susano
Member

I think I covered the possibilities. The "big one" would be a constitutional amendment, the toughest to pull off, but SCOTUS-proof. Fixed that fer ye.

You can't even be serious. There is no possible way that this was accidental. Not even the remotest possibility exists. It is high likelihood, but in this case the carried risk is also high, if optics are in any way important to SCOTUS, which history seems to suggest they are not. The out would be this: SCOTUS hears relevant case, decides correctly, and Congress then destroys what little credibility remains them and does just as you suggest. The reql question would then rest once again with SCOTUS, after which and assuming the right outcome, would leave Congress in a bit of a bind. I would not, however, trust them to give up so readily. They could attack this at a policy-level, which would be a sucky remedy, but still would perhaps be better than nothing. I would expect them to attempt an Amendment which, if successfully ratified, would de-ball SCOTUS on the question. That would be the ultimate as it would by definition be "constitutional".

A couple of observations. Let us begin with the relatively trivial point of "error". This was no error of omission. When properly considered, anyone with an IQ will immediately see that the implications of those sixteens words are quite literally staggering, and I cannot overstate this point. This omission was by all means intentional and malevolently committed, make no mistake about that. Whether the Reviser took it upon himself to commit this most heinously treasonous omission for which he should have been drawn and quartered, or some third party strong-armed him into it, the actual Law (and I intentionally capitalize "Law" because in this case the statute qualifies as such) remains what it is and by all means must be restored to perfection. This should be demanded in shrieking stridency by every American on the planet, regardless of political affiliation. Even the lefties should be out burning down cities or whatever the hell it is they do these days, to make their voice heard on this matter. Secondly, and in a way more significantly as hinted at above, the implications of the restoration of these sixteen words are beyond mere numbers. What those words do is to reiterate and reinforce the specifications of the BoR with great force. The implications are deep, broad, and extend to the visible horizon, touching literally everything in our current jurisprudence. It destroys ALL unconstitutional Acts passed into statutory law. It even destroys the Article I power to tax. A man walking armed down a Manhattan street, arrested and charged for violating Sullivan, could then sue the pants off the city and bring criminal charges against basically everyone involved in the crimes committed against his sovereign rights.

Cue Rand Paul assassination in 4... 3...

I find it interesting that a guy like Epstein failed to employ one of the simplest, most obvious, and effective strategies imaginable to ensure his life against the supposed fate he suffered in a jail cell just as the camera(s) coincidentally failed. Had I been in his place I would have proceeded as follows. I would have secured the services of at least six lawyers whose job it would have been to release all the various evidence into the public domain, including all the major national papers, etc., upon my demise. Each new victim of mine would be alerted to the fact that I had multiple agents in my employ who would be doing this. They would not be made privy to the nature of those agents, their number, names, and so on. Only that they existed and not to test me on the matter. After the first contact with such agents, there would be no further contact. They would be paid on an ongoing basis to maintain their end of the agreement. I would establish a separate site onto which they could login, where they would see naught but a button that was to be pressed in the event of my demise, delivering all data to various sources. This way, the guilty would be exposed no matter what. I find it interesting that a man as treacherous as Epstein would not have concocted a plan at least this good, if not better. Perhaps he did? Perhaps he is not at all dead? However unlikely it may seem, when one is holding in his hands the balls of so many powerful people, it becomes a little more than difficult to accept that he was so incredibly blind in this most critical respect, regarding his own crimes. against those victims. Was he buried? Cremated? Just curious. If the latter, add a few more grains of suspicion to my plate.

RE: the FBI's shenanigans. The question this raises in my mind is why has the FBI done what it has done and continues to do. The trivial answer of "corruption" is unsatisfying. The real question is who is behind it all? Who is driving the FBI in this manner? Who is the nameless person or people who are pulling the strings for real?

Wish I could say otherwise, but that's a sucker bet. Sigh.

I read the exec summary. The findings were aptly described as "sobering". Will there be any prosecutorial action in response? I'm not holding my breath.

Allow me to correct you. This is how this particular thing started:

Asking OpenAI's chatgpt to compare austrian business cycle theory to keynesian. Uncensored models running locally can do it. Theirs can NOT! http://www.ronpaulforums.com/entry.php?1191-The-NoSpam-Picture-Thread&bt=2006

If you see that MSM is dying, then guaRONtee Theye also see it. Consider that Theye are not going to just let themselves be defeated and I fully believe that they are precisely the sorts to see the entire world burn if they cannot have it. Finally, consider that MSM is a mere tool for Themme and that they will use it for as long as they must to achieve whatever plateau- or ultimate-goal they have set for themselves. Since Theye hold all the material power that counts in that they can keep the MSM artificially afloat for as long as they are able, the "collapse" you assume to be coming, isn't in the way I assume you to be imagining. By the time the "collapse" comes, which I assume to mean that effectively nobody is paying attention any longer, Theye will either be ready to spring the coup de grace, or will have already done so, in either case meaning the collapse is meaningless. By then, whether it has happened, it will make no matter to Themme. Theye will be in position or will have won the ultimate battle for dominion and we will be in need of more Preparation-H than even God could produce. So don't go looking for that as any sign that salvation is nigh, because short of Jesus stepping out of a crack in the sky, we are going to be ready for a fork. I'm thinking we may already be there, given what I see happening all over, every day. Hopefully, I'm wrong about everything.

In this scheme of energetic government, the people will find two sets of tax-gatherers—the state and the federal sheriffs. This, it seems to me, will produce such dreadful oppression as the people cannot possibly bear. The federal sheriff may commit what oppression, make what distresses, he pleases, and ruin you with impunity; for how are you to tie his hands? Have you any sufficiently decided means of preventing him from sucking your blood by speculations, commissions, and fees? Thus thousands of your people will be most shamefully robbed: our state sheriffs, those unfeeling blood-suckers, have, under the watchful eye of our legislature, committed the most horrid and barbarous ravages on our people. It has required the most constant vigilance of the legislature to keep them from totally ruining the people; a repeated succession of laws has been made to suppress their iniquitous speculations and cruel extortions; and as often has their nefarious ingenuity devised methods of evading the force of those laws: in the struggle they have generally triumphed over the legislature. It is a fact that lands have been sold for five shillings, which were worth one hundred pounds: if sheriffs, thus immediately under the eye of our state legislature and judiciary, have dared to commit these outrages, what would they not have done if their masters had been at Philadelphia or New York? If they perpetrate the most unwarrantable outrage on your person or property, you cannot get redress on this side of Philadelphia or New York; and how can you get it there? If your domestic avocations could permit you to go thither, there you must appeal to judges sworn to support this Constitution, in opposition to that of any state, and who may also be inclined to favor their own officers. When these harpies are aided by excisemen, who may search, at any time, your houses, and most secret recesses, will the people bear it? If you think so, you differ from me. Where I thought there was a possibility of such mischiefs, I would grant power with a niggardly hand; and here there is a strong probability that these oppressions shall actually happen. I may be told that it is safe to err on that side, because such regulations may be made by Congress as shall restrain these officers, and because laws are made by our representatives, and judged by righteous judges: but, sir, as these regulations may be made, so they may not; and many reasons there are to induce a belief that they will not. I shall therefore be an infidel on that point till the day of my death. This Constitution is said to have beautiful features; but when I come to examine these features, sir, they appear to me horribly frightful. Among other deformities, it has an awful squinting; it squints towards monarchy; and does not this raise indignation in the breast of every true American? Your President may easily become king. Your Senate is so imperfectly constructed that your dearest rights may be sacrificed by what may be a small minority; and a very small minority may continue forever unchangeably this government, although horridly defective. Where are your checks in this government? Your strongholds will be in the hands of your enemies. It is on a supposition that your American governors shall be honest, that all the good qualities of this government are founded; but its defective and imperfect construction puts it in their power to perpetrate the worst of mischiefs, should they be bad men; and, sir, would not all the world, from the eastern to the western hemisphere, blame our distracted folly in resting our rights upon the contingency of our rulers being good or bad? Show me that age and country where the rights and liberties of the people were placed on the sole chance of their rulers being good men, without a consequent loss of liberty! I say that the loss of that dearest privilege has ever followed, with absolute certainty, every such mad attempt.

^^^ An effective declaration of war on our freedoms and property, yet nobody puts a slug in her? One more time: this is war. What do people do in war? Must it be spelled out? Are there other solutions available to us? If so, we're not using them because that nitwit is still occupying her seat, as is the case with most such office holders from sea to shining sea. It seems clear that the people whom she represents want things as she sees them. But I am quite certain not all of them are on board, so what of their wishes and their rights? This is why war is upon us. Nobody in their right mind gives a shit whether the majority of people in Denver want to live like communists. They do, however, care about the disinterested minority who continue to cherish their freedom and their rights. They are the reason the great mass of Americans should be rising up and making it clear to all traitors to liberty either to step off or lose their lives. Can nobody see that they are felons committing very mass-scale felonies against the free people of America with their despotic tyrannies, and that all propriety pursuant to our natural, God-given liberties dictate they should be ousted from office and from our shores, or even killed outright? When a robber threatens you on the street, what is the proper response? All else equal, you remove his ability to pose that threat, which usually means delivering to him grave bodily injury, or taking his life which he has forfeited by his own choice. This is right, proper, and just action. So why, when a "politician" issues an equal threat in equally felonious fashion, do we routinely and dare I say universally, kowtow like quivering serfs? HELLO?! We deserve what we tolerate. The "government" isn't doing the right things, so we have no recourse there. What will it take to make people act in their own better interests, in the interest of liberty? I have asked this question many times in these fora: will Americans ever show even the least epsilon of self-respect and stand in effective material opposition to those who defile us through the trespass of our rights? I have expressed my dolefully offered suspicion that the answer is "no", and thus far I am proven correct. We as a people have no respect for ourselves, and no real love for our children (all indignant protest to the contrary notwithstanding), demonstrated and proven by our idle tolerance of every outrage heaped upon us while we give the old "can't fight city hall" shrug of our slouched shoulders. The cancers of wokeness and transgenderism, with parents allowing their five year olds to make life-destroying choices are but two examples of the wild idiocies now being normalized, the results of which will one day come back to haunt the race of men.

Those "liberals" are eating your lunch and removing your rights. You'd damned better start taking them seriously.

I hope you prove correct. In the meanwhile, I will keep my powder dry.

^^^^^^^^^ What he wrote.

Psalm 22 They gaped upon me with their mouths, as a ravening and a roaring lion. I am poured out like water, and all my bones are out of joint. My heart is like wax; it is melted in the midst of my bowels. My strength is dried up like a potsherd; and my tongue cleaveth to my jaws. And thou hast brought me into the dust of death.

Precisely.

Way back when, I had many gay acquaintances and a couple of gay friends. One of the latter was Dave Cain. We met in his friend's Jag when they picked me up hitching up El Camino in the Bay Area in 78. Dave was a wealthy real estate broker in the area, drove a Ferrari Boxer (which I creased against a large Caddy one night when he decided he was too drunk to drive) and we became good friends. Dave was always polite with me and never once tried anything cute. I was straight, he knew it, and he respected that boundary. Well, one day at his house he disclosed to me that his "lover" was a 16 year old boy. Dave was 44 at that time. He went on and on about this kid and then went on a diatribe about how the "community" was, and had been for long years, actively recruiting young boys. Dave was very candid about the whole deal and I kept smiling, all the while my inner voice was going, "what the fucking fuck?" He wasn't the only gaymo to tell me this. In all, about half a dozen different people I'd known had confided the precise same thing: the gay "community" had every intention of growing its numbers by targeting the young. Now, just for the sake of clarity, they were not talking of little kids, say twelve or younger, but thirteen was definitely on the menu for them. Basically, the moment you sprout those pubes, you were fair game for recruitment. So when these degenerates tell you that they aren't coming for your children, know in your heart of hearts that they are lying at you through their teeth and with straight faces. They need to be removed from the society because they represent clear and present threats to all children. This tolerance bullshit has gotten entirely out of hand and I am thinking it is time to stuff those people right back in the closets whence they came. Personally, I'd send them all to China. They owe us.

It would seem only natural, things in this world being what they tend. And yet, those reactions often go wildly wrong, turning just causes into horrors. This is a valid concern. Consider the "terror" that was the ultimate result of the French revolution. Ousting that jerk-off king was one thing. Lopping the heads of the aristocrats simply because they were aristocrats was what turned the whole affair into grand crime. The people became precisely that which they claimed had assailed them. Having so become, they invalidated their cause and so far as I am concerned, I'd have not shed a tear had Louis slaughtered the lot of them. Devils murdering devils suits me just fine. It is clear that this so-called "society" is not meant by Themme to survive. Theye want it rent asunder, limb from limb. I'm old and closing in on the end of my existence, so I'm having an increasingly difficult time caring.

you don't need to use chatgpt...

Couldn't find a bigger version of this so I AI-upscaled it. http://www.ronpaulforums.com/entry.php?1191-The-NoSpam-Picture-Thread&bt=2005

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/entry.php?1191-The-NoSpam-Picture-Thread&bt=2004 new pic