New Law Coming From Congress

[Jethro Bodine]

This is already law and has been for quite a while, just under the guise of other laws. But if there is any point in US history that the government could get away with putting 'Americans with no abilities' on a bill to legislate what we already legislate here in America it would be now.

Sin has ruined America. We just have to face it, folks. The only way back is for people to stop sinning and that ain't going to happen. We're in too deep, now. Actually, there is one other way we can kind of come back...adopt a totalitarian government that knows better than us what ruins a country and, therefore, doesn't allow. It will be here soon, if God doesn't destroy us by fire first. We'll see what option God has planned for us. Call me a pessimist, but I just don't think sweeping revival is one of them. Sin is too deeply rooted in us, now. Just like the Canannites.

 

[Thekjv]

If you hoogle the first few sentences, it's from The Onion.

I just can not hoogle

 

[Milk-Drops]

I just can not hoogle

Why not a boogle?

 

[Thekjv]

Sounds like a program when I worked in the school system. We hired students for summer work at $6 an hour to learn how to work construction type jobs. The kids were not allowed to use any of our tools at all to do anything. so they just stood and watched us work.

 

[Barbarian]

Barrett might not be the greatest jurist to every sit on a court and while she is the least experienced nominee ever for the Supreme Court, but her academic record is very good and she is far from having no ability.

 

[Alfred Persson]

Barrett might not be the greatest jurist to every sit on a court and while she is the least experienced nominee ever for the Supreme Court, but her academic record is very good and she is far from having no ability.

I like her. It is satire against Congress, and how they treat Supreme Court nominees

 

[Barbarian]

I like her.

She might be a nice person. She ended up in a tough position, and while she's a bit too partisan for the court, she isn't completely unqualified.

 

[Alfred Persson]

She might be a nice person. She ended up in a tough position, and while she's a bit too partisan for the court, she isn't completely unqualified.

Might? Her Wiki is excellent. She must have fit the Criteria Trump used. She's a Catholic Christian.

They all let me down when they refused to force States certify adequately their fraud ridden mail in systems. A bunch of states sued because their properly tabulated voters were being disenfranchised by massive fraud in other states.

 

[Barbarian]

They all let me down when they refused to force States certify adequately their fraud ridden mail in systems. A bunch of states sued because their properly tabulated voters were being disenfranchised by massive fraud in other states.

It always comes down to evidence. Or lack of it in these cases. In Georgia, for example, the republican Secretary of State did three recounts before Donald Trump called him up and demanded that he "find" just enough votes for him to win.

There was some fraud, but not enough to change the outcome. For example, the evidence shows that Donald Trump pretty much had the "dead voter" bloc to himself. Would you like me to show you that?

 

[Barbarian]

It is satire against Congress, and how they treat Supreme Court nominees

I recall that one idiot senator demanded that a nominee define "woman", although when asked later, he was unable to do it himself.

 

[Alfred Persson]

I recall that one idiot senator demanded that a nominee define "woman", although when asked later, he was unable to do it himself.

Ha! A politician at loss for words, double idiocy. Couldn't say "opposite of a biological male ", lose too many voters?

 

[Alfred Persson]

It always comes down to evidence. Or lack of it in these cases. In Georgia, for example, the republican Secretary of State did three recounts before Donald Trump called him up and demanded that he "find" just enough votes for him to win.

There was some fraud, but not enough to change the outcome. For example, the evidence shows that Donald Trump pretty much had the "dead voter" bloc to himself. Would you like me to show you that?

I reject that. The states wanted evidence, a trial to judge whether fraud did change the outcome. There was massive belief fraud did. The evidence should have been discussed under oath in a court of law, to decide.

 

[Alfred Persson]

It always comes down to evidence. Or lack of it in these cases. In Georgia, for example, the republican Secretary of State did three recounts before Donald Trump called him up and demanded that he "find" just enough votes for him to win.

There was some fraud, but not enough to change the outcome. For example, the evidence shows that Donald Trump pretty much had the "dead voter" bloc to himself. Would you like me to show you that?

Six states had joined Texas:

December 10, 2020 | Press Release

AG Paxton: Six States Join Texas in Lawsuit Defending the Security of the 2020 Election​

Missouri, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina and Utah have formally joined Texas in its Supreme Court suit against Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin—four battleground states who ran illegal and unconstitutional elections. The joining states agree with Texas: the defendant states exploited the COVID-19 pandemic to justify unlawfully enacting last-minute changes and ignoring both federal and state election laws, thus skewing the results of the 2020 General Election.

The Supreme Court rejected their lawsuit "because they lacked standing"!!!

A state defending its voters against disenfranchisement because of another state's fraudulent election, lacks "standing"???

"“Standing” is a legal term used in connection with lawsuits and a requirement of Article III of the United States Constitution. In simple terms, courts use “standing” to ask, “Does this party have a ‘dog in this fight?’” Standing limits participation in lawsuits and asks whether the person(s) bringing a lawsuit, or defending one, has enough cause to “stand” before the court and advocate, since not anyone can go to court for any reason. To have standing, a party must show an “injury in fact” to their own legal interests."

The Supremes let US, the people down. If they backed off because of threats to their lives, they are worthless. We will only get what the "cabal" allows, nothing more.

 

[Uncle J]

I reject that. The states wanted evidence, a trial to judge whether fraud did change the outcome. There was massive belief fraud did. The evidence should have been discussed under oath in a court of law, to decide.

LOL...that wasn't the argument they presented to SCOTUS. They made no claims of fraud at all.

Try and get at least some facts straight.

 

[Uncle J]

Six states had joined Texas:

December 10, 2020 | Press Release

AG Paxton: Six States Join Texas in Lawsuit Defending the Security of the 2020 Election​

Missouri, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina and Utah have formally joined Texas in its Supreme Court suit against Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin—four battleground states who ran illegal and unconstitutional elections. The joining states agree with Texas: the defendant states exploited the COVID-19 pandemic to justify unlawfully enacting last-minute changes and ignoring both federal and state election laws, thus skewing the results of the 2020 General Election.

The Supreme Court rejected their lawsuit "because they lacked standing"!!!

A state defending its voters against disenfranchisement because of another state's fraudulent election, lacks "standing"???

"“Standing” is a legal term used in connection with lawsuits and a requirement of Article III of the United States Constitution. In simple terms, courts use “standing” to ask, “Does this party have a ‘dog in this fight?’” Standing limits participation in lawsuits and asks whether the person(s) bringing a lawsuit, or defending one, has enough cause to “stand” before the court and advocate, since not anyone can go to court for any reason. To have standing, a party must show an “injury in fact” to their own legal interests."

The Supremes let US, the people down. If they backed off because of threats to their lives, they are worthless. We will only get what the "cabal" allows, nothing more.

See? They made no claims of fraud at all.

Instead, they argued that other states changing their election laws disenfranchised voters in their states. However, one of the major flaws in that argument is that Republican-run states did the same thing!

 

[Uncle J]

the previous post should say "other states changing the administration of their elections" rather than "changing their election laws"

 

[Barbarian]

Missouri, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina and Utah have formally joined Texas in its Supreme Court suit against Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin—four battleground states who ran illegal and unconstitutional elections. The joining states agree with Texas: the defendant states exploited the COVID-19 pandemic to justify unlawfully enacting last-minute changes and ignoring both federal and state election laws, thus skewing the results of the 2020 General Election.

The Supreme Court rejected their lawsuit "because they lacked standing"!!!

A state defending its voters against disenfranchisement because of another state's fraudulent election, lacks "standing"???

Each state gets to set its own election laws. The republicans governing Georgia, for example, ran three recounts and could not find a defensible way to say Trump won. One of the many indictments of Trump came when he asked the republican Secretary of State for Georgia to "find" him enough votes to win the state.

The republican Texas AG was just impeached by the republican-dominated Texas House over criminal activity while acting as AG. He's also under criminal indictment for securities fraud, and yet to be tried for that crime. Which gives you some idea of the kind of thinking that went into this lawsuit.

 

[Barbarian]

There was some fraud, but not enough to change the outcome. For example, the evidence shows that Donald Trump pretty much had the "dead voter" bloc to himself. Would you like me to show you that?

I reject that.

Doesn't matter. It is well-documented.

Man Charged for Voting as Dead Mother for Trump in 3rd Case of Voter Fraud in Pennsylvania​

Man Charged for Voting as Dead Mother for Trump in Pennsylvania Fraud Case

"If he had voted for Joe Biden or he had written Donald Duck or Mickey Mouse, we would still be prosecuting this case," Delaware County District Attorney Jack Stollsteimer said.

www.newsweek.com

Man arrested in wife's murder now accused of voting for Trump in her name​

Man arrested in wife's murder now accused of voting for Trump in her name

A Colorado man arrested this month for allegedly murdering his missing wife has also been accused of voting for former President Donald Trump in her name.

abcnews.go.com

Nevada Man Is Charged With Voting Using His Dead Wife’s Ballot​

Donald Kirk Hartle, a Republican, had claimed that someone voted in the 2020 election by using the mail-in ballot of his wife, who died in 2017. He now faces two counts of voter fraud.

Nevada Man Is Charged With Voting Using His Dead Wife’s Ballot (Published 2021)

Donald Kirk Hartle, a Republican, had claimed that someone voted in the 2020 election by using the mail-in ballot of his wife, who died in 2017. He now faces two counts of voter fraud.

www.nytimes.com

How many would you like to see?

The states wanted evidence, a trial to judge whether fraud did change the outcome.

Let's see... you want a trial to find out whether or not the republicans (who supported Trump) running the elections, cheated to let Biden win? Seriously? Georgia Republicans tried three recounts and just couldn't find a way to make it work.

There was massive belief fraud did.

Belief isn't what counts. Evidence (like the evidence I just showed you) counts. There certainly was fraud, but it wasn't close to enough to change the outcome.

The evidence should have been discussed under oath in a court of law, to decide.

Trump and his underlings launched dozens of lawsuits that were examined in court. They lost because they had no evidence. You think one more lawsuit will turn it around? Seriously?

 

[Alfred Persson]

There was some fraud, but not enough to change the outcome. For example, the evidence shows that Donald Trump pretty much had the "dead voter" bloc to himself. Would you like me to show you that?

Doesn't matter. It is well-documented.

Man Charged for Voting as Dead Mother for Trump in 3rd Case of Voter Fraud in Pennsylvania​

Man Charged for Voting as Dead Mother for Trump in Pennsylvania Fraud Case

"If he had voted for Joe Biden or he had written Donald Duck or Mickey Mouse, we would still be prosecuting this case," Delaware County District Attorney Jack Stollsteimer said.

www.newsweek.com

Man arrested in wife's murder now accused of voting for Trump in her name​

Man arrested in wife's murder now accused of voting for Trump in her name

A Colorado man arrested this month for allegedly murdering his missing wife has also been accused of voting for former President Donald Trump in her name.

abcnews.go.com

Nevada Man Is Charged With Voting Using His Dead Wife’s Ballot​

Donald Kirk Hartle, a Republican, had claimed that someone voted in the 2020 election by using the mail-in ballot of his wife, who died in 2017. He now faces two counts of voter fraud.

Nevada Man Is Charged With Voting Using His Dead Wife’s Ballot (Published 2021)

Donald Kirk Hartle, a Republican, had claimed that someone voted in the 2020 election by using the mail-in ballot of his wife, who died in 2017. He now faces two counts of voter fraud.

www.nytimes.com

How many would you like to see?

Let's see... you want a trial to find out whether or not the republicans (who supported Trump) running the elections, cheated to let Biden win? Seriously? Georgia Republicans tried three recounts and just couldn't find a way to make it work.

Belief isn't what counts. Evidence (like the evidence I just showed you) counts. There certainly was fraud, but it wasn't close to enough to change the outcome.

Trump and his underlings launched dozens of lawsuits that were examined in court. They lost because they had no evidence. You think one more lawsuit will turn it around? Seriously?

Trump did so much to restore America's wealth and bring about world piece, we owed it to him to really revisit all the changes that were made to election laws, and reverse those that contradict voting on the same "election day", in person, with paper ballots that can be counted by opposing parties. Mail in ballots are where all the fraud happens, everyone knows that.

 

[Alfred Persson]

Each state gets to set its own election laws. The republicans governing Georgia, for example, ran three recounts and could not find a defensible way to say Trump won. One of the many indictments of Trump came when he asked the republican Secretary of State for Georgia to "find" him enough votes to win the state.

The republican Texas AG was just impeached by the republican-dominated Texas House over criminal activity while acting as AG. He's also under criminal indictment for securities fraud, and yet to be tried for that crime. Which gives you some idea of the kind of thinking that went into this lawsuit.

Latest news, he was vindicated.



Sep 20

Ep. 25 Liberals like Karl Rove just tried to annihilate Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton. It didn't work. Paxton just joined us for his first interview since his acquittal.

https://twitter.com/TuckerCarlson