>>20388302 Bloodbath: SCOTUS Grills CO Lawyer at Trump Ballot Hearing (PN)

Gorsuch said this twice, would this compel someone reporting to a “President” or in your view “a former President”

Meaning to me, “once a President, always a President”, or is he saying he’s still the President.Interesting wording and repeating it twice, seems notable to me!

Jason Murray,just told the court the only way to invalidate a President is by impeachment, so why are they saying they can remove him from the ballot, if President Trump was never successfully impeached. And he was not impeached for Insurrection. This attorney way below the intellectual scale to plead at the SC. He had clerked for Kagan in the Circuit Court

It’s obvious the CO SC knew this would go to the SC, perhaps there were hoping there would be no challenge, or they can maintain their political power saying to the people, “we tried to do the right thing”, but the SC overruled us.

The real problem they have with political pandering like that, is the SC ruled against CO 9 to 0including three very liberal justices. Now the CO SC 4 justices have been revealed as politicians on the court that will mete out injustice to their political enemies.

I wonder when the 4 justices terms are up? It is said that in reality the majority of CO are a red state, but the liberals cheat in the major cities. Any state bringing this ruling of taking him off the ballot, will not have a job in government ever, when their term is up.

(Really good read)

Lessons in the Decline of Democracy From the Ruined Roman Republic

A new book argues that violent rhetoric and disregard for political norms was the beginning of Rome’s end

Jason DaleyNovember 6, 20181/3A new book argues that violent rhetoric and disregard for political norms was the beginning of Rome’s end

The U.S. Constitution owes a huge debt to ancient Rome. The Founding Fathers were well-versed in Greek and Roman History. Leaders like Thomas Jefferson and James Madison read the historian Polybius, who laid out one of the clearest descriptions of the Roman Republic’s constitution, where representatives of various factions and social classes checked the power of the elites and the power of the mob. It’s not surprising that in the United States’ nascent years, comparisons to ancient Rome were common. And to this day, Rome, whose 482-year-long Republic, bookended by several hundred years of monarchy and 1,500 years of imperial rule, is still the longest the world has seen.

Aspects of our modern politics reminded University of California San Diego historian Edward Watts of the last century of the Roman Republic, roughly 130 B.C. to 27 B.C. That’s why he took a fresh look at the period in his new book Mortal Republic: How Rome Fell Into Tyranny. Watts chronicles the ways the republic, with a population once devoted to national service and personal honor, was torn to shreds by growing wealth inequality, partisan gridlock, political violence and pandering politicians, and argues that the people of Rome chose to let their democracy die by not protecting their political institutions, eventually turning to the perceived stability of an emperor instead of facing the continued violence of an unstable and degraded republic. Political messaging during the 2018 midterm elections hinged on many of these exact topics.

Though he does not directly compare and contrast Rome with the United States, Watts says that what took place in Rome is a lesson for all modern republics. “Above all else, theRoman Republic teaches the citizens of its modern descendants the incredible dangers that come along with condoning political obstruction and courting political violence,” he writes. “Roman history could not more clearly show that, when citizens look away as their leaders engage in these corrosive behaviors, their republic is in mortal danger.”

Historians are cautious when trying to apply lessons from one unique culture to another, and the differences between the modern United States and Rome are immense. Rome was an Iron-Age city-state with a government-sponsored religion that at times made decisions by looking at the entrails of sheep. Romans had a rigid class system, relied on slave labor and had a tolerance for everyday violence that is genuinely horrifying. Then again, other aspects of the Roman Republic feel rather familiar.

The Roman people’s strong sense of patriotism was unique in the Mediterranean world. Like the United States after World War II, Rome, after winning the Second Punic War in 201 B.C. (the one with Hannibal and the elephants), became the world’s hegemon, which lead to a massive increase in their military spending, a baby boom, andgave rise to a class of super-wealthy elitesthat were able touse their money to influence politics and push their own agendas. Those similarities make comparisons worthwhile, even if the togas, gladiator battles and appetite for dormice seem completely foreign.

Cullen Murphy, whose 2005 book Are We Rome? makes a more head-on comparison between the fall of the Roman Empire and the U.S., argues that the changes in politics and society in Rome stemmed from one source:its growing complexity. Rome, during the Republic and Empire, had increasing and evolving responsibilities around the Mediterranean which its government constantly struggled to manage. Those challenges forced changes throughout the economy and society, sometimes for the better and sometimes for the worse. In general terms, he sees many of the same struggles in recent U.S. history….

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/lessons-decline-democracy-from-ruined-roman-republic-180970711/

>>20390840

(All of what this is discussed has been happening here since at least 2004)

2/3

“I think the U.S. is experiencing this same situation—we’ve never quite recovered from our victory in World War II, which left us with the world on our shoulders; and the implications of that responsibility have skewed things in every part of our society and economy, andput our old political (and other) structures under enormous strain,” he says. “New sources of power and new forms of administration and management fill the gap—and create unease and sometimes also injustice, and at the same time create vast new sectors of wealth.”

Those types of social and economic changes also rattled the Roman Republic, leading to the moment in 130 B.C. when politics turned violent.The introduction of a secret ballot meant Roman politicians and political factions couldn’t keep tabs on (or bribe) individual voters. Instead, politicians had to build political brands that appealed to the masses, leading to something akin to modern American campaigning with big promises and populist language aimed at the poor and middle class.

Reforms to themilitary also meant that service was no longer reserved for the elite, who for centuries used their privilege to demonstrate their loyalty to Rome. For poorer soldiers, however, service became a path to riches. They began to count on the loot, bonuses and gifts of land they received from their often-wealthy commanders meaning that over time theloyalty of the Roman legions shifted from the empire to their generals. These changes set the stage for a new type of politics, one where whipping up the resentments of the lower classes and threatening political enemies with semi-private armies became the norm.

These trends first came to a head in 134 B.C. when Tiberius Gracchus, an elected tribune of the people, proposed a land reform bill that would benefit poorer and middle-class Romans. The way Gracchus went about his reform, however, was an affront to the norms and traditions of the Republic. He brought his law before thePlebeian Assembly without the thumbs-up of the Senate. When his fellow tribune Marcus Octavius threatened to veto the bill, which was his right, Gracchusmanipulated the rules to have him stripped of his office. There were other incidents as well, but the most concerning aspect of Gracchus was his fiery, populist language, which whipped his supporters to the edge of political violence. As his power grew, Gracchus began moving through the streets surrounded by a mob of frenzied supporters, a kind of personal militia not seen in Rome before.

Rumors spread that Gracchus was angling to become a king or dictator, and some in the Senate felt they needed to act. When Gracchus stood for a second term as tribune, which was not illegal but broke another norm,a group of Senators and their supporters beat Gracchus and 300 of his followers to death.

It was just the beginning. Over the next century, Tiberius’s brother Gaius Gracchus would come into conflict with the Senate after a similar populist confrontation. The commander Sulla would march legions loyal to him on Rome itself and battle his political rival Marius, the first time Roman troops fought one another. He would then execute and punish his political enemies. In the following generation Pompey and Caesar would settle their political scores using Roman legions, Octavian and Marc Antony wouldfield an army against the Senate before finally battling one another bringing almost 500 years of the Republic to a bloody (and confusing) conclusion.

Watts argues that while the Senate ordered his murder, it was Tiberius Gracchus who let the genie out of the bottle. “What he has to bear responsibility for is he starts using this really aggressive and threatening language and threatening postures. He never resorts to violence, but there’s always this implicit threat. ‘If not for me, things would get out of control.’ And that is different, that was never done before. What he introduces is this political tool of intimidation and threats of violence. Later thinkers say once it’s there, even if others choose not to use it, it’s there forever.”..

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/lessons-decline-democracy-from-ruined-roman-republic-180970711/

>>20390848

Lessons in the Decline of Democracy From the Ruined Roman Republic

3/3

While life in Rome, with gladiator battles, crucifixions and endless war was violent, for centuries Romans took pride in their republican system and political violence was taboo. “The Republic was free of political violence for the better part of 300 years. People who are politically engaged are not killing each other and they’re not threatening to kill each other. When they disagree with each other they use political means that were created by the republic for dealing with political conflict,” says Watts. “If you lose one of those conflicts, you don’t die and you don’t lose your property and you aren’t sent away. You just lose face and move on. In that sense, this is a remarkably successful system for encouraging compromise and encouraging consensus building and creating mechanisms whereby political conflicts will be decided peacefully.”

So what does the story of the Roman Republic mean for the United States? The comparison is not perfect. The U.S. has had its share of political violence over the centuries and has more or less recovered. Politicians used to regularly duel one another (See the Hamilton soundtrack, song 15), and in the run-up to the Civil War, the ultimate act of political violence, there was the raid on Harper’s Ferry, Bleeding Kansas, and the near murder of Charles Sumner in the Senate chamber. Joanne B. Freeman, author of Field of Blood, a history of violence in Congress before the Civil War, tells Anna Diamond at Smithsonianshe found at least 70 incidents of fighting among legislators, including a mass brawl in the House, though they often tried to paper over the conflicts. “It’s all hidden between the lines in the Congressional record; it might say “the conversation became unpleasantly personal.” That meant duel challenges, shoving, pulling guns and knives.”

The better comparison, surprisingly, applies to post-WWII America. Despite periods where the U.S. political system and established political norms have been tested and stretched—the McCarthy hearings, Vietnam, Watergate, the Iraq War—partisan violence or attempts to subvert the system have been rare. But recent events, like changes to filibuster rules and other procedures in Congress as well as increasingly heated political rhetoric give Watts pause. “It is profoundly dangerouswhen a politician takes a step to undercut or ignore a political norm, it’s extremely dangerous whenever anyone introduces violent rhetoric or actual violence into a republican system that’s designed to promote compromise and consensus building.”

The solution to keeping a republic healthy, if Rome can truly be a guide, is for the citizens to reject any attempts to alter these norms he says. “I think the lesson I take away most profoundly from spending so much time with these materials is basically, yes, we do need to assign blame to politicians and individuals who take a shortsighted view of the health of a republic in order to try to pursue their own personal objectives or specific short-term political advantages.”

The example of the Roman Republic shows the result of not policing those norms and keeping violence in check is the potential loss of democracy. “No republic is eternal,” Watts writes.“It lives only as long as its citizens want it.And, in both the 21stcentury A.D. and the first century B.C., when a republic fails to work as intended, its citizens are capable of choosing the stability of autocratic rule over the chaos of a broken republic.” (Insinuation throughout this piece.)

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/lessons-decline-democracy-from-ruined-roman-republic-180970711/

Could Tucker’s Interview with Putin Save the World?. 1/2

February 8, 2024 by Suzanne Maresca

To the horror of the elites and their mainstream media minions, Tucker Carlson traveled all the way to the forbidden country: Russia. He did the unthinkable and interviewed the most hated, most despised, most dangerous man on the planet: Vladimir Putin.

This could well be the most viewed broadcast of all time, with an earth- shifting impact on all of humanity.

Why? Because Tucker is interviewing Putin at a time when the worldwide financial elites, also referred to as the “Deep State” or “Cabal”, are pushing harder than ever to ignite an all out, indescribably devastating war with Russia. This would suck dozens of nations into the world’s most catastrophic military conflict since the dawn of our world, and make the first world wars look like a kindergarten quarrel. No doubt nuclear arms would be used – in a desperate attempt of the Deep State military aka NATO to wipe out their worst enemy and regain control over Ukraine.

But in order to do so, they must first of all lie to all of humanity about Putin, in as vicious and convincing a way as possible, depicting him as an evil psychopath who kills for fun, and invades nations at will – something the USA has in fact been doing for many decades, killing millions upon millions of people – but that’s of course irrelevant.

What Putin does is what’s evil, not what the USA has been doing for the past century, invading dozens of nations and slaughtering innumerable defenseless, innocent people.

The Deep State has deployed their entire worldwide arsenal of news media liars to get the public on their side, in the push for a full blown war with the greatest nation of the earth, Russia. If they succeed, it could mean utter devastation for most of Europe, and many other parts of Earth. And if the world’s #1 madman, Biden, engages the US in this war, it could mean the end for all of us, and that’s seriously not a joke.

But then there’s Tucker, this wide-smiling, gorgeous-grinning, sharp-talking, eyes-piercing loud mouth who happens to have the world’s largest audience, with records of half a billion views of some of his broadcasts. This clever commentator has more impact on all of humanity than the entire worldwide news media combined. So what does he do? He travels to Moscow, and shows the world who Putin is, for real.

This could save the world from the worst disaster since it first saw the light of day.

Why? Because the Deep State cannot justify a global war against Russia if half the world population knows Putin is not the insane dictator they have been told. In fact, if they see his kind eyes, hear his compassionate heart, listen to his plea for peace, and understand that he has no intention whatsoever to destroy half of humanity, the world just might begin to see how they have been lied to. They will then agree with Julian Assange, who is still in jail for saying things like:

“All the wars of the past 50 years were started by media. Populations don’t want wars. The have to be fooled into wars by the media.”

https://goldenageofgaia.com/2024/02/08/could-tuckers-interview-with-putin-save-the-world/

>>20391105

2/2

The chief editor of one of Europe’s largest newspapers, the Frankfurter Algemeine Zeitung (which is distributed in 148 countries, with one million readers per day), has confessed how journalists are bribed by the CIA, American billionaires, and secret societies to push for war with Russia. His confession can be see in the following documentary:

Why is the Deep State desperate to destroy Russia?

The question is, however: why are so many western nations always trying to destroy Russia? First of all, we must understand that these nations are controlled by the aforementioned Deep State or Cabal. This is a global network of astronomically wealthy entities who manipulate governments towards a one- world state under their rule. Once we understand this, we can find the answer to why they are trying to destroy Russia.

Russian president Vladimir Putin is diametrically opposed to their agenda for world domination.

For years, Putin has been condemning the normalization of pedophilia and the insanity of transgenderism of the West, while defending the nuclear family. He regularly calls the world back to Christian values and condemns the involvement in Satanism by many Western leaders. Putin is indeed their worst enemy.

Russia was once a nation under the control of the Western elites, during the communist era, but around 2012, something profound happened, and Russia was liberated from this influence. The photos below both show “Putin”. The difference is that the first one is the orginal Putin, who was a Young Global Leader of the World Economic Forum, positioned in Russia to hand over the country into the hands of the Cabal. He was a dedicated servant of the western elites. The schoolbook definition of a traitor.

In 2012, the original Putin suddenly disappeared from the scene, and a few months later an entirely different man appeared – the current “Putin”.

The photos show the stark contrast between these two men.Not only does Putin all of a sudden have an entirely different head and body, but most importantly: he turned 180° from serving the Cabal, to opposing them. Instead of handing over Russia into their hands, he saved Russia from their grip.

"A Time for Choosing" by Ronald Reagan

"The Speech" is what Ronald Reagan called it. Today we call it, "A Time for Choosing," and it was a pivotal turning point in Ronald Reagan's life.

Ronald Reagan began a long side-career of public speaking as his acting career closed out. He traveled across the country meeting Lions Clubs, Rotary Clubs, Chambers of Commerce and any other civic-minded local groups. This continued and intensified during his service as the General Electric spokesperson while hosting their sponsored television series. "The Speech" was delivered in various forms and to different audiences as each word was honed, measured and memorized.

During the 1964 Presidential campaign, Republican party officials in California, who knew Reagan's powerful message and delivery, asked him to film a speech on behalf of the Republican candidate, Barry Goldwater. The speech was aired on October 27, 1964 and it was electrifying. Donations to the Republican party and candidates increased dramatically.

The Republican Party took note and they targeted Reagan as a candidate from that point forward. He agreed in 1966 to run for Governor of California. He won two terms, and eventually won the Presidency.

https://youtu.be/qXBswFfh6AY