Even though today is the start of the J6 hearings, I think it's clear the White Right has won.

1) Biden must resign. As soon as feasibly possible.

To say he's unfit for the office is, simultaneously, irrelevant and quite scary.

My honest hope would be that Kamala Harris does get the office of President well before the midterms, because the fact of the matter is, it's not going to matter. Biden, Harris, Pelosi, the Obamas, etc. have about 2 1/2 years to live -- if that.

You will see those gallows erected, and they will hang -- and then many millions of us will have to go with them.

2) If the Progressive way of life is that out of touch with reality, then the fact is that the very fact we are allowed to live at all as Progressives is also that degree of out of touch.

In short, you are going to have to kill us. Millions of us. Now.

The fact of the matter is that what we stand for and what we believe in is completely antithetical to the entire concept of governance the Fathers had.

The Fathers never intended us to live if we did not live in legitimate purpose to the law -- even if that legitimate purpose was solely to be enslaved, beaten, and eventually killed when our use expired.

The fact we have 340,000,000 people censused in this country is an abomination to anyone on the Rightward side of the equation.

But the facts are simple:

3) If you do not have legitimate purpose to Republican Man rule, you will die.

Not being heterosexual will be an illegality in this country in three years.

Transgenderism is probably a death penalty offense within a month or two of the installation of the permanent Republican regime.

Women will have no use above the age of about 40, if they had use below it in the first place.

Men will be called upon to impregnate anyone they can feasibly find to bring White Man back to the forefront of the country -- almost three-quarters of Trump supporters believe in "replacement theory", that the Blacks are trying to replace Whites (never
mind that, short of raising someone to be a Kyle Rittenhouse or the like, you're out of your mind raising a White child in this country at this point...).

4) There will be a Constitutional Convention in this country in 2025 (or the first year of permanent Republican rule, whichever comes first).

The first ten Amendments will be replaced with a Bill of Responsibilities, in the line of Scalia and Thomas.

The 13th, 14th, and 19th are the next three to go.

5) If you are not White, cis-Male, Old Testament Christian, willing to kill the "others", a landowner, etc., prepare to either be permanently subjugated or killed. You have three years, tops, to live.

6) I'm not even sure this one can wait til the midterms: You will need to raise a militia and liquidate the cities of crime elements: Homeless, gangs, theft rings, etc.

7) You will then need to seize the governments of those cities and of at least the three West Coast states, etc., with lethal force.

Not doing so will mean you have no ports, and you will end up with a situation that you will not get any materials from the outside going forward. You will lose all meaningful infrastructure, etc.

8 and last) If the Red Tsunami occurs, you must attempt to seize the Presidency at the first real opportunity -- and it must be the last election held in this country for a significant period of time.

This last one is just common sense. Forget the people who can legally vote whom you do not desire the right to vote. That's one massive group.

But how can you hold an election when it is clear that entire states and voting rolls are as compromised as you believe they are?

Not only that, but that compromised nature should actually raise a Constitutional question (not known until AFTER Biden took office, see the decisions in Pennsylvania for one!) as to whether Biden ever legally won the election, not as a function of
deliberate miscounting, but that the election was never legally held.

Pennsylvania's 20 Electoral Votes from 2020 are void. The Presidential election has now been ruled TWICE by state courts to be illegally held.

The margin is so razor-thin in Georgia that there's effectively zero chance the 16 EVs in Georgia could not be voided as well.

That gets Biden to 270. Find one more, and Congress should have the legal right to revoke consent, rendering Biden "never President", meaning the new Congress' Speaker of the House takes the power.

And that's how you get Trump back.

Mike

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thursday, June 9, 2022 at 3:00:50 AM UTC-5, Michael Falkner wrote:

Even though today is the start of the J6 hearings, I think it's clear the White Right has won.

1) Biden must resign. As soon as feasibly possible.

To say he's unfit for the office is, simultaneously, irrelevant and quite scary.

My honest hope would be that Kamala Harris does get the office of President well before the midterms, because the fact of the matter is, it's not going to matter. Biden, Harris, Pelosi, the Obamas, etc. have about 2 1/2 years to live -- if that.

You will see those gallows erected, and they will hang -- and then many millions of us will have to go with them.

2) If the Progressive way of life is that out of touch with reality, then the fact is that the very fact we are allowed to live at all as Progressives is also that degree of out of touch.

In short, you are going to have to kill us. Millions of us. Now.

The fact of the matter is that what we stand for and what we believe in is completely antithetical to the entire concept of governance the Fathers had.

The Fathers never intended us to live if we did not live in legitimate purpose to the law -- even if that legitimate purpose was solely to be enslaved, beaten, and eventually killed when our use expired.

The fact we have 340,000,000 people censused in this country is an abomination to anyone on the Rightward side of the equation.

But the facts are simple:

3) If you do not have legitimate purpose to Republican Man rule, you will die.

Not being heterosexual will be an illegality in this country in three years.

Transgenderism is probably a death penalty offense within a month or two of the installation of the permanent Republican regime.

Women will have no use above the age of about 40, if they had use below it in the first place.

Men will be called upon to impregnate anyone they can feasibly find to bring White Man back to the forefront of the country -- almost three-quarters of Trump supporters believe in "replacement theory", that the Blacks are trying to replace Whites (

never mind that, short of raising someone to be a Kyle Rittenhouse or the like, you're out of your mind raising a White child in this country at this point...).

4) There will be a Constitutional Convention in this country in 2025 (or the first year of permanent Republican rule, whichever comes first).

The first ten Amendments will be replaced with a Bill of Responsibilities, in the line of Scalia and Thomas.

The 13th, 14th, and 19th are the next three to go.

5) If you are not White, cis-Male, Old Testament Christian, willing to kill the "others", a landowner, etc., prepare to either be permanently subjugated or killed. You have three years, tops, to live.

6) I'm not even sure this one can wait til the midterms: You will need to raise a militia and liquidate the cities of crime elements: Homeless, gangs, theft rings, etc.

7) You will then need to seize the governments of those cities and of at least the three West Coast states, etc., with lethal force.

Not doing so will mean you have no ports, and you will end up with a situation that you will not get any materials from the outside going forward. You will lose all meaningful infrastructure, etc.

8 and last) If the Red Tsunami occurs, you must attempt to seize the Presidency at the first real opportunity -- and it must be the last election held in this country for a significant period of time.

This last one is just common sense. Forget the people who can legally vote whom you do not desire the right to vote. That's one massive group.

But how can you hold an election when it is clear that entire states and voting rolls are as compromised as you believe they are?

Not only that, but that compromised nature should actually raise a Constitutional question (not known until AFTER Biden took office, see the decisions in Pennsylvania for one!) as to whether Biden ever legally won the election, not as a function of

deliberate miscounting, but that the election was never legally held.

Pennsylvania's 20 Electoral Votes from 2020 are void. The Presidential election has now been ruled TWICE by state courts to be illegally held.

The margin is so razor-thin in Georgia that there's effectively zero chance the 16 EVs in Georgia could not be voided as well.

That gets Biden to 270. Find one more, and Congress should have the legal right to revoke consent, rendering Biden "never President", meaning the new Congress' Speaker of the House takes the power.

And that's how you get Trump back.

Mike

Cliffs?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thursday, June 9, 2022 at 6:39:54 AM UTC-7, unclejr wrote:

Cliffs?

Biden needs to throw in the towel and America needs to prepare for the end of the democratic republic,

Mike

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

4) There will be a Constitutional Convention in this country in 2025 (or the first year of permanent Republican rule, whichever comes first).
The first ten Amendments will be replaced with a Bill of Responsibilities, in the line of Scalia and Thomas.
The 13th, 14th, and 19th are the next three to go.

Er, unless you want to burn the entire Constitution and start from scratch (and I have a feeling a number of Democrats aren't against this, because it is the only way to change the Senate from "every state gets the same number of Senators"), any
amendment passed by a Constitutional Convention still has to be ratified by 3/4 of the states. Nothing new about this; the original Constitution had to be ratified this way as well. Delaware is "the first state" because it was the first to ratify it.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thursday, June 9, 2022 at 10:59:12 AM UTC-7, The NOTBCS Guy wrote:

Er, unless you want to burn the entire Constitution and start from scratch (and I have a feeling a number of Democrats aren't against this, because it is the only way to change the Senate from "every state gets the same number of Senators"), any

amendment passed by a Constitutional Convention still has to be ratified by 3/4 of the states. Nothing new about this; the original Constitution had to be ratified this way as well. Delaware is "the first state" because it was the first to ratify it.

Effectively, starting with everything is derived from the Second, that's exactly what they want to do.

Many believe women too emotional to be allowed any intelligent decision with respect to government -- so they want the 19th gone quickly.

Most of the rights derived from the 14th (and the resultant allowance of certain aggrieved demographics to even _live_) are impositions against the White Right.

So, in short, that's exactly what the White Right wants to do.

Look up the "Convention of States" movement or whatever it is called. And then understand that certain Conservatives are correct: Once you open the doors to this, it's ALL on the table.

Mike

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Look up the "Convention of States" movement or whatever it is called. And then understand that certain Conservatives are correct: Once you open the doors to this, it's ALL on the table.

Every "convention of states" I have heard talked about implies, if not outright specifies, that it is done in accordance with the current Constitution, which requires that any amendments coming out of such a convention still be ratified by 3/4 of the
states (and still doesn't get around the "you can't give any State more or fewer Senators than the others" problem).

As for "it's all on the table," obviously you've never seen my laundry list of things to be proposed (from both sides) should there ever be a Constitutional Convention that I post to Facebook every few months:


Overturn
...Citizens United v. FEC
...Obergefell v. Hodges
...Roe v. Wade (oh, wait...)

Repeal
...the first paragraph of the 14th Amendment
...the 2nd Amendment
...the 16th Amendment (income tax)
...the 22nd Amendment (two-term Presidential limit)
...the exception for prisoners to the ban on involuntary servitude in the 13th Amendment

The President and Vice-President of the United States shall be elected by plurality vote of the people.

All (choose one: citizens, residents, persons) are entitled to (choose one or more of: free health care, free public university undergraduate education).

The living parents of someone born in this country become citizens automatically.

The Congress may restrict expenditures on elections for federal offices.

The Congress may restrict patent protections when it is in the public interest.

The Congress and each State may set restrictions on how many terms or years a person may be a Representative or Senator from that State.

The burning or other desecration of the flag of the United States is not protected under the first amendment.

The District of Columbia shall be entitled to one Representative and two Senators, and each Territory whose citizens pay income tax to the United States shall be entitled to one Representative and one Senator; however, the Territories shall not be
entitled to Presidential electors.

Marriage shall be:
...limtied to one man and one woman
...allowed between any two consenting persons of legal age (optionally add: except that the Congress may restrict marriages based on blood relationships)

Persons who are neither citizens nor legal residents of the United States shall not be counted for purposes of apportioning seats in the House of Representatives.

The membership of the House of Representatives shall be determined by a nationwide vote of the people casting votes for political parties, with each party receiving seats based on the number of votes received; the Congress shall decide how to distribute
the seats among the States, and each State shall decide who its Representatives will be, in line with the results of the vote.

In states where members of the House of Representatives are elected by district, each state shall assign an independent commission to draw said districts.

The right of the President of the United States to grant reprieves and pardons shall not apply to the President granting a self-reprieve or self-pardon, nor to granting a repreieve, pardon, or reduction of sentence, to a person for a crime that aided the
President.

No person shall be eligible for the office of President or Vice-President of the United States who was not eligible to be elected President at the start of the term in which that person would hold office. (This prevents Obama or Bush from claiming, "The
Constitution says I can't be ELECTED President again. It says NOTHING about becoming President through other methods, including being Vice-President first.)

The right to “free exercise of religion” does not prohibit Congress from taxing churches or other religious organizations, or from setting conditions pertaining to which churches shall be taxed, and the rate of tax for each. ("You want to ban your
priests/ministers from conducting same-sex marriages? There's a price for that now...")

The Supreme Court of the United States shall consist of a Chief Justice of the United States and eight associate justices, any six of whom shall constitute a quorum. (No, the number of justices does not already appear anywhere in the Constitution.)

When the required Oath of Office of President of the United States includes the word “swear,” it shall end with, “so help me, God.” (No, "So Help Me, God" does not appear in the Constitution, either, which makes sense, as if you "affirm" rather
than "swear," you are not swearing to any deity.)

If any bill passed by both the House and Senate and presented to the President not be returned within ten days, it shall be a law as if the President had signed it (Sundays and the adjournment of Congress notwithstanding).

The President has the power to rescind a pardon granted by a previous President, and trials for crimes for which a pardon has been rescinded shall not be considered to violate the Fifth Amendment.

Congress shall have the authority to impose a tax on a person’s or corporation’s wealth, including the value of any possessions held outside of the country.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thursday, June 9, 2022 at 12:38:35 PM UTC-7, The NOTBCS Guy wrote:

Look up the "Convention of States" movement or whatever it is called. And then understand that certain Conservatives are correct: Once you open the doors to this, it's ALL on the table.

Every "convention of states" I have heard talked about implies, if not outright specifies, that it is done in accordance with the current Constitution, which requires that any amendments coming out of such a convention still be ratified by 3/4 of the

states (and still doesn't get around the "you can't give any State more or fewer Senators than the others" problem).

As for "it's all on the table," obviously you've never seen my laundry list of things to be proposed (from both sides) should there ever be a Constitutional Convention that I post to Facebook every few months:

Karl Denninger has said, in opposition to a "convention of states" that it would be the king of unanticipated results.

Overturn
...Citizens United v. FEC
...Obergefell v. Hodges
...Roe v. Wade (oh, wait...)

There would have to be a functional change in who is declared a human being or has human rights at that point. The middle one would not only require a repeal of the 14th (or a direct amendment), but would probably require Lawrence v. Texas to be
overturned (Texas Sodomy case), as well as a vested government interest in who pairs and how.

Repeal
...the first paragraph of the 14th Amendment

No, the whole thing goes. The fact that all are given equal protection under the law is the sole basis on which many aggrieved demographics are allowed to live.

...the 2nd Amendment

It's either that or the country goes free-fire. I think there is a very real movement toward The Purge in this country -- and an increasing number of maladies in this country may well require it.

...the 16th Amendment (income tax)

You'd almost have to, to the extent of that you would have a very real problem even with the need for a House of Representatives afterward.

...the 22nd Amendment (two-term Presidential limit)

I think you have to ensure an election can be held in the future before you even discuss that! There's a very real case that there's no way you can feasibly hold one in many states now. The state of Pennsylvania is actually considering wiping THE
ENTIRE VOTING ROLL and forcing EVERYONE to re-register.

...the exception for prisoners to the ban on involuntary servitude in the 13th Amendment

I'd actually say the other side wants the 13th repealed, part and parcel.

The President and Vice-President of the United States shall be elected by plurality vote of the people.

I'm verklempt on the Electoral College myself.

All (choose one: citizens, residents, persons) are entitled to (choose one or more of: free health care, free public university undergraduate education).

Both of those things may cease to exist in the near future if the Right has anything to say about it.

The living parents of someone born in this country become citizens automatically.

Ah, the reverse. Isn't that what a lot of people drop anchor in this country to effectively do?

The burning or other desecration of the flag of the United States is not protected under the first amendment.

That wouldn't be an amendment -- that would be the same situation as many forms of harassment and the like -- you can get nailed for "speech", often because you don't want (as a law authority) to wait for the "action" you deem follows.

The District of Columbia shall be entitled to one Representative and two Senators, and each Territory whose citizens pay income tax to the United States shall be entitled to one Representative and one Senator; however, the Territories shall not be

entitled to Presidential electors.

Why would you not grant territories EC votes, if they have representation?

Marriage shall be:
...limited to one man and one woman
...allowed between any two consenting persons of legal age (optionally add: except that the Congress may restrict marriages based on blood relationships)

One thing I will never understand: If it is in a compelling government interest to force marriage to be heterosexual, then either marriage is an unconstitutional bridging of Church and State, and/or the State needs to greatly expand what pairings it is
willing to prevent...

Can't afford (or have) kids? No marriage.
Criminal? No marriage.
Psychiatric? No marriage.
And I can go on.

Persons who are neither citizens nor legal residents of the United States shall not be counted for purposes of apportioning seats in the House of Representatives.

If that's the case, then you add "... or for any other purpose."

The membership of the House of Representatives shall be determined by a nationwide vote of the people casting votes for political parties, with each party receiving seats based on the number of votes received; the Congress shall decide how to

distribute the seats among the States, and each State shall decide who its Representatives will be, in line with the results of the vote.

If that's the case, what, then, prevents us from going to a parliamentary system, where a government can be felled by a vote of no-confidence at any time it applies?

The right of the President of the United States to grant reprieves and pardons shall not apply to the President granting a self-reprieve or self-pardon, nor to granting a repreieve, pardon, or reduction of sentence, to a person for a crime that aided

the President.

That shouldn't need an amendment.

No person shall be eligible for the office of President or Vice-President of the United States who was not eligible to be elected President at the start of the term in which that person would hold office. (This prevents Obama or Bush from claiming, "

The Constitution says I can't be ELECTED President again. It says NOTHING about becoming President through other methods, including being Vice-President first.)

That's already in the 12th, IIRC. First off, no person can be VP who can't be President -- that's already in the Constitution. What that would do is not dissimilar to my proposal of revoking consent to the election. The election would have factually
been illegal in the first place, and that's a Constitutional crisis in the first place.

But the hypothetical statement is flatly incorrect. It is in the Constitution that you cannot be VP if you are ineligible to be President.

The right to “free exercise of religion” does not prohibit Congress from taxing churches or other religious organizations, or from setting conditions pertaining to which churches shall be taxed, and the rate of tax for each. ("You want to ban your

priests/ministers from conducting same-sex marriages? There's a price for that now...")

Would have no problem with that.

The Supreme Court of the United States shall consist of a Chief Justice of the United States and eight associate justices, any six of whom shall constitute a quorum. (No, the number of justices does not already appear anywhere in the Constitution.)

Then why can no attempt to "pack the Court" be made right now? Serious question.

When the required Oath of Office of President of the United States includes the word “swear,” it shall end with, “so help me, God.” (No, "So Help Me, God" does not appear in the Constitution, either, which makes sense, as if you "affirm" rather

than "swear," you are not swearing to any deity.)

To me, this would require a state religion.

If any bill passed by both the House and Senate and presented to the President not be returned within ten days, it shall be a law as if the President had signed it (Sundays and the adjournment of Congress notwithstanding).

Article 1, Section 7. Already exists. The only difference is the pocket veto if Congress adjourns in the interim.

Now if you are proposing an amendment to remove the pocket veto...

The President has the power to rescind a pardon granted by a previous President, and trials for crimes for which a pardon has been rescinded shall not be considered to violate the Fifth Amendment.

Has some interesting ramifications.

Congress shall have the authority to impose a tax on a person’s or corporation’s wealth, including the value of any possessions held outside of the country.

Does that not already occur?

Mike

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

No person shall be eligible for the office of President or Vice-President of the United States who was not eligible to be elected President at the start of the term in which that person would hold office. (This prevents Obama or Bush from claiming, "

The Constitution says I can't be ELECTED President again. It says NOTHING about becoming President through other methods, including being Vice-President first.)

That's already in the 12th, IIRC. First off, no person can be VP who can't be President -- that's already in the Constitution. What that would do is not dissimilar to my proposal of revoking consent to the election. The election would have factually

been illegal in the first place, and that's a Constitutional crisis in the first place.

But the hypothetical statement is flatly incorrect. It is in the Constitution that you cannot be VP if you are ineligible to be President.

While the 12th Amendment says that no person constitutionally ineligible to hold the office of President can be VP, nowhere does it say that someone who has served two terms (or one term plus two years of someone else's term) cannot become President by a
method besides being elected - it certainly does not say that in the 22nd Amendment, which VERY clearly says only they cannot be "elected" President. This means that they are still "constitutionally eligible" to be President, and therefore can be elected
VP.

The Supreme Court of the United States shall consist of a Chief Justice of the United States and eight associate justices, any six of whom shall constitute a quorum. (No, the number of justices does not already appear anywhere in the Constitution.)

Then why can no attempt to "pack the Court" be made right now? Serious question.

What makes you think AOC hasn't been calling for this for years? It doesn't happen for the same reason the Senate filibuster is still there - both sides are afraid of the response should they be the first to do it.

If any bill passed by both the House and Senate and presented to the President not be returned within ten days, it shall be a law as if the President had signed it (Sundays and the adjournment of Congress notwithstanding).

Article 1, Section 7. Already exists. The only difference is the pocket veto if Congress adjourns in the interim.
Now if you are proposing an amendment to remove the pocket veto...

That, and the fact that, currently, you don't count Sundays in the ten-day period. I'm pretty sure this is the only reference to a particular day of the week in the Constitution that still has any effect (I was surprised to discover the "first Monday in
October" opening of each Supreme Court session isn't in there). And yes, this does put an end to the unoverrideable veto.

Congress shall have the authority to impose a tax on a person’s or corporation’s wealth, including the value of any possessions held outside of the country.

Does that not already occur?

The Constitution only allows for two types of taxes: per capita (which I assume is "everybody pays the same amount") and income. There are excise duties, but I think those only apply to bringing things into the country, so they aren't a tax on "existing
wealth."

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thursday, June 9, 2022 at 3:22:58 PM UTC-7, The NOTBCS Guy wrote:

While the 12th Amendment says that no person constitutionally ineligible to hold the office of President can be VP, nowhere does it say that someone who has served two terms (or one term plus two years of someone else's term) cannot become President by

a method besides being elected - it certainly does not say that in the 22nd Amendment, which VERY clearly says only they cannot be "elected" President. This means that they are still "constitutionally eligible" to be President, and therefore can be
elected VP.

No. Of course, you could try to play that end around...

Then why can no attempt to "pack the Court" be made right now? Serious question.

What makes you think AOC hasn't been calling for this for years? It doesn't happen for the same reason the Senate filibuster is still there - both sides are afraid of the response should they be the first to do it.

But her call is factually legal -- the only reason the Court has nine is conventional wisdom.

If any bill passed by both the House and Senate and presented to the President not be returned within ten days, it shall be a law as if the President had signed it (Sundays and the adjournment of Congress notwithstanding).

Article 1, Section 7. Already exists. The only difference is the pocket veto if Congress adjourns in the interim.
Now if you are proposing an amendment to remove the pocket veto...

That, and the fact that, currently, you don't count Sundays in the ten-day period. I'm pretty sure this is the only reference to a particular day of the week in the Constitution that still has any effect (I was surprised to discover the "first Monday

in October" opening of each Supreme Court session isn't in there). And yes, this does put an end to the unoverrideable veto.

OK, you're trying to ditch the pocket veto. Got it.

Mike

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)