Friday, November 1, 2024

Why can't CNN accept the truth? It's so obvious they defend the lie.

 

"...being forced to follow the law should be against the law." Say whaaattt???

 Sent to me from a friend. Yeah, I remember reading something about this...so it must be authentic.  Why doesn't the mainstream media report... Oh, never mind, read for yourself. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. — The upcoming presidential election took an interesting turn when, in a devastating blow to Democrats, the United States Supreme Court ruled today in favor of following the law.

The landmark decision upheld a Virginia law passed by Democrats in 2006, which required the removal all non-citizens from the commonwealth's voter rolls, leaving the Democratic Party's candidates with the significant challenge of trying to convince only American citizens to vote for them.

"This a crushing ruling for Democrats," said journalist Mark Halperin. "No one expected the Supreme Court to rule in favor of following the law. Having to rely on American citizens to elect candidates in American elections flies directly in the face of everything we stand for. They'll have to start from scratch and convince actual Americans to vote for them. Not good."

Prominent Democrats were outraged by the historic ruling. "This is an abuse of power!" said Harris-Walz campaign spokesperson Madison Leeland. "Where does the Supreme Court get off telling people they have to follow the law? Following laws is fascist. This is what we can all look forward to in Donald Trump's America — being forced to adhere to laws. In fact, being forced to follow the law should be against the law."

At publishing time, political analysts predicted a sharp drop in votes for Kamala Harris in Virginia, leaving the campaign pinning all its hopes in the commonwealth on generating more turnout among its key dead people demographic.



Wednesday, October 30, 2024

JUDGE JOE BROWN: A walking encyclopedia.

 

Whenever we argue politics with an individual (be it a friend, stranger, or family member) we all like to think we know the facts...because we done the research...because we read or heard about it on the news...because I'm right and your wrong...or whatever. For the most part each tête-à-tête goes unresolved until the next head knocking meeting and nobody wins.

In my own writings I usually leave a source either a footnote or an embedded link to an authoritative figure.  And for the current political climate there's no better authoritarian who knows more than myself or whomever I'm knocking my head with than Judge Joe Brown.  Listen to him here. ~ Storm'n Norm'n 

PS: I never knew Bill Clinton was a hillbilly tough guy.




Bonus Video:  We are the sickest nation in the world. 
1234567890

Get a load of this one:
Obama and Brad Pitt are cousins!
 


How could this possibly be legitimate?




How can the voting process in California be considered honest?  I have no idea. 

So I'm out here in California visiting my daughter and I go along for the ride to the 'VOTE HERE' where she intends to cast her ballot. 
The lines were relatively long and I tried to observe as much as I could as we moved along.  Yes, I was in line were I could have voted.  
There were voters ahead of us that carried mail-in ballots (I could tell by the distinctive yellow envelopes.)
After my daughter passed the check point (Although I do not know what they were checking.), the person offered me a ballot but I declined by simply saying, "I'm not voting.  I'm her dad from out of state and just came along for the ride." 
What if...  What if I took the ballot and voted and how often could I repeat the process at this and other precincts throughout the city/county and then fly back home to my state and vote again... something is definitely rotten in Denmark (For you who don't know Shakespeare, look it up). 
~ Norman E. Hooben