Who really did it?

Interested in what actually came down at the Capitol?

The so called ‘Terrorist attack by those “Donald Trump extremists”? 

  As the little Japanese supply clerk used to say “Supplies’ supplies” !!!!!

It’s wasn’t who they blamed it on…..Supplies !!!!

 

 

        

Courts Are Ruling in Favor of Trump in Election Lawsuits

by Bob Adelmann


Courts Are Ruling in Favor of Trump in Election Lawsuits

A careful analysis of 81 lawsuits related to election fraud have been filed. Of those that have been ruled upon, President Trump has won two-thirds of them.  

An extensive report issued by John Droz and his team of fellow scientists and engineers is being totally ignored by the mainstream media. Instead, the media narrative is this: “There was no election fraud because the courts have said so.” 

Wrong on both counts, according to Droz’s analysis. Said Droz:

To counter the later part of that false narrative, a team of independent volunteer (unpaid) scientists and engineers recently put together a list of lawsuits involving the 2020 Presidential election. In it we identified the issues at stake, how each case was treated by the courts, what evidence was objectively analyzed, who won and lost, etc…. 

We tried to walk a narrow line of not only having a comprehensive list, but also information easy enough for the public to understand. (For example, since none of us are attorneys, we consciously tried to avoid unnecessary legal jargon.)

To further assist in the understanding of this important list, we simplified 20+ pages of filings and decisions on each case into a one or two sentence summary…. 

Lastly, we passed this list by over a dozen lawyers involved with election-related lawsuits. The typical response we received was “Excellent!”

Of the 81 lawsuits filed so far, 11 have either been withdrawn or combined with another lawsuit. Twenty-three cases were dismissed due to lack of standing, timing of the suit, or jurisdiction. 

the remaining 47 lawsuits, 25 are still pending. That leaves 22 lawsuits that have been ruled upon. These are cases where the court heard the arguments, examined the evidence, and then formally ruled on the matter. Fifteen of them were decided in favor of President Donald Trump, while seven were lost. 

“So,” wrote Droz, “Trump (et al) has WON the majority of the 2020 election cases [that were] fully heard and then decided upon on their merits!”  

Nothing but silence is heard from the mainstream media — they’ve simply stopped reporting on them. Instead, when pressed, they will repeat the canard that “Trump has lost all the lawsuits that have come before the courts.”  

There remain 25 lawsuits pending. It’s more than likely that at least 15 of them will be decided in favor of Trump, concluding that there was massive election fraud. 





Trump Impeachment trial to begin at 1:00pm eastern time

The Senate Democrats’ impeachment trial of former President Donald Trump begins Tuesday at noon eastern.

Note: Impeachment of a private citizen is unconstitutional - ED  

Democrats want to impeach private citizen Trump for allegedly inciting a riot that was planned weeks before his “inciteful” speech on January 6, 2020.

Democrat Senator Patrick Leahy will preside over the sham impeachment and will be allowed to vote on the impeachment.

Leahy will play the role of judge and jury.

The Supreme Court of the United States wanted nothing to do with the proceedings.

Related:  Political Show Trial: Impeachment Trial of Citizen Trump Begins Tomorrow


The Shotgun

                                  This is coming to America if we don’t stand up against the socialist Left….

 

 You're sound asleep when  you hear a thump outside your bedroom door.  Half-awake, and nearly  paralyzed with fear, you hear muffled whispers.
 
At least two people have  broken into your house and are moving your way.  With your heart pumping, you reach down beside your bed and pick up your shotgun.  You rack a shell into the chamber, then inch toward the door and open  it... 

In the darkness, you make out two shadows.  One holds something that  looks like a  crowbar.  When the intruder brandishes it as if to strike, you raise the  shotgun and fire.  The blast knocks both  thugs to the floor.  One writhes and screams while the second man crawls to the front door and lurches outside.

 As you pick up the telephone to call police, you know you're in  trouble.In your country, most guns were outlawed years before, and the few that are privately owned are so stringently regulated as to make them useless.  Yours was never registered.

  Police arrive and inform you that the second burglar has died.They arrest you for First Degree Murder and Illegal Possession of a Firearm. 

 When you talk to your attorney, he tells you not to worry: authorities will probably plea the case down to manslaughter.

"What kind of sentence will I get?" you ask.

 "Only ten-to-twelve  years," he replies, as if that's nothing.  "Behave yourself, and you'll be out in seven."

 The next day, the shooting is the lead story in the local newspaper.

Somehow, you're portrayed as an eccentric vigilante while the two men you shot are  represented as choirboys.

  Their friends and relatives can't find an unkind word to say about them.

Buried deep down in the article, authorities acknowledge that both "victims" have been arrested numerous times.

 But the next day's headline says it  all: "Lovable Rogue Son Didn't Deserve to Die."

The thieves have been transformed from career criminals into Robin Hood-type pranksters.

 As the days wear on, the story takes wings. The  national media picks it up, then the international media.  The surviving burglar has become a folk  hero.  Your attorney says the thief is preparing to sue you, and he'll probably win.

 The media publishes reports that your home has been burglarized several times in the past and that you've been critical of local police for their lack of effort in apprehending the suspects.

 After the last break-in, you told your neighbor that you would be prepared next time.

 The  District Attorney uses this to allege that you were lying in wait for the burglars.

 A  few months later, you go to trial.  The  charges haven't been reduced, as  your lawyer had so confidently predicted.  When you take the stand, your anger at the injustice of it all works against you.

 Prosecutors paint a picture of you as a mean, vengeful man.  It doesn't take long for the jury to convict you of all charges.  The judge sentences you to life in prison.

  

 

This case really  happened.

 On  August 22, 1999, Tony Martin of Emneth, Norfolk,  England, killed one burglar and wounded a  second.

 In  April, 2000, he was convicted  and  is now serving a life  term.

How did it become a crime to defend one's own life in the once great British Empire?

  It started with the Pistols Act of 1903.

 This seemingly reasonable law forbade selling pistols to minors or felons and established that handgun sales were to be made only to  those who had a license.

 The Firearms Act of 1920 expanded licensing to include not only handguns but all firearms except shotguns..

 Later laws passed in 1953 and 1967 outlawed the carrying of any weapon by private citizens and mandated the registration of all shotguns.

 Momentum for total handgun confiscation began in earnest after the Hungerford mass shooting in 1987. 

  Michael  Ryan, a mentally disturbed man with a Kalashnikov rifle, walked down the street shooting everyone he  saw.  When the  smoke cleared, 17 people were dead.

The British public, already de-sensitized by eighty years of "gun  control", demanded even tougher restrictions.  (The seizure of all privately owned handguns was the objective even though Ryan used a rifle.)


Nine years later, at Dunblane, Scotland, Thomas Hamilton used a  semi-automatic weapon to murder 16 children and a teacher at a public school.

For many  years, the media had portrayed all gun owners as mentally unstable, or worse, criminals. Now the press had a real kook with which to beat up law-abiding  gun owners.

 Day after day, week after week, the media gave up all pretense of objectivity and demanded a total ban on all handguns.  The Dunblane Inquiry, a few months later, sealed the fate of the few sidearm's still owned by private citizens.

During the years in which the British government incrementally took away most gun rights, the notion that a citizen had the right to armed self-defense came to be seen as vigilantism.

 Authorities refused to grant gun licenses to people who were threatened, claiming that self-defense was no longer considered a reason to own a gun.  Citizens who shot burglars or robbers or rapists were charged while the real criminals were released.
Indeed,  after the Martin shooting, a police spokesman was quoted  as saying,  "We cannot have people take the law into their own hands."

All of Tony
 Martin's neighbors had been robbed numerous times, and several elderly people were severely injured in beatings by young thugs who had no fear of the  consequences.  Martin himself, a collector of antiques, had seen most of his collection trashed or stolen by burglars.

When the  Dunblane Inquiry ended, citizens who owned handguns were given three months to turn them over to local  authorities.


Being good British subjects, most people obeyed the law. 
The few who didn't were visited by police and threatened with ten-year prison sentences if they didn't  comply.


Police  later bragged that they'd taken nearly 200,000  handguns from private citizens.


How did the authorities know who had handguns? . . .


The guns had been registered and  licensed.
Kind of like cars. Sound familiar?


WAKE UP AMERICA;

 THIS IS  WHY OUR FOUNDING FATHERS PUT THE SECOND AMENDMENT IN OUR CONSTITUTION.

"...It does not require a  majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's  minds.."
--Samuel  Adams