Let me help the licensed regime journalists with some questions this remarkable outburst gives rise to…
“Mr. President, if you plan to use force against American citizens, can you tell us how many BCTs the American military has currently deployable within the United States?”
“Also, do you know what a BCT is? Do you know how many troops are in a brigade combat team? Do you understand the logistical needs of a BCT and its vulnerabilities in an insurgency environment?”
How many BCTs do you think you would need to secure an urban area the size of Los Angeles. Didn’t it take three divisions, about 12 brigades, to secure it during the Riots? How long could you logistically support that?”
“You mentioned F15s. How many bombers of all types does the United States have deployable within the continental US? How many are operational? How many sorties could the military fly a day against American citizens?”
“Have your generals, when they aren’t busy excusing CERT on Capitol Hill and not winning wars, staffed exactly how many American military personnel they could count on to attack American citizens if you ordered it? What percentage do you believe would comply and why?”
“Can you explain how you would employ bombers to hold territory, like a city? What means would you use to identify targets to bomb within the United States? What would the rules of engagement be when using bombers against American citizens?”
“How would you protect the supply lines to the fighter bases from attacks by armed citizens? How many of your limited ground forces would you allocate to securing supply lines between bases and protecting complicit forces living off post from retaliation?”
“Have you considered that the military forces of the National Guard in red states, which include aircraft, artillery and infantry, may refuse or even oppose your campaign against American citizens? Would you attack those forces?”
“When staffing the campaign you speak of against American citizens, what was your analysis of the number of armed American citizens the 2,000,000 pre-desertion military would have to oppose?”
“You expressed a willingness to use bombers and potential even nuclear weapons against your own people. How many American citizens would you kill to retain your hold on power?”
“Mr. President, I have more questions, but your aide mentioned Matlock is on and that you need to be going.”
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The base has legitimate and non-negotiable expectations from @GOPChairwoman Ronna McDaniel beyond simply listening to what we in the base want regarding he run for reelection to RNC Chair...
Understand, this is not an accusation but an expression of the base's position. 1/
This process must be transparent. We expect @GOPChairwoman to publicly state every promise she has made to one of the 168 GOP electors to obtain or keep their vote for the Chair...
This will eliminate any suspicion or accusations of "buying" votes. 2/
We expect @GOPChairwoman will NOT use OUR money or RNC resources (like the communications shop) to directly or indirectly influence the vote for the Chair...
This eliminates any taint on the election as rigged by the establishment. 3/
Once Trump is served, he takes a few weeks to respond. He probably cannot remove the case since there are NY defendants, so no diversity. Now we're in mid-October. He moves to dismiss.
2/
I have only skimmed this dog's breakfast of a complaint, but what popped out at me for the parts I looked are were the lack of damages allegations, much less ones against NY, the plaintiff. You cannot sue if you did not suffer a loss. None are pleaded in the parts I looked at.
3/
What the left is saying when they compare the minor fracas of January 6 2021 with Pearl Harbor and 9/11 is that America should declare war on you, the patriots.
/1
Pearl Harbor was an active war and followed by a war that defeated our enemy.
9/11 was an active war which our current ruling class botched.
/2
They want the minor fracas of January 6, 2021 to be an excuse to imprison or kill you for dissenting from their garbage ideology. What else could it mean? I if you compare it to two other causes of wars, how can you claim it does not justify a third war? The message is clear.
/3
Why to TV writers think we adore loud, stupid, emotion-driven female characters?
Exhibit A - that chick with bad hair in Ozark. I hated her. The plot was largely her getting mad, doing something, and causing chaos.
And we were supposed to think “Whoa, tuff girl getting it done sister!” No. Every time the character came on screen I went for my phone to check Twitter. And that grating voice…
You are getting at the correct premise, but we need to take it all the way.
Disney is not losing its (special) privilege because its CEO rolled over to the weirdos of the left in and out of the company and decried the anti-pervert bill. That might be a pure 1A issue. 1/
Disney is using both cultural and political power to impose a horrific agenda of bizarre gender madness and other leftist poison on us normal people. It is not just saying "Disney thinks such and such." It is imposing its prog vision on us. We must fight back or become serfs. 2/
Normal people have diffused economic power, but Disney has concentrated economic power that translates into political power. Disney uses its political power w/o apology. Yet we are somehow barred from using our greatest strength, political power, to fight Disney's offensive? 3/
This trend is bad news for these future lawyers. It seems trite, but they will never learn to argue when throwing tantrums because of their feelz is tolerated. If we retain a legal system based on argument, they will be lousy lawyers.
I go up against lousy lawyers all the time. They think shrieking about our position will let them win. Usually it doesn't. But what if it usually worked? What if they got the world they wanted, where the winner wins not by argument but by other means?
2/
Their other means is pseudo-moral indignation and something close to violence. Many would not eschew real violence in theory. But do they imagine they would retain a monopoly on non-argumentative power assertion tools in that paradigm? Maybe for a while.
3/