It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Real Reason why the Socialist, Former Democrat, leaders want to pack the U.S. Supreme Court.

page: 1
29
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:
+8 more 
posted on Oct, 23 2020 @ 05:33 PM
link   
We have all seen how the former democrats have all come out of their closets and have been openly calling for completely destroying the U.S. economy, our U.S. Constitution, and want to forever change this country into a socialist hell hole with a socialist economy in which only socialists, former democrats, will be in power.

Their plans include adding a city, Washington DC, and a socialist country whose majority of people don't want to be part of the U.S., but the socialists in the U.S. want to add Puerto Rico as a U.S. state because they are a socialist country which will continue voting "for socialist leaders."


Tell Congress that Puerto Ricans want nationhood, not statehood

Julio Ortiz-Luquis and Javier A. Hernández, opinion contributors 7/8/2020 (Two Puerto Ricans)
...
Ill-informed support for statehood is based on several myths:

Puerto Ricans are Americans: False. The Puerto Rican national identity remains an ethnic identification of peoples without a national citizenship of their own who live in a territory they call "their country." This does not obscure the reality that Puerto Rico constitutes a nation, which has had a colonial relation with the United States since 1898. Ambiguities were created by Public Law 600 and by the portrayal in 1953 at the United Nations of the Commonwealth as "a compact" between both nations. As the Harvard Law Review clearly stated in 2017: "Puerto Rico's heart is not American. It is Puerto Rican."
...
Most Puerto Ricans support statehood: False. Puerto Ricans have rejected statehood in five plebiscites held since 1968. The 2017 plebiscite was boycotted by all anti-statehood Puerto Rican parties, resulting in statehood receiving 97 percent support, with only 23 percent of registered voters' participation. The 2012 plebiscite, so far the only one held the same day as local elections, was boycotted by one of the major political parties, resulting in an avalanche of blank votes, pro-independence and pro-Free Association, which outnumbered pro-statehood votes.
...


Tell Congress that Puerto Ricans want nationhood, not statehood

Not to mention the fact that the socialist, former democrat, leaders want to get rid of the Electoral College which was put in place to assure that there would never be a "dictatorship of the majority" in the U.S.

Before the left and the now socialist, former democrat, leaders turned completely around and became what they are now, destroyers of the U.S. Constitution, it's laws, and economy. Even most now socialist, former democrat, leaders would not dare call for "abolishing the Electoral College" because they knew this would ensure that there will never be a "dictatorship of the majority" or as is known in socialist and communist dictatorships "dictatorship of the proletariat."



But since the 2016 elections the former democrat leaders, now socialists, and many if not most, of their constituents have started demanding for the abolition of the Electoral College. Because if it happens they will always make sure the U.S. is ruled by left-wingers in every election.

Rural Americans would be serfs if we abolished the Electoral College

But I have to wonder. If they wanted to make a city into a state why not make ALL U.S. cities into states?... Or how about, if you make a U.S city, which is full of left-wingers whom work in the government, why not make a Republican city into a state to balance things out?...

But no, they want to assure that only socialists, former democrats, will be chosen to be in all branches of U.S. government while making sure that no Republican or conservative is ever elected.

Apart from all of the above, they want to pack the U.S. Supreme Court, but why would they want to do that?...



The answer is simple, as they want to take over the legislative and executive branch and assure that only socialists and communists, former democrats, are in power in those branches of government, they want to do the same with the Supreme Court. But not only that, they want to make sure that if their left-wing voters make a "mistake" in electing someone, or more than one representative or Senator, that the socialist party doesn't want in government, they need a way of bypassing Congress. This can be done by packing the U.S. Supreme Court and instead of "interpreting the law," as SCOTUS justices are supposed to do, instead they want to put Justices that will MAKE and CHANGE laws.

Despite all the socialist, former democrat, leaders claiming how ACB will "change and ban U.S. laws", which is hilarious since ABC is an originalist and as an originalist she doesn't think that SCOTUS Justices should change or make laws, they keep assuring to everyone she will. So, why are the socialists, former democrats, attempting to claim that a Justice alone will be able to "make and change laws" when that is not what Justices are supposed to be or do?...

Well, the answer is...they are letting you know that they want to make and change laws by packing the U.S. Supreme Court and want to make sure Justices can "change and make" laws just in case their own left-wing constituents choose candidates for government that the socialist and communist elites don't want in power in any of the branches of the U.S...

That's the real reason why they kept asking ACB about her "views" when an originalist, like ACB is, knows that their views cannot interfere with how they interpret the laws that they hear. It is also the reason why they are using ACB's views as an excuse for her not to be a Justice. The now socialist, former democrat, leaders are letting everyone know what they will do if Biden and Harris win the 2020 elections. This should horrify ALL Americans and legal residents whom have escaped from socialist and communist dictatorships, because this is exactly what happened in those countries that embraced socialism and communism.

This is also part of the reason why both Biden and Kamala are now attempting to claim that voters don't need to know their position in whether they will pack the Supreme Court, because they know that most moderate democrats will not vote for them if they now affirm what they have said in the not so distant past that they will stack the U.S. Supreme Court with liberal/progressive justices.





Despite the fact that U.S. voters do not decide whom to nominate as Supreme Court Justices, Harris and her socialist leaders are attempting to claim that by waiting for the election result for POTUS and VP then "the voters will decide whom will be a Justice." They know this is a lie because it is the POTUS whom will decide whom to nominate. This way if Biden and Harris win then they can select the most socialist and communist Justices and will claim "but it is the will of the American voter..."



Ladies and gentlemen. We are truly in what could be the last free election, if democrats don't win by illegal and dirty tactics, the U.S. will ever have.
Do vote, and make sure you understand what will happen if Biden and Kamala actually win.

edit on 23-10-2020 by ElectricUniverse because: add, correct comment, and correct excerpts.




posted on Oct, 23 2020 @ 05:47 PM
link   
if you want to know what true socialism looks like just walk down any major city or any Beach area and see the thousands of homeless people living in tents that is the true aspect of socialism for any country that faces a new change in leadership.



posted on Oct, 23 2020 @ 05:48 PM
link   
What's that about socialists again? I think I missed that part.


+2 more 
posted on Oct, 23 2020 @ 05:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: strongfp
What's that about socialists again? I think I missed that part.


I know you and every socialist and communist in the world want to interfere in the U.S. elections, but the truth is the U.S. should NEVER be a socialist country. The Founding Fathers, and most Americans whom have died since then, fought to make sure the U.S. was a free Constitutional and representative Republic and not a "dictatorship of the majority" that you and your comrades around the world, and in the U.S., want...



posted on Oct, 23 2020 @ 06:04 PM
link   
a reply to: strongfp

BTW, perhaps you want to find out the truth about socialism which a true Cuban revolutionary that wanted freedom for all Cubans actually wrote about socialism...

'THE FUTURE SLAVERY
By Jose Marti.

“All the power which would be gradually acquired by the caste of public officials, bound by their need to remain in a priviledged and lucrative position , would be gradually lost by the people, who lack the same reasons for complicity in hopes and profits to confront the public officials fettered together by their common interests. As all public needs would eventually be fullfilled by the State, the officials would then acquire the enormous influence which by nature falls upon those who distribute any right or benefit.The man who now wants the State to take care of him so as not to have to take care of himself would have to work in the proportion, for the time and in the occupation that the State would see fit to assign to him, as the State, on whom all the duties would befall, would be endowed with all the necessary powers to implement the means to fullfill the work involved. From being its own servant , man would then become a slave of the State. From being a slave of capitalists, as they are now called, he would become a slave of the public officials. A slave is a man who works for another who holds control of him, and in that socialist system the community would dominate man, who would then render all his work to the community. And as public officials are human beings and, therefore, abusive, proud and ambitious, and would wield great power in that organization, abetted by all those who would take advantage or would hope to take advantage of the abuses, and by those vile forces that always prowl among the oppressed, the terror, prestige or cunning of those who rule, this system of official distribution of common labor would in a short time suffer from the grief, violence, thefts and distortions that the spirit of individuality , the austerity and the daring of genius and the willingness of vice soon and fatally create in any human organization … Autocracy will abuse the common people, exhausted and hard working. Regrettably, generalized slavery will be the result.”'

The Americas, New York, April 1884.
Excerpt taken from the Complete Works, Volume 15, Social Sciences Publishing House, Havana 1975, pages 388-392.

"THAT FUTURE SLAVERY",SAID MARTI, "IS SOCIALISM"


February 8, 2020

The Future Slavery is an article written by José Martí (1853-1895), in 1884, where he analyzes the socialist theories of Herbert Spencer (1820-1903) a philosopher, biologist, anthropologist, sociologist and prominent classical liberal political theorist of the English Victorian era.

José Marti is known as the Apostle of Cuba’s Independence from Spain in the 19th century.

Marti describes the future slavery as the TREND TO SOCIALISM of current governments. –The excessive state action. –Rooms for the poor. –Nationalization of the land. The function.

And Marti wonders, how will not socialism come to be, nor how does it have to be a new slavery?

Martí thought that it should be applied in a way that barters the relief of the poor in favor of loafers.

For us Cubans, it seems incredible that two centuries ago, our Apostle of Independence was already interrogating the socialist theories of a prominent English liberal political theorist, as if he had the premonition that one day, two hundred and so many years later, Cuba It would be controlled by socialism/communism.
...

The Future Slavery


edit on 23-10-2020 by ElectricUniverse because: correct excerpt and link.



posted on Oct, 23 2020 @ 06:12 PM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Yea, the founding fathers clearly wanted a plutocracy to form instead right?



posted on Oct, 23 2020 @ 06:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Yea, the founding fathers clearly wanted a plutocracy to form instead right?


Our Founding Fathers didn't call our Constitutional and representative Republic "a plutocracy," but you want to lie in here and claim so?...

BTW, the large majority of the Founding Fathers were wealthy people... Their wealth included knowledge, historical facts, and monetary wealth as well...

Just because some rich people can be POTUS and VP doesn't make them "plutocrats..." more so when the present POTUS and VP have done more for ALL Americans, including giving minorities more opportunities and jobs, than most other U.S. Presidents have done since Abraham Lincoln...






edit on 23-10-2020 by ElectricUniverse because: add and correct comment.



posted on Oct, 23 2020 @ 06:22 PM
link   
What will the new Democrat Battle Flag look like now that they've cancelled the old one ? 😃🔗



posted on Oct, 23 2020 @ 06:27 PM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

The founding fathers were brilliant men. And, I agree with what their intentions were.
Did you know they also looked into a prime minister type figure from London?

I think they knew what would inevitably happen, a top down power struggle, like all republics end up in.
When you have elected officials being paid off and lobbied hard against, what type of government is that? When people democratically elect those already in powerful positions, what type of government is that?
When people look to billionaires to solve all their problems, what type of government is that?



posted on Oct, 23 2020 @ 06:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
What will the new Democrat Battle Flag look like now that they've cancelled the old one ? 😃🔗


Just a rough draft I hear...



posted on Oct, 23 2020 @ 06:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
What will the new Democrat Battle Flag look like now that they've cancelled the old one ? 😃🔗


The Socialized NPCs will introduce a pale grey rectangle as their flag to match their skin tone.

Everyone will look the same and communicate by tongue clicks only - everything else, Hitler (now Trump).

Everyone gets a block of cheese - be grateful.



posted on Oct, 23 2020 @ 07:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Yea, the founding fathers clearly wanted a plutocracy to form instead right?

In Canada ?
I guess , but you are more qualified to answer your own question.



posted on Oct, 23 2020 @ 08:09 PM
link   
To be exact what we're headed for is a corporate/fascist/technocratic rule with the popular view of governance thought of as socialism (kinder, gentler communism). Any illusion of democracy is window dressing to lull the public in to believing nothing fundamental has changed. Fact is only big banks and corporations make any real decisions and the media spares no expense in selling it as a popular movement. It's all theater to lull the people to sleep. They aren't far from deciding who will be worth waking up and who to put to sleep permanently. The 2nd Amendment is the only thing stopping it from happening already.
edit on 23-10-2020 by Asktheanimals because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 23 2020 @ 08:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: strongfp

The founding fathers were brilliant men. And, I agree with what their intentions were.
Did you know they also looked into a prime minister type figure from London?

I think they knew what would inevitably happen, a top down power struggle, like all republics end up in.
When you have elected officials being paid off and lobbied hard against, what type of government is that? When people democratically elect those already in powerful positions, what type of government is that?
When people look to billionaires to solve all their problems, what type of government is that?


You keep ignoring the fact that the Founding Fathers of the U.S. were wealthier than most Americans... Unlike your socialist or communist views the U.S. Founding Fathers had no qualms with successful capitalists being in charge... President George Washington, the first POTUS, was the wealthiest American in the 13 colonies.

John Hancock, and Benjamin Franklin were the second and third wealthiest Americans in the 13 colonies after Washington...

What mattered to the Founding Fathers was that the U.S. should not become a dictatorship, which will happen under socialism, communism and the socialist branch of government now known as fascism...




edit on 23-10-2020 by ElectricUniverse because: correct comment.



posted on Oct, 23 2020 @ 09:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Gothmog

Let's see... the Bloc, Green party, NDP, Liberal, PCs, and a myriad of other parties that contend for our government. You have... Donald Trump and Joe Biden, sorry, the GOP and the Democrats... wait, only two?



posted on Oct, 23 2020 @ 09:38 PM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

I'm still missing the socialist part...



posted on Oct, 23 2020 @ 09:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Asktheanimals

A soft tyranny.

"Soft tyranny is an idea first coined by Alexis de Tocqueville in his 1835 work titled Democracy in America.[1] It is described as the individualist preference for equality and its pleasures, requiring the state - as a tyrant majority or a benevolent authority - to step in and adjudicate.[2] In this regime, political leaders operate under a blanket of restrictions and, while it retains the practical virtues of democracy, citizens influence policymaking through bureaucrats and non-governmental organizations.[3] This is distinguished from despotism or tyranny (hard tyranny) in the sense that state of government in such democratic society is composed of guardians who hold immense and tutelary (protective) power.[4]"

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Oct, 23 2020 @ 10:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: Gothmog

Let's see... the Bloc, Green party, NDP, Liberal, PCs, and a myriad of other parties that contend for our government. You have... Donald Trump and Joe Biden, sorry, the GOP and the Democrats... wait, only two?


You are fooling yourself. You included parties that no longer exist, like the liberal party... If I were to attempt to fool people, like you tried, I would name every party that has existed since the inception of the U.S...

Here you go...
en.wikipedia.org...

Not to mention the fact that to this day there are other parties in the U.S., they just don't have enough people voting for them...

There is the Independence Party of New York, the Libertarian party, the Reform Party, and the Vermont Progressive Party, all which are represented in Congress and the state legislatures. They just don't have enough people voting for them, yet people are welcomed to vote for them, and some do...

Not to mention the FACT that the Republican party of the U.S. is 100 times worth every political party in your country put together. But you are too "nationalistic" to actually admit it... Not to mention the fact that you are too much of an authoritarian to want a party in your country that represents everyone you disagree with...





edit on 23-10-2020 by ElectricUniverse because: add comment and link.



posted on Oct, 23 2020 @ 10:33 PM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Those are all Canadian parties, that equally have skin the game.
in fact, the NDP just made a rather moral and level headed decision to call for a confidence vote in favor of Trudeau, after he was found to be involved in a scandal with his family, the NDP leader took the high ground to not drag his family into political matters.

How's American politics going?
edit on 23-10-2020 by strongfp because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 23 2020 @ 10:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: strongfp


Those are all Canadian parties, that equally have skin the game.


What on Earth are you talking about?...

if you are talking about YOUR liberal party...



This article is about the former British Liberal Party. For the party formed by the 1988 merger with the SDP, see Liberal Democrats (UK). For the Liberal Party formed by those opposed to the 1988 merger, see Liberal Party (UK, 1989).
...
A group of Liberal opponents of the merger with the Social Democrats, including Michael Meadowcroft (the former Liberal MP for Leeds West) and Paul Wiggin (who served on Peterborough City Council as a Liberal), continued with a new party organisation under the name of the 'Liberal Party'. Meadowcroft joined the Liberal Democrats in 2007, but the Liberal Party as reconstituted in 1989 continues to hold council seats and field candidates in Westminster Parliamentary elections.

Liberal Party (UK)


originally posted by: strongfp
in fact, the NDP just made a rather moral and level headed decision to call for a confidence vote in favor of Trudeau, after he was found to be involved in a scandal with his family, the NDP leader took the high ground to not drag his family into political matters.


Are you on drugs enjoying a good whiff with Hunter Biden?... Nowhere did I mention ANY of Canada's political parties and much less the NDP...

Here, let me help you a bit...


List of political parties in the United States
...

List of political parties in the United States


originally posted by: strongfp
How's American politics going?


Depends... In democrat hell holes Americans whom dare defend themselves against criminals are put in prison meanwhile the criminals are released even if they committed murder, just like it happens in your oh so wonderful England...

In Republican cities and states we are enjoying life with as little crime and murders as possible unless democrats, socialists, communists and anarchists have their say...


edit on 23-10-2020 by ElectricUniverse because: correct link.



new topics




 
29
<<   2 >>

log in

join