Sunday, December 13, 2020

What Comes After Rule Of Law?

This morning at American Thinker James DeLong, a retired lawyer, reflects on his former profession in a thoughtful article:

The Honor of the Legal Profession

I feel somehow obliged to say that DeLong's title isn't intended to be facetious, and I really do highly recommend the whole article.

I've been saying since the SCOTUS' self-disgracing on Friday that the Court has delegitimized itself--indeed, that rule of law and even the republic are pretty well finished. DeLong's reflections on the legal profession run along those lines: How did things come to this pass?

DeLong begins by (mis)quoting "a familiar Latin aphorism": Inter arma enim silent leges. More or less: 'In times of war the laws fall silent.' He then suggests that the reverse is also true: "If law falls silent, arms will decide." In a sense it amounts to a chicken/egg type thing. Of course, when men resort to arms the law falls silent, but is it not at times the case that the laws first fall silent and only then do men resort to arms?

We need an aphorism expressing the complementary truth: "If law falls silent, arms will decide," because if process values are systematically ignored, then all hell can break loose. In a recent article, the Serbian-American author said "as someone who (barely) lived through a civil war, [I know that they] begin when a faction decides it can no longer pursue its goals through the political, legal or economic means, as they have all been foreclosed to them."

My professors, who had seen the rise of the great totalitarian states, the consequent World War II, and the tensions of the Cold War, were very aware of the dangers. They regarded reverence for process values as fundamental to the honor of the legal professional.

Judging by the current election controversy, the legal curriculum has been reinvented according to woke principles, because the current legal establishment is not just indifferent to process values, but screechingly opposed.


The Supreme Court dismissal of the Texas complaint was in the same vein [as that of the 'woke' legal activists]. The ruling said Texas lacked standing to defend its citizens' interest in an honest election in other states. But every ragtag, foundation-funded group had been given standing to persuade judges to disrupt the election laws of many states. No coherent law of standing exists, and the doctrine can, without undue cynicism, be seen as a tool by which politicized judges play favorites. (See, e.g., Virginia House of Delegates v Bethune-Hill.)

A sign of the legal times is the concerted effort to shut down news that has not been approved by establishment connected outlets--how can law rule when truth is banned? Thus: ‘The Republic is dead’: Scott Adams censored by YouTube for violating ‘election fraud policy’. The tie-in to the collapse of rule of law in America was quickly grasped by Matt Taibbi:

Idea driven events have a way of snowballing and getting to the bottom of the hill from which they started their downhill path. With that in mind it's worth reflecting on the observations of the Serbian-American writer (quoted by DeLong) on where all this could lead. It's also worth reflecting on the fact that a retired lawyer should have turned to RT for honest opinion writing rather than to a mainstream media outlet in America. That has its own significance:

The Supreme Court had one last chance to keep the American Republic together. It failed.

The very same media that brayed for the past four years about how the 2016 election was somehow tampered with by Russia – never offering any evidence for that – have declared the 2020 one pure as driven snow, the most secure in history, perfect in every way. ...

The Silicon Valley tech giants, who in the run-up to the election censored and suppressed the story about Joe Biden’s family business deals overseas – that later turned out to be accurate – and slapped “disputed” warnings on Trump’s claims of electoral fraud the way they never did on ‘Russiagate,’ are now openly censoring any notion that 2020 wasn’t perfectly legal.

You’re now forbidden to say that. Soon you won’t be allowed to think it. In America, the country that invented the constitutional amendment guaranteeing the freedom of speech and thought!

Democrats and their allies in the media and Silicon Valley were eager to declare the Texas motion “seditious.” One influential House Democrat said any Republican backing the lawsuit was “engaging in rebellion against the United States” and should be stripped of their office under the 14th Amendment ...


Odds that the Nine would actually side with Texas and block the electors were always slim. The justices are notoriously allergic to rocking the boat – unless the case involves discovering ever-expanding constitutional protections discovered in “emanations and penumbras,” from abortion to Obamacare, that is. The court could have resorted to any of these mental gymnastics they have previously employed to legislate from the bench in an effort to reach some kind of Solomonic solution.

Instead, they literally abdicated their constitutional responsibility – and sent a message to 75 million Americans who voted for Trump that their votes don’t matter. Worse, that the System of government that supposedly made the US special, takes a back seat to the media, Big Tech and the consensus manufactured by people who tend to riot when they don’t get their way.

One can only guess as to how they reasoned. Perhaps that Republicans are law-abiding and won’t revolt – especially since much of the GOP has been more than willing to toss Trump overboard and return to its traditional role of the Democrats’ loyal opposition. 


As someone who (barely) lived through a civil war, I know a thing or two about not just how they’re fought, but also how they break out and why. The past month has made me realize that the US has actually been fighting one already, probably since just before Trump was elected. In keeping with the times, it has been fought in the legacy and social media, in the courts, in the ballot-counting back rooms, and even on the streets, but hasn’t quite gone “kinetic,” to borrow the Pentagon parlance.

Civil wars begin when a faction decides it can no longer pursue its goals through the political, legal or economic means, as they have all been foreclosed to them. Can anyone argue, with a straight face, that no Trump supporters feel like this?

Whether rightly or wrongly, they believe the election was stolen and that the people who did so got away with it. How likely are they to trust any election going forward? About as much as they trust the media, the corporations, or the courts right now. 

The Supreme Court had a chance to defuse this ticking time bomb. Instead, they channeled Pontius Pilate and said “not our problem.” That’s how Bosnia happened. I hope and pray that doesn’t happen here, but fear that it shall.


  1. Is there a way under the constitution to turn the "secede" thing on its head, and instead, kick out those states that won't abide by the constitution?

    1. Interesting question. I believe there actually is! You'll find it in the Anything Goes Clause.

    2. Gee, I guess it depends on what the f’n Supreme Court decides...

    3. My research on succession would seem to answer that question... please do feel free correct any of my thinking here.

      It seems the supreme court has ruled on this subject already and is worth putting up because it's the end all from a legal standpoint.

      Texas vs White - The five to three decision, read on April 15, 1869, by Chief Justice S. P. Chase, held the idea that the United States was...

      "an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible States"

      It's seems to me that completely destroys not only the idea of succession but the whole concept of state sovereignty without asking for permission first.

      "But the perpetuity and indissolubility of the Union, by no means, implies the loss of distinct and individual existence or of the right of self-government by the states."

      So as long as you kneel when we say kneel?

      I found many other post civil war references, one that seems to be highly misrepresented from Scalia as a "ruling" when it was in fact a letter replying to a hypothetical question from a screen writer that stated... "If there was any constitutional issue resolved by the Civil War, it is that there is no right to secede." Legally speaking besides the 1869 ruling everything else is pretty much just opinions.

      Arguments before the civil war were based primarily on the Guarantee Clause being pro succession and the Supremacy Clause being anti secession. At that point you are lost in the realm of the federalist papers in trying to distill creator intent and meaning. There really are no good answers in the subject that don't dive down into seedy opinions for pro or con.

      I am a little torn personally by the idea that once a state gets into the union they have no means of getting out. That concept seems to go against the very liberty orientated basis of forming the republic, independence and soventry our founders intended. By no means did the founders believe they had built a impervious or perfect form of government. We know this because there are repeated warnings about the endless ways it could go wrong and I doubt they intended on trapping the 13 colonies.

      I say thats very hypocritical and probably wrong (so does the declaration of independence). But that is what the federal government says the intent was.

      Regardless of my personal and very non legal opinion it would seem that after the civil war no state has any right to declare it's self free of the union after entering it... And buyers beware these days!!!

      So how do we the people address what will not be heard by state or federal courts when we seem it to be an impassable situation?

      I guess we have a big ole fight about it.

    4. Man you are on it lately!! 😂

    5. If only you had standing... but alas, you're just a mere citizen.

    6. @devilman

      well, UK for the last decade, after two referendums and endless negotiations, couldn't leave the European Union. And its a rather young, loose union.

      As the saying goes, you can vote in, but you have to shoot your way out.

    7. IMO the only logical legal argument against a state's right to secede would be that the state in question came out of territories purchased, or conquered, by the Untied States.

      That would mean that all original 13 states and territories at the time of adopting the constitution, as well as any states like Texas that voluntarily entered the union, should have an intrinsic right to depart the union if the guarantees of the constitution have been substantially compromised.

      But, for the rest, any question of legality and secession will really only be solved at the business end of bullets.

    8. @Kirk

      I watched that fiasco pretty closely for a while and was amazed at the shenanigans they pulled after the vote for what? 2+ years and it's STILL in haggles?

      The other amazing part was the nonstop propaganda that was coming out. It's like they threw the kitchen sink at people trying to take the piss out of them. Good on you guys though!!!

      Nigel Farage's EU farewell speech was absolutely priceless! If you guys ever get tired of him we'll take him over here.

      And hey, at least you guys got a process to leave, we're apparently so irreplaceable we can't live without ourselves! 🙄

    9. There is no future in secession. Paraphrasing Lincoln: The divided house will not fall, it will have to stop being divided. It either becomes all Free or all Slave.

      Even if there were a successful separation for a while, the Slave states will go to China, first for economic assistance and then military assistance to subdue the Free States. Who will the Free states get to help them?

      The first thing to remember is this is not about states. It's about counties. Oregon is a red state with Portland. Illinois a read state with Chicago. Those cities will be surprised to find out they need their states more than their states need them. Half a century of so called "Progressives" hollowing out the cities comes home to roost.

    10. White v. Texas is a garbage ruling. It was essentially the winners of the ACW saying "we won, you lost, deal with it." There is no legal reasoning in that ruling, thus the question of secession remains disputed. It's amazing how people don't really read that ruling for what it was at the time.

    11. Mark, you're right! I found it between "penumbra" and "emanation" in a subsection called "whatever". Don't know how I missed it all these years.

      In the post by Malic, he crystallizes a thought that keeps nagging at me: what do we do when we can no longer accept the status quo, but have no legal recourse (“Civil wars begin when a faction decides it can no longer pursue its goals through the political, legal or economic means, as they have all been foreclosed to them.”). Seceding was used once in an attempt to solve this problem, and a fair amount of discord followed. We might not want to try it again.

      But if something must be done, then something must be done. If not secession, then what? That's what my question was clumsily trying to get at.

      Devilman: Thanks. I needed that.

  2. Speaking of 'civil war,' rumor is on the 'net that CJRoberts was in a shouting match during "deliberations" on the TX suit yelling something to the effect 'are you willing to take responsibility for the riots if Trump wins this'?

    Well, CJ, now YOU have the responsibility for the upcoming civil war. How's that make you feeeeeeeeeell??

    1. I haven't checked it out to confirm, but this is what I found.

    2. Via Voxday:

      Also, you might be interested in this guy:

      Simon Parkes (UK) but he's another breath of fresh air against getting black pilled. :)



    4. The only thing I know about Hal Turner is that at FR they won't post anything that cites him as a source. They're normally fairly lenient.

    5. All anon sources. SCOTUS law clerks calling Hal Turner? Really?

    6. Would not surprise me if the story were true, but I am also skeptical of source.

      Re: the constant refrain of CW... I also remain very skeptical of this outcome. I think Devilman was saying something similar in another post a couple days ago, but I find the odds of a bunch of one-off warriors having any effect other than to get themselves shot and the rest of us stricter gun regs to be fantastic at best - and frankly the fascist left would love nothing more than to see some of that play out. And thats even assuming much comes of a bunch of people who are otherwise family-oriented, mortgage and job-holding normalites. The bulk of us are the engine for whats left of democracy, but we are not independent enough to sluff it off and declare John Galt. So its a slow frog-boiling march to perpetual servitude to provide for those who hate us.

      It is thus our noble principle of self-reliance that will prevent us from accomplishing a collective goal. It seems obvious to me that the citizens are already in the process of consenting - with each passing day and week the crowds of protesters dwindle. They were rarely willing to upset the apple cart even when they were sizable enough to do so.

      In the absence of significant organization and some specific objectives in such a fight, half the country has virtually no recourse against anything their authoritarian government does to them, in any forum, public or private. Its a recipe for debilitating anarchy and chaos, but not an organized resistance.

      If an individual were to rise up and declare said organization and objectives, he/she would quickly disappear without a plan for that, also.

      And given the SC has now declared that states have minimal recourse, our best bet is now in mass refusals to comply, and probably only with explicit state endorsement - not many who will be ready to do so, frankly. But if there were, I want to see federal officials expelled from states and absolute refusal to enforce federal regulations. And the states should deploy their militias to protect industry and citizens from federal enforcement of said regulations.

    7. @Anon,

      "I think Devilman was saying something similar in another post a couple days ago, but I find the odds of a bunch of one-off warriors having any effect other than to get themselves shot"

      That's not what I am suggesting, it's what I am kind of foreseeing and wanting to prevent.

      What I am looking at is the Compact Clause SDF and specifically 32 U.S. Code § 109 which takes both regular militia (aka US National Guard, etc) and unregulated militias (the crazy yay-hoos) and puts them under a organized command and control structure which answers directly to a states governor.

      This is an old school (and strange to present times) constitutional means of forming State Defences Forces as quoted in federal law allowing the right to assemble, exercise, equip and train under the states rights to Federalism.

      It is completely removed from anything federal, requires no legislative body or court.

      And I do agree with you that it would be a huge mistake for any militia to go off on a side tangent as it would cost us dearly.

      My hope is that "we the people" whom want to stand up and show were here will be given the opportunity by our states to do so.

      I hope that makes more sense? No idiot yay-hoos please!!!

  3. It’s embarrassing that RT is being linked to, due to censorship/ partisanship by the msm and Internet giants.

    1. I am having a very hard time researching many subjects because of all of the blackouts.

      It's mind boggling!!!

    2. ...a major impetus to buy books.


  4. Being a rational human I am skeptical that Hunter and Joe dotted their i's and crossed their t's when doing their financial deals. Now that Hunter is getting the audit enema I am expecting indictment(s) to come down in shortly implicating Biden family. Even though I don't know how, I think we will find Barr justified in doing what he did. How would Harris get anything done with the well full of taint, can't see it.

    1. HOw does Harris get anything done with all this taint. The answer is: they don't care. Just like Trump who did what had to be done except he did it legally. The Harris administration will do what the Obama administration did with cover from the deep state and media.

      You have to change your paradigm. It is now a "might makes right" world. So you need to keep involved. They want you discouraged and bitter. Don't be. Be mad for the moment put it away and act with purposeful cold anger. Keep the pressure on by holding lower people to account, boycott as much as possible their allies and don't stop talking about their misdeeds. Join up with like minded people and stay strong. The key is to prepare now for 2022 and the fraud they will try in that election.

      There are 70+ million of us. Don't think you are alone in this.


    2. Next election? I'd be pleasantly surprised if there is one.

    3. 0311 - Of course there will be a next election. In Soviet America, EVERYONE votes! Living, dead, never born...

      Neither Biden or Harris are anything but figureheads for the puppet masters, the Oligarchs and Emperor Xi Jinping. The President could be Caligula's favorite horse, the decisions will be the same, what does the greatest damage to the United States.

  5. Slightly (or more) OT: Perhaps there is still hope...

    There is a book, written by a survivor of the Bosnian civil war, (the title I have forgotten) that is a first hand account of his experiences - not pretty.

  6. In Taibbi's post of yesterday, he says
    "Conventional wisdom says, that half the country has been taken over by a dangerous conspiracist movement, that must be tamed by any means necessary."
    When he says "tamed by **any** means", we'd better assume, that he knows of what he speaks.

  7. In reading Mr DeLong's article I would say his tone and concerns translate well to even those of us far removed from careers in law.

    I find myself asking may of the same questions with much of the same dismally bleak self talk as a result.

    One point that hits me hard is the complete disregard for common civility that seem to be bleeding from every corner in attacking, doxing and threatening others in an attempt to silence them. That and the big data censorship gives a chilling effect.

    At times I feel alone in the idea that the only way out of this is to fight. It's a small comfort to see someone with a career and knowledge as his basically falling to the same conclusions.

    I feel less crazy anyways.

  8. One thing's for certain.

    If one (or more) state(s) 'secede' the remaining states will cite precedent for use of force to prevent it.

  9. Here is how the fraud thing works: (altered 200 valid voted to be invalid)

    This is from a Detroit suburb from the 2018 election. She was arrested in Dec 2020, therefore probably able to assist or coordinate the 2020 election effort with the desired outcome in her precinct, or maybe the greater Detroit area, who knows?

  10. What could start a modern day civil war? Secession seems so antiquated, but the actual cause of secession that sparked the civil war is front and center today. One political party is publicly stating its plans to change the foundation on which this republic was founded for its specific benefit. Creating and admitting new states to the union for complete legislative and electoral control of the nation. If your history is a bit rusty, the Missouri Compromise might ring a bell. Then there are the public statements on packing the supreme court with liberal justices. Why? Well, because one political party could not win fairly so now it will just change the rules and levy new ones once it attains power. And what if Trump declares martial law and orders a new election based on the in-your-face fraud that occurred in the battleground states that our supreme court seems unwilling to address. These are just some potential matchsticks that could light the powder keg.

    So who would win a modern day civil war? Much would depend on how our military and state governments reacted, but there is one key element to winning in our modern era and that is control of the electrical grid and fuel distribution. If you control the grid, you determine the 'haves' and 'have not's.' Unlike our ancestors during the civil war, today's population is by and large not self-sufficient. While our ancestors had wood and coal stoves we have propane tanks. How would a population react without any heat and air or refrigeration because they are not favored by the electrical grid operators? I’ll guarantee you there won’t be many vegetarians left… Our ancestors were comprised of large and extended family units that typically lived in the same geographic area capable of supporting one another. They were self-sufficient and did not depend on the government for much more than the postal service. Today, families are small and usually separated geographically; there are no family 'units.' Modern society is almost totally dependent on government. Can you imagine what will happen when the government does not send out that monthly payment for social security, welfare, disability, pensions, etc.?

    Of course the U.S. military has an operational plan (OPLAN) for national emergencies. Undoubtedly USNORTHCOM is dusting it off and updating it.


    1. Those in control of the electrical grid and fuel distribution may be quite different folks, from those who send out that monthly payment for social security, welfare, disability, pensions, etc.
      To my understanding, the TX grip is totally separate
      from those of other states.

    2. @DJL,

      I have a few hypothetical answers I'll toss in. Its long, but in my own defense you asked.

      "What could start a modern day civil war?"

      All of 2020? One side having enough of the other? One really bad financial day? A mouse farts? Because we're about that jumpy. The coming green damage to our energy sectors.


      I think you answered your own question and I could do no better beyond mincing the same words.

      "So who would win a modern day civil war?"

      I agree with your assessment on the change of times and the lacking of self reliance. Even during WWII people in europe were much more self sufficient as was the USSR. So there are no good modern day examples of our a country like ours going south.

      From my own experiences, civility has about a 72 hour life span before localized riots, lawlessness and unrelated mayhem run rampid after the tap goes dry and the power goes out.

      I think the areas with lower populations would do much better overall from a strategic stand point because every major population center is going to kill it's self by the tens of millions just by its own density and nature.

      You had mentioned OPLAN, I think it would become "plan SNAFU" very quickly because OPLAN is protect DC.

      You can't account for whom would split how within the military it's an unknown. DC brass tends to be highly Democratic but even if it was a 50/50 split the domestic continuity issues within the cities are going to outpace the resources in man power in costal areas. Fight, starve or fight the starving off would become an honest flip of the coin.

      Resource wise, fly over country the most unpopulated areas would be the biggest prizes. There's you food production, natural gas/oil production and distribution, power distribution and east/west rail / trucking logistics. If you stop bicoastal logistics you'll quickly starve the east coast to death. You kill power you kill both coasts. You kill gas you freeze the north and kill power all over. Tricky stuff!

      And don't forget the outsiders creeping into the picture. "Financed by China" may be stamped on everything one side has. I would side with Russia for financing just for the irony/spite factor of it.

      Overall It would be catastrophic, even for the states whom stayed completely out of it because logistics, logistics, logistics.

      So really, no one wins... But we better.

      After the last reconciliation as an example you will loose everything to redistribution. Today intellectual property rights, stock shares and patients may look at lot like past plantation divisions did, split up and redistributed to the winners.

      Then... There's the bills... Because we're already trillions and trillions in the hole. Screw China I guess. No more social security checks, no more 401ks, savings and no more dollar for that matter.

      Hello gold standard, we missed you!?!

      It would be far better for each kid to take their ball and just go home. But that debit issue is why the federal treasury portion of the US can never allow that to happen.

      It was similar for the civil war, southern raw materials were what this country survived upon sold to both the north to feed northern industry and the world for profit. Which is why tariffs on southern exports sent people off of a cliff.

      Today it's all about debit, loan guarantee and dollar value, all of which are in about the same condition as our legal system at the moment so... It's really hard for me to defend much of anything anymore.

      Fun subject, but I don't want to live it. It makes me wish we had not conceded so much ground to be where we currently are as a nation.

    3. "It makes me wish we had not conceded so much ground to be where we currently are as a nation."

      Therein lies the run: by definition you only realize you should've done something in retrospect. And so now, here we are having more academic debates about what to do and if its really time.

      I suspect we will know soon. Too late, because for the smaller pile we have each passing year, we all keep reciting "I have too much to lose"

  11. OT but this could explain the Eric Swalwell leaks getting ahead of this massive dump. And oh boy do I want to see names!!

  12. DeLong's and Malic's articles are well worth reading. DeLong's lament for the loss of respect in the legal profession for 'process' and related values especially resonated. Thanks for sharing, Mark.

    I, too, commend them to your readers.

  13. A Land attorney is a client of mine, a conservative christian, he is appalled by his profession and the never ending b.s. of john roberts and his flock.

  14. The CCP forces censorship upon the media in China; I'm now wondering if the censorship we now experience here in the U.S. is also coming from the CCP?

    1. If they can buy the Biden family lock, stock, and barrel, they can buy Big Media folks just as easily and effectively.

      I have been using this as a working hypothesis for at least 6 months.

    2. They don't have to exert a lot of control. Just consider the companies that own our media outlets, then consider their financial stake in a happy China. Throw in the fact that they hate America-as-founded anyway, and it's all rather straightforward.

    3. The censorship, IMO, stems from the thugocracy ushered in by Obama's crowd. They began using banks to shut down businesses (gun companies, for example) they didn't like. Now we have all manner of corporations excluding or silencing the Left's political opponents. This includes media, tech platforms, financial giants, and more. The communist Dems do it this way to get around the Bill of Rights.

      I read a long statement by the founder of Gab about how he and his family have been professionally and even personally frozen out of certain financial transactions. It is chilling.

      That these Democrats consider themselves the good people is beyond bizarre. They are either mentally ill and truly believe that or they know they are doing wrong and just pretend to be virtuous. Perhaps it varies from person to person.

      I've been wondering why Chris Christie and the odious Karl Rove are attacking Trump for pointing out the steal. Maybe they want to play nice with the communists who have the upper hand so that they don't end up like the founder of Gab or Pres. Trump. I don't know what we can do about this situation, but this is unacceptable and should not stand. I'm not sure what recourse people have, since these are the Dems' allies and not the government itself violating the Bill of Rights.

  15. The precedent of the 1960 Hawaii electors, who sent 3 certificates for electors (Kennedy-Nixon)

    "...Nixon as VP that decided the December 30th slate was the true slate. Indicating that the power to decide which are the valid electors is in Pence’s hands. Then from there the Congress can object."


  16. A vid of DJT, at , shows him saying the following (today?):
    "I don't want to go four years forward, I wanna go four weeks back. We never give up.
    And we caught tremendous cheating, tremendous fraud, and you're going to see it.... We have a very interesting period of time, it's going to be an incredible six weeks, and you're going to see a lot of action. That I can tell you....
    We won't talk about beyond that, but I really think we are going to be victorious. We have tremendous things happening.
    We've caught people doing things that you're not allowed to do - totally illegal - totally illegal.
    And what we need is a judge or justice with courage, with what it takes, with wisdom, we need someone with wisdom to set it right, because people know...."

  17. A shame the votes for biden are more than the voters for biden.

  18. Today, a reader "AnotherCommentator", at You Know Where (in the Paxton thread, at 5:53 pm), makes an argument I had to refer to here, given its importance:

    "We shouldn’t be complaining about the SCOTUS. Back in late October, they accepted reasoning similar to Paxton’s, when they struck down 5-3 a Wisconsin court’s decisions to allow late counting of ballots. Yes, even John Roberts....
    Giuiliani, Powell, Wood, and everybody else on the Stop the Steal team should have been focused on challenging the last minute, unconstitutional election rules, in all of the battleground states....
    Right now, Georgia officials are LYING in SWORN AFFIDAVITS, that no Fulton County announcements were made (you know, the one that cleared out the election observers....)

  19. I practice law in a mid Atlantic state and the governor and the state's highest court have shredded the property rights of citizens because....CCP Virus!!! It is amazing that they can use a string of "Whereas" clauses--- that are nothing more than their own conclusory statements-- as the justification for shutting down courthouses, canceling trials, suspending the contract rights of businesses, and enforcing ansurd limits on basic Constitutional rights.

    The law means nothing now, only what the powerful and connected want it to say.

    I, for one, favor invocation of the 14th Amendment and Article IV for the President to restore a republican form of government and equal protection to all US citizens. If that means military enforcement to redo the elections in the contested states then so be it. We are under a covert attack involving hostile powers. The President has a duty to act.

    1. I agree. Trump has a duty to uphold the Constitution and I will do whatever it takes to assist. Whatever it takes.

    2. I continue to vociferously disagree with anyone suggesting Trump should do anything of the sort. The choice of whether to "act" is now in the people's hands, where it should be. Stop waiting for someone else to make the hard choice.

  20. As corrupt as things are I pray President Trump and his family can trust the secret service.

  21. And, "AnotherCommentator" adds (at 9:13 pm):

    "To be fair, we are running out of time. We need to go for the weakest link, to cause a domino effect. Expose the GA election fraud. That is the greatest hope.
    Recently, the GBI formed a special unit to investigate ~250 GA election irregularities, but there is no indication that they are prioritizing Fulton County, or examining questionable absentee ballots.
    Public officials have also complained about a lack of money for such an endeavor, which cannot be fixed until January, because the GA legislature is out of session. Finally, GA Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger and his cronies have been muddying the waters, by lying about what happened in Fulton County on election night.
    They’ve released “debunkings”, but they were easily “debunked” themselves: .

    So what do we do? We need to demand that Governor Kemp and the GA legislature meet, so they can organize a thorough investigation of what happened that night. We must force them to do more than just a “risk-limiting audit” (a fancy, misleading term for recount), and actually conduct a forensic analysis (signature verification, address matching, etc.) of every absentee ballot scanned after election observers were told to go home.
    There’s a reason why GOP establishment officials have committed to lying about what happened in Fulton County, even in sworn affidavits. They know they’ve been caught, and they are desperate to cover their tracks. Remember, the media narrative is slipping....
    They have fully committed to big lie. Once Georgia election fraud is exposed, and Georgia flips to Trump, then the whole rotten facade will come crashing down."

    1. maybe so in Georgia, but of much bigger moment is Ms. Powell's and Mr. Woods' representations that there has been MASSIVE systemic fraud perpetrated and /or abetted in the perpetration by FOREIGN ACTORS and furthermore, MS. Powell has been clear about specific Foreign influence in the form of the Dominion Software Company and the goods and services they provide. This company happens to be Canadian and this company happens to have sold its goods and services to the STATE OF GEORGIA. POTUS has stated directly that there are "problems" with the "Dominion Machines" Now maybe you think PDJT is the blowhard the left makes him out to be, but I think when he says "we caught them" he means "we caught them." He is POTUS. Commander in Chief of the United States of America. That's his NSA over there. Hello. This isn't "The Apprentice" season 6. If you think all that has to happen or all that is going to happen is they're going to expose some fraud in the state of Georgia I have a bridge to sell you. This is going to be ALL ABOUT National Security in 3, 2, 1 ....

    2. "So what do we do? We need to demand that Governor Kemp and the GA legislature meet"

      By DEMAND, what do you mean and by what means? Herein is the issue we face: our side still thinks sending emails, a phone call to the office, or dropping by the park for a couple hours on Saturday is a protest. These people are quite happy to have us asking for prayers online while they conduct their affairs.

      If we would like these cretins to see how enraged we are, we need to be there, at the state houses, at the governors mansion, at their favorite restaurant, at their moms house for thanksgiving and christmas, by the tens of thousands, 24/7, with bullhorns and everything else we can muster peacefully.

      But alas, the electors weigh in TODAY, and we never once figured out how to conduct a resistance. Our numbers dwindled each week, we started sniping at each other, and blah blah blah - all of which equals our consent.

  22. The full CCP list.(translated)
    Added some screen shots in here.
    Have at it. Link provided with the .csv file.

  23. Recommend J. E. Dyer column at Liberty Unyielding for your consideration.

  24. What comes after the Rule of Law? New Rules and new Laws.

    Right now, as fast as their little feet can carry them, the legislatures of the Free States should meet and start passing laws opposed by the SCROTUS (I don't know what it stands for, but is sounds appropriate and amuses me). Outlaw are restrict abortion. Mandate medical privileges for infanticiders. Legislate the gender dismorphia is a mental illness to be treated appropriately. Ban biological boys from girls sports and locker rooms. etc. And make sure SCROTUS knows that they have no standing to object, or as Andrew Jackson might have said, "JOHN ROBERTS HAS MADE HIS DECISION; NOW LET HIM ENFORCE IT.”

    1. Play on words of a male body part and the court.

  25. If "sanctuary cities" in blue states are OK, then red states ignoring federal edicts we can't abide should be fine,too. Am I off base?

  26. I have read that judges and their families have been getting death threats. No wonder judges are afraid to do their jobs.


  27. In WI over the weekend, left wing justice Jill Karofsky dropped the R bomb on Trump's lawyer, accusing him of racism because he was going after two black counties as dens of ballot stuffing. He walked into a courtroom and gave a freshly-minted liberal judge a chance to show her proper race credentials.

    He should be disbarred.

    So, yes, what comes after the rule of law? Red and blue voters live among each other's tribes in every state. For that reason, secession or civil war is unlikely to happen, at least not at the outset.

    After decades of abuse, odds are the Republic just caves in on itself. We've been heading for collapse for decades (fiscal madness, endless wars, you name it).

    Our downfall can't be blamed entirely on the current situation, although the current situation, clerks and crazies in charge, will doubtless accelerate the collapse.

    Can you see Giggles as president? Any nation that let a half-wit like her get so high up on the ladder almost deserves to be dissolved. Or as Pogo put it:

    We have met the enemy and he is us.

  28. Sidney Powell's explanation of the status of the lawsuits she has brought:

    A little OT: She mentions the Flynn case and explains 'Judge' Sullivan's bizarre behavior by noting that he is a tool of Eric Holder. Aha! This makes perfect sense given that both are decades old denizens of the corrupt DC Bar...and Holder is a partner at the corrupt Covington & Burling 'law' firm which purported to represent and then betrayed Michael Flynn.

    1. I listened to that earlier this morning, before writing the new post. I, too, was very interested to read that jab at Holder. I also was pleased to see that she stated that her team would be filing a motion to vacate Sullivan's opinion for lack of jurisdiction.

  29. Mark, have you seen this article?

    The Serbian Connection
    To Biden, Soros, the CIA - and electoral fraud.

    When Sidney Powell spoke to conservative radio host Howie Carr on Nov. 20, she included Serbia among four countries she accused of interfering with the Nov. 3 Presidential election.

    Four days earlier, a former member of Serbia's parliament published stunning evidence to support Powell's assertion.

    Srjdan Nogo not only showed how Serbia manipulated vote totals. He exposed the connections between the highest officials in the Serbian government, Serbian leaders in technology and telecommunications, George Soros, former Vice President Joe Biden, the CIA and other government agencies in the United States.

    Among the figures Nogo mentions in his articles for the website Srbin Info is retired Gen. David Petraeus, who commanded American troops in Afghanistan, then served as President Barack Obama's CIA director for 15 months before John Brennan replaced him in 2012.

    In a separate tweet Nov. 29, Nogo confirmed that the United States military seized CIA computer servers in Frankfurt, Germany.

    Much more here:

    1. I've read elsewhere about the Serbian connection, but hadn't seen that specific article. Thanks.

    2. I'll want to read that carefully. The assertion you quote is that "SERBIA manipulated vote totals." Does that mean the Serbia as a country, a foreign power, manipulated vote totals, or does it mean that Serbian nationals did, or that persons based in Serbia (but perhaps not even Serbian nationals) did so? These are very important distinctions for purposes of Trump's EO.

      That Serbian leaders should be connected to "George Soros, former Vice President Joe Biden, the CIA and other government agencies in the United States" is not surprising and shouldn't come as news. It's not the same thing as "manipulating vote totals."

  30. Very interesting ideas from Tom Zawistowski at His idea is for the President to pull a Lincoln essentially and declare limited military rule specifically for the purpose of conducting immediate re-vote of federal elections, by paper ballot only, hand counting, in person only with verifiable ID, supervised and run directly by the military. Once that is done, martial law is ended and then it's a matter of quelling the predictable left wing riots. It's not a perfect solution but it has the advantage of appealing to the sense of fairness in the vast majority of Trump voters, even some Democrats, and (most importantly) the military itself to prevent splintering. He is one of the Tea Party guys who helped put out the full page ad in the Washington Times w Mcinerney and Flynn.

    Here is one interview:

  31. My two cents as briefly as I can get them out (and as aside - great hosting and commenting today. That’s nothing new for this place, but I’d still like to recognize it).

    Cent #1: The risk to the nation going forward is much less the killing of free speech than it is the killing of those who would organize and lead us out of this. Getting the people together to demand fair elections in 2022 and actually force that to happen would be child’s play for anyone with the right stuff to do it - and of those with the right stuff there are many (say I). Getting around the censorship is totally doable, because it isn’t now and won’t immediately be so complete as to truly shut off smart, courageous and committed dissent. The only thing that can stop this from happening is for the bad guys to start taking those would-be leaders and organizers out, whether through trumped up crimes, trumped up scandals, or just the old-fashioned way of untimely and fatal accidents.

    In other words, if people can speak and organize without getting murdered for their efforts, or otherwise effectively neutralized, the good guys will beat this thing back, take our nation back and make it better than ever. My principal concern is that the other side is every bit as well aware of this as I am, and I’ve seen little that would make me think their consciences or their MO would prevent them from playing this type of Third-World dirty.

    So the real question (repeating myself, I know) is not “can we speak freely?” It is “can those who would lead us out communicate and organize effectively and live long enough to succeed in their efforts?” If so, we’ll be good. If not, it”ll be a very different, and much uglier, story.

    Cent #2: Donald Trump has a role to play, but any movement that makes him the center of attention is doomed to fail. And god forbid that people make “Trump 2024” a thing. Putting aside his age in four years and his fairly low ceiling on truly mass appeal, he just spent four years as President and yet failed miserably at the three things he knew were of utmost importance to his followers and the nation, i.e., he never did one damn thing to use his powers as President to get us any meaningful declass and release nor in any other way made govt and DC more transparent; he never did one damn thing to use his powers as President to get true and accurate information about this virus to the people; and he never did one damn thing to use his powers as President to prevent this election fraud from happening, despite knowing from miles and months away it was coming. It’s not that he tried and failed at any of these - he simply never even tried. All he did was bitch about “Woe is me. The Democrats are keeping everything classified. Woe is me. The Democrats are giving the people bad virus stats. Woe is me. The Democrats are going to cheat in this election.” That is not trying. It is complaining, and complaining did not and will not get the job done.

    I’m not a Trump basher and I’m not trying to be one here. I’m being realistic - he hasn’t shown any real aptitude in outsmarting the Democrats, figuring out how to beat them, and then actually beating them. That sort of shortcoming simply will not get the job done that needs to be done now. He woke a lot of people up and gave a lot of people hope. That is much, and it deserves much praise and gratitude. But there are far more competent people out there, and we can’t allow all their oxygen to be sucked away from them by saying, “Donald will save us. Trust the plan!” (People on this site have never been the “trust the plan” type, but too many others have been.)

    Okay, that’s probably more than enough. There was nothing brief about those two cents, I know. Sorry - did the best I could.

    1. "he hasn’t shown any real aptitude in outsmarting the Democrats"

      I'm going to disagree with this statement. I thought he beat them at every turn - being a stable genius and all (but maybe he was also lucky)

      However, I would say he made his biggest mistake in not tackling big tech right from the beginning.

      Instead of spending time on getting peace deals in the middle east (amazing though they are), he should have broken the censorship of Twitter and FB and Google.

      Now they're suing FB? Now????


    2. I totally agree about big tech and should’ve included that. If he were good at outsmarting the Democrats, though, we’d be talking about how great his next four years could be. Instead we’re contemplating the possible end of the American Experiment of the last 200+ years. If this is what outsmarting them looks like, I’d hate to see what it would like if he instead got outsmarted. At least, that’s how I see it.

    3. The "end of the American experiment" wasn't at the hands of Trump as you seem to inply: it was already happening right in front of us.

      But like raging alcoholics in denial, we have collectively refused to acknowledge what most of us have said aloud for decades: that our Government repeatedly sold us down the river and was hopelessly corrupt.

      Trump ripped the lid off and exposed these frauds for exactly what they are. Front and center.

      Thats pretty damned smart IMO.

      How many times have you had the conversation around US intervention in countries with abject human rights abuses that end with, "so what do we do about China?"

      Trump is the first POTUS in my lifetime who called out the REALITY that America no longer produced anything and worse? Were hyper consumers of every product imaginable produced squarely on the backs of slave labor in China (literally) AND at the same time carving the liver out of America's middle class.

      How many conversations have you had about rampant illegal immigration and what 'should' be done about it?

      Trump ACTUATED.

      We were (and are) not living as truly free Americans but merely under the illusion of freedom.

      So, yes. I think Trump will be remembered as the POTUS smart enough to have ripped the veneer off of 60 years of corruption and changed American politics forever in the process.

      Trump beat the Democrats, Deep state, foreign adversaries like a rented mule.

      He beat the Democrats so badly they had to resort to a phony virus to stop his economic juggernaut (on the heels of a phony impeachment) and resort to election tactics so blatantly, flagrantly and empirically illegal they've finished the job of completely delegitimizing themselves.

    4. "The "end of the American experiment" wasn't at the hands of Trump... it was already happening right in front of us....
      they had to resort to... election tactics so blatantly, flagrantly and empirically illegal, they've finished the job of completely delegitimizing themselves."

      Sounds right.
      He was fighting the Dems, with one hand distracted by him trying to fend off the GOPe (incl. those who stuck him with Barr).

    5. I am not in disagreement with what both Dave and aNanyMouse are saying - certainly not for the most part - and I was not in any way bashing Trump or suggesting he had no skills or smarts or that he didn’t do a lot of good. When I said as much in the earlier comment, those weren’t throw-away lines. He had the common sense of a private sector, non-swamp creature to try and do things that make sense to anyone outside of the swamp, and that was an enormous positive. And I definitely wasn’t implying he’s the one who is bringing an end to the American experiment or that this hasn’t been many long decades in the making.

      My point was and is, though, that we can’t just sit back and hope Donald Trump somehow pulls a Moses, defeats Pharaoh and leads us and our beloved America to the Promised Land. Smart, competent, courageous people must act. Somehow or another there is for sure a role for Trump, but that will only be one slice of any effort with a chance to succeed at righting the American ship, something I know all of us here desperately want to see happen.

      Anyway, that’s my opinion. If it came off like Trump bashing, that was obviously my mistake but certainly not my intention.