The Next Two Elections
The one glimmer of hope for at least a brief reprieve in the 2022 elections is that it may not be possible to rig the elections in all 50 states, or even enough of them to prevent the Republicans from regaining control of both houses of Congress. That will do little, however, to seriously mitigate the madness that now rules.
In no case would the majorities in both houses be sufficient to impeach and remove the president, and in any case he would only be replaced by another puppet. The convoluted process of removing both at once, refusing to confirm a new Vice President and somehow place the Republican Speaker of the House into the office is probably beyond serious consideration.
So the current regime is in control for the next three years in any case, and the probability of an untainted election in 2024 becomes remote with each passing day.
Whatever the case, I do not believe Donald Trump should under any circumstances attempt another election. He has many supporters, all of whom would vote for him again, and probably many who did not vote for him last time would do so. But in the face of the massive fraud the enemy is now able to perform even that is unlikely to be sufficient.
Thus the only chance is to have a candidate who can win on the scale of Ronald Reagan's demolition of Carter in 1980 and Mondale in 1984. If such a thing is still possible, a Republican might win in 2024. The minimal reforms that have taken place, along with increased vigilance and opposition to having fraudulent state elections certified, might make be enough. One more thing that would require enormous courage would be for states with Republican legislatures to send Republic electors even if the Democrat is supposedly the winner. I don't know if this has ever been tested, but the Florida legislature appeared ready to do that in 2000, but the Supreme Court ended the attempt to change the result through repeated recounts.
Mr. Trump, no matter how many supporters he has, or gains, cannot match the performance of Ronald Reagan, and that is what would likely be necessary. What he can to is support the nominee as much as possible without becoming a liability. A simple public endorsement, with encouragement to his supporters, would be sufficient. A candidate of the caliber of Rick DeSantis could possibly to it, particularly in view of the conditions which are much worse than the Carter era.
The best way for Mr. Trump to be avenged for the wrongs done him is to be instrumental in putting in place another Reaganesque leader with substantial majorities in Congress for most or all of those eight years. If a sufficient number of courageous and principled new Republican members are in Congress, a considerable amount of damage might be undone.
I hope that Mr. Trump will truly put his country first, and his family and supporters will encourage him to do so.
Wed Jan 12 04:28:16 UTC 2022
A few additional thoughts:
The situation is likely to become progressively worse as 2022 progresses. Something like the 'Contract With America' in 1994 (not using the same name, obviously), clearly elucidating a set of goals which those seeking election pledge to pursue with the utmost diligence. Given that the current situation is an order of magnitude worse than after two years of Clinton, or even Carter, a clear unified message would be of great help. Since even controlling both houses of Congress will not allow any reforms to be enacted (unless veto-proof majorities exist in both houses, or the puppet masters of the regime decide to do some damage control in preparation for 2024 by having Biden sign them) the fact that they were vetoed will make the case for electing even more Republicans in 2024. The former being more likely to occur than the latter.
If they do prevail in the next two elections, placing a leader of the stature of Ronald Reagan with the legislative power to enact reforms, and do not do so, the reprieve will be brief. Likewise if the new president has a vice-president like George H. W. Bush in place to succeed him, that successor will almost certainly be a one-term president as Bush was.
Fri Jan 14 00:55:40 UTC 2022
A new 'contract'? For the younger ones among us...
The election of Bill Clinton in 1992 led to a an unprecedented (for the time) assault on the constitutional rights of the people, while the Waco Massacre raised concerns about the possible extent of further such actions, while the first serious attempt was made at creatin a socialized health care monopoly.
During the 1994 mid-term election campaigns House of Representatives members Newt Gingrich and Dick Armey wrote a document called the 'Contract With America', a legislative agenda candidates seeking House seats were asked to sign. All but two of the incumbent representatives and all of those seeking election for the first time signed it, and it was widely publicized in the weeks preceding the election. The result, while no doubt due in some measure to the actions of the administration and the evidence of corruption already exposed by that time, resulted in both houses coming under Republican control, the House for the first time in forty years. During that time the Senate had only been in Republican hands for only three sessions, all during the Reagan administration.
While the majorities were not veto-proof and most of the promised legislation was either vetoed or diluted through negotiations, the new House members kept their promise to try, and the position of each side was clear. That was twenty-seven years ago, and many voters in the upcoming elections were at that time not yet born. Thus it is an opportune time for a similar action on the part of the Republicans.
Obviously the name should not be the same. That would leave an easy attact vector for the enemy, and in any case more appropriate and effective options exist. As to what should be in it, some are readily apparent - protection of the people and business from unconstitutional mandates, lawsuits against every unlawful executive order, and of course introducing legislation (even if it will be vetoed) to correct various abuses of the current President. The point being, as in 1995, to clearly demonstrate where each side stands. Such things as re-investigating the 6 January false flag attack by the minions of the enemy, as well as such things as passing resolutions for the record (e.g. memorializing the murdered Ashli Babbitt, condemning the actions of mayors and governors who encourage lawlessness) should not be addressed in the covenant as they would only server as fodder for attacks from the left. They should certainly be done, obviously, immediately upon convening. If sufficient majorities exist in both houses, joint resolutions might be desirable.
It may seem to some, indeed to most, that a Republican takeover of both houses of Congress in the 2020 election will occur. While it is certainly likely, it is by no means a fait accompli. Fraud will almost certainly again be a factor in the 2022 elections, and even more so in 2024. In the mid-terms it will be more difficult, as the elections in all 50 states would have to be compromised. No opportunity to bring about this result should be dismissed, and this one could be very effective. A final note: in 1994 the 'Contract' was introduced six weeks before the election. This is important as doing so now, with the election ten months away, would give too much time for it to be attacked, so it should again be done later in the campaign.