately to pacify.
I do not see them urging the loading of rifles... but rather a waiting, and a pleading for more patience and faith in the power of the vote to preserve our freedom.
I see them working to prevent bloodshed, not to instigate it. And this ominous sight fills me with foreboding.
We are not trying to create a revolution.
We are trying to stop one.
I hope that old man was wrong.
But in my heart, a sorrowed chill lingers.

Harris’ campaign is promising that if she is elected and the numbers in Congress work, Democrats will eliminate the Senate filibuster. //

The Dems are not promising to eliminate the filibuster to break a few ties, with the understanding that there will likely be future turnabout and their worst Republican policy nightmares will come true. This time they are playing for keeps.

If they can broadly eliminate the filibuster, buy four more senators, make millions of illegal aliens citizens with a 51-senator vote, rig our voting system processes, and rejigger the Supreme Court to create a roster of 13 mostly leftist justices, then they can entirely stop speaking to the Republican side of the aisle because they will have a permanent filibuster-proof Senate majority. And the Republicans will never have enough voters to reinstate legislative bumpers for both sides. It is not that Democrats have evaluated the likely conservative counter-offensive and determined that the risk is a good one. They perceive no risk. With all these sweeping changes, they can do whatever they want until the end of time with no practical oversight or influence of the people. The only two things holding them back are a Harris victory in November and a conscience they sorely lack. We will be a functional leftist autocracy. //

The question is who wants to live in a place in which only a single point of view is mandated from the top of government down by people who have proven themselves to be too ineffective to lead under the rules that have existed for generations? Who will support a Republican Party that sees all of this partisan rule breaking coming and does nothing to stop it? This presidential election is a referendum on both parties, neither of which seems able to look to the future to understand its gravity. //

Regardless of how many times Democrat candidates tell us that they are protecting democracy, they are not doing anything of the sort. Democracy is mob rule, one more vote than the other team. The filibuster is not contained in the Constitution but instead is the logical outgrowth of the long-developed Senate rule-making process. For a bill to be filibuster-proof, it required the support of 67 senators until a rule change reduced that number to 60 in 1975. Legislative processes are not designed so one party or the other, with 51 votes, can trade radical swings in our country’s laws and policies. They are designed for the opposite result, to force legislation down the middle and away from both ideological extremes.

Our Constitution and Senate and House rules are written to compel legislators, who work for the people, to stand eye-to-eye, communicate, and compromise for the greater good. The 60 votes serve as an effective buffer against radicalism. Harris and her party have utter disdain for that rule book.

A new documentary on the vice presidency gives a fresh perspective on the complications of American governance. //

No constitutional structure can know or predict every possible scenario that leads down the road of autocracy and anarchy. For this reason, Ben Franklin reportedly told a passerby at the end of the Constitutional Convention that the delegates had created “a republic, if you can keep it.” It falls on all of us — each successive generation of Americans — to rise to Franklin’s challenge. //

“The American Vice President” is available on PBS stations (check your local listings) and can be streamed online and via the PBS app.

The role of sheriff is one of the most understated positions in American governance, yet it is arguably one of the most important – especially from a liberty-centered perspective.

A sheriff who is fulfilling his or her constitutional duty stands up for the rights of citizens – especially in the face of state and federal overreach. They represent a sense of decentralization and the idea that local politics is the most important – which is why some progressives can’t stand them.

In a guest essay for the New York Times, author Maurice Chammah insinuated that sheriffs have far too much power. //

The notion that sheriffs hold too much power is indicative of a mindset that favors a top-down approach to governance rather than a bottom-up stance. They believe government at the federal and state levels should reign supreme even over local governments. In this light, the role of the sheriff could be problematic for this type of agenda. I wrote a piece on my Substack explaining how sheriffs who are doing their jobs can serve as bulwarks for liberty against government overreach. //

Dieter Schultz
4 hours ago edited
Sheriffs can refuse to enforce laws that violate constitutional rights – especially those laid out in the Bill of Rights.
It would seem to me that, because they took an oath to obey the Constitution, all law enforcement officers should be "refusing to enforce laws that violate constitutional rights"!

But, I guess that's just my silly take on things.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson questioned whether the court should even be involved in addressing the policy in the first place, saying she was concerned about the court “taking over what Congress may have intended for the agency to do in this situation.”

"I think it can't be assumed that the agency exceeds its authority whenever it interprets a statutory term differently than we would such that all we have to do as a part of this claim here today is just decide what we think a firearm is." //

Justice Brett Kavanaugh expressed concerns that the regulation would criminalize ghost gun sellers who might not be aware that they are violating a law, CNN reported.

“This is an agency regulation that broadens a criminal statute beyond what it had been before,” Kavanaugh asked. “What about the seller, for example, who is truly not aware — truly not aware — that they are violating the law and gets criminally charged?”

Prelogar said prosecutors would have to prove that the seller was willfully violating the law. Kavanaugh described Prelogar’s answer as “helpful.” //

Twist Gamma
12 minutes ago
Kavanaugh nailed it at the end.

I was on board with the government's argument up until Kavanaugh made it clear that this was not a law but an interpretation of a law. Interpretations on something like this should absolutely go in the favor of the citizen, so that citizens do not become criminals without realizing it.

If guns are regulated, there is no problem with regulating, in the same way, a kit that has all of the ingredients + instructions to build a gun. It's the same thing, assuming the kit is complete. Any restriction on guns that passes Constitutional muster could equally be applied to a complete gun kit.

However, deciding that they are equivalent is the job of Congress, not the courts. And ESPECIALLY not the job of the bureaucracy.

Whether the restrictions themselves are Constitutional is a separate question, of course.

If one becomes president or vice president, you have to swear to uphold the Constitution.

But while Kamala's Stern interview was airing on Tuesday, guess what her running mate was doing on the same day?

Calling for the end of the Electoral College.

“I think all of us know the Electoral College needs to go,” Walz said at a campaign fundraiser hosted at California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s home on Tuesday, according to pool reporters in the room. “We need a national popular vote that is something. But that’s not the world we live in.” //

bk
an hour ago
"This would be a great country if we could get rid of the Constitution." //

msctex
an hour ago edited
The true bottom-line reality here is that if a rumor could be sufficiently floated today which made Democrats believe the EC could work in their favor, tomorrow it would be hailed as the greatest result of the Age of Reason and the Enlightenment, and proof of the Founding Father's wisdom.

Yes, they would choke a bit on the last part, but they would run with it. //

Just an old soldier...
32 minutes ago
The Dems hate the Electoral college. It thwarts their schemes of total control. The tyranny of straight democracy is what they want.

Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. //

FlorenceNightingale
an hour ago
Good communist that he is, Tim Walz calls himself “a national popular vote guy.” So he prefers a plebiscite, the people’s required stamp of approval on a totalitarian demagogue’s rule. Slavery that you vote for.

In April 1991, former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia gave the Alexander Meiklejohn Lecture at Brown University, in which he explored the idea of the U.S. Constitution.

“Unlike any other nation in the world, we consider ourselves bound together, not by genealogy or residence but by belief in certain principles; and the most important of those principles are set forth in the Constitution of the United States,” Justice Scalia said.

Referring to the Constitutional Convention held in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania in 1787, Justice Scalia added,

When else has a government been established, not by conquerors dividing up the spoils, or even by political parties parceling out the power, but by a four-month seminar consisting of many of the most erudite and politically experienced individuals in the nation?

The justice went on to remind his listeners why it’s critical each generation of Americans learn, know and love our Constitution.

“[The U.S. Supreme Court] cannot save the society from itself – because in the last analysis the Court is no more than the society itself,” Justice Scalia said, adding,

The Constitution will endure, in other words, only to the extent that it endures in your understanding and affection.

anon-89ic God family country
4 hours ago edited
I don't think many Americans appreciate this danger. In banana republics, politicians, judges and lawyers are often murdered with impunity. Politicians, judges and lawyers are, for better or worse, the foundation of our Republic. Mass illegal immigration is bringing not the best of foreign cultures to our shores, but the worst of abuses of civil society. That's what Harris is promising to give more of--a world in which lawyers, judges and politicians, or the doctor who misdiagnoses your cancer, or the priest who opposes abortion, or the store keeper who didn't give you your change fast enough, is a bona fide target. For all of us lawyers who came under threat during the covid hoax for challenging government policy, this is just plain unbelievable. Lawyers having to carry guns? Lawyers having to give instructions to their spouses about what to do if they disappear on the way home from work? this is America? And that's why this story is not funny and needs to be seriously considered.

Gretz anon-89ic
2 hours ago
The erosion of the rule of law was the goal of the Marxists. Thank all of your Soros-backed cohort for making the law as ugly and meaningless as possible.