Despite the Boston Massacre, British officers were no less aggressive in their enforcements of the Stamp Act and other customs laws. Then, in June of 1772, yet another dramatic event took place.
That night, the Gaspee, a British naval vessel, was patrolling the waters near Narragansett Bay in Rode Island. On the same night, aboard a rowboat, as a young man by the name of Joseph Bucklin.
Catching sight of the Gaspee, and realizing that he had its commander, the belligerent Lt. William Dudingston, at the perfect angle, Bucklin took his chances and shot the lieutenant.
Dudingston had been a thorn in the side of Rhode Islanders for quite some time. He seemed to take pleasure in taking the law into his own hands. He routinely stopped ships for no apparent reason, confiscating goods without reason, and even abusing the colonial sailors. So it’s plain to see why sailors would have had enough and decided to take action into their own hands once again.
In fact, just earlier that night, Lt. Dudingston had stopped the Hannah, a ship belonging to Captain Benjamin Lindsey, commanding that Lindsey’s flag be lowered in deference to the HMS Gaspee.
When Lindsey refused, Dudingston provoked a chase. But Lindsey got the better of him and lured him into the shallow waters off the hazardous coast of Warwick, then called Manquid Point, but is today referred to as Gaspee Point.
As word reached Providence, a group of 55 Sons of Liberty – Joseph Bucklin amongst them – planned their attack on the
The party rowed to meet the It was at some point during their colonists’ raid that Bucklin shot Dudingston. Following this, the colonists captured the crew and treated the captain. But then, things became even more chaotic, because the raiders torched the Gaspee.
As soon as the gunpowder aboard the Gaspee ignited, the ship blew.
When word reached King George, he demanded a trail to be held in England. But Sam Adams and the united colonists instead formed the Committees of Correspondence that included all of the 13 Colonies.
The problem with news today is, it is not only biased, but fails to put together the complete timeline of facts so the average reader can reach their own educated conclusion. Each event in history is made up of a series of events leading to an action or reaction. What is happening in Iran today has been building for years. We could go back to the 16th century and even the 6th century to see the entire picture. But here USA-eVote will only look back a few years to see what led to today’s headlines.
President Trump ordered the execution of top Iranian leader Qasem Soleimani after attacks on military posts in Iraq. It was a surgical strike carried out by a drone. This latest news brings out a few questions. Who was Qasem Soleimani? Why did President Trump order the attack? Part of the reason links to the attack on the American Embassy in Iraq where Iranian backed supporters stormed the embassy.
Tehran shot down a U.S. military surveillance drone and seized oil tankers. The U.S. also blames Iran for a series of attacks targeting tankers, as well as a September assault on Saudi Arabia’s oil industry that temporarily halved its production.
The breach at the embassy followed U.S. airstrikes Sunday that killed 25 fighters of the Iran-backed militia in Iraq, the Kataeb Hezbollah. The U.S. military said the strikes were in retaliation for last week’s killing of an American contractor in a rocket attack on an Iraqi military base that the U.S. blamed on the militia.
It appears tensions between Iran and the US have been escalating since President Trump pulled out of nuclear talks with Iran in 2016. Reports on the compliance of that treaty have two sides. Some say Iran has been complying with the treaty. Others say the treaty falls short. And others insist Iran has not complied and never intended to comply.
In the middle of the nuclear arms deal was the transfer of billions of dollars to Iran. Some think that was nothing more than a bribe. Others think those payments were more or less ransom paid to Iran. And others think that money paid by the Obama administration was a revelation showing close ties between former President Obama and Muslim states.
After reviewing those reports and the government transcript, there is no doubt funds passed between the US and Iran. Why? Excuses were offered. The fact of the matter is, Iran has been and continues to be a threat not only to the US, but to the world. Democrats in the US insist those payments were owed to Iran. Why did the US give a known enemy billions of dollars? Do you think the US would have paid Germany or Japan funds during WWII? No way. There would have never been an excuse to supply the enemy with funds during WWII or the time leading up to US involvement in WWII. Any transfer of funds would have been viewed as treason. No questions asked. There could never have been any excuse in the world to supply Germany or Japan with funds before or during WWII.
Why would the US make payments to Iran when dozens of other countries still owe the US money as far back as WWII and nothing has been done about collecting those funds? Countries owe the US billions of dollars. The US does nothing about collecting those funds. But the US insisted it was following some obscure world law and had to pay that money to Iran. That must be a really obscure law if it only applies to American enemies, but not their allies. I wish someone could explain that one. When we look back on history and apply the trends we seen in this scenario with Iran, what would have happened in WWII if we had today’s Democrats making decisions and deals in 1942? Would today’s Democrats have given Hitler the key to the atomic bomb before using that weapon against Japan? Would today’s Democrats have tried to payoff Hitler, or answered Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor by paying tribute to the Emperor of Japan? Based on the deals made with Iran, we have to ask those questions.
It seems Democrats couldn’t wait to condemn President Trump’s actions against Iran. It seems Democrats either chose to ignore history, or have never learned from history. We still have a generation in this land that remembers stories about WWII. One of the topics often discussed was the fact, if someone could kill Hitler, the war in Germany would have reached an early end. Millions of lives could have been saved. During WWII it seems every American and ally knew, if they could cut off the head, the snake would die. People knew, Germans as a whole did not support the war nor Hitler’s ideals. The world didn’t judge Germans as a whole thinking every German was set on world domination. People knew it was a concept of one crazy man who had influence over Germany for a time, but lost that control over time when his real plans were revealed. Today Democrats seem to think every Iranian has the same mind set and share the same motivation as Qasem Soleimani. Let me remind you. There is much more to this story than meets the eye. President Trump made that decision while on vacation at his golf course. May I point out, President Trump was vacationing at his own golf course. It was not a vacation paid for by some special interest group. When an unprecedented 17 billion dollars is transferred to a major enemy, questions have to be raised.
Democrats now want the US to believe every citizen in Iran thinks like Qasem Soleimani and we will have this problem forever. Germany learned a lesson from WWII. Japan learned a lesson from WWII. It seems today’s Democrats missed that lesson. As a whole, citizens all around the world want peace. When the mask comes off socialists, the majority of people do not agree with socialists motives or methods. So what is the Democratic plan? My dad always said, “don’t complain unless you have a better idea.” What is the Democratic plan? Give Iran more funds? Lift sanctions? What are their plans? Do they have any plan or are they back to playing politics? Here is a look at Democratic reactions.
Cutting off the head may or may not have worked. The fact of the matter is, President Trump gathered enough information on the situation to make an educated decision. In contrast, Democrats condemned the action and at the same time demanded Trump share the facts that lead to his decisions. Is that what politics has become today? Run off at the mouth by condemning of all people, the President of the US, and in the next sentence admit, you don’t know a damn thing about the situation at hand. People making such foolish statements should not be running for office in any capacity.
We also need to look at the part Qasem Soleimani has played in history.
We can see how Qasem Soleimani has been involved in plans to overturn a number of governments in the Middle East. Iran has been trying to invade and take over Iraq, Syria, and other countries. Looking at WWII, the US was criticized for delaying any military involvement in Europe and the East. That was a lesson we all should have learned. If we allow militants to walk over one country after another, the task of stopping them becomes more and more difficult as time marches on. Militants will not stop. They will not negotiate. They will enter into treaties to buy time, and break them when convenient. History shows how the world has tried to deal with militants of all types. We should have learned by now what works, and what will fail.
That nuclear treaty with Iran shows a number of countries were involved in that agreement. Has any other country tried to step up to defuse the situation? This appears to be another case where the US stands alone. Everything was left up to the US. The US had to do all the checks, write all the reports and pay for everything. But as soon as the US reacted, the criticism pours in as usual. We have one thing going for us. We have a President who takes full responsibility for his actions. And has initiated a back up plan alerting US troops all over the world. Shortly after the holiday season, US troops are once again on alert. Once again Muslim militants used an important date to launch an attack. This time they had to pay a decisive price. Our President and military need your prayers and support.
Our Faith of Our Leaders logo was designed to remind us of the prayers of our soldiers – the prayers of our generals, our presidents, and yes, our founding fathers.
We live in an age that questions the virtues of Judaeo-Christian principles, that questions the Constitution, and that questions the faith of our founders and leaders. That is why we are introducing our newest section: The Faith of Our Leaders. It is our goal to remind this nation that we were, indeed, built upon the faith and values of Christianity. Our leaders throughout the ages of this great country have lead through prayer and a belief in a Supreme Being. We could not have won the wars we won without the aid of a Higher Force.
Today, Americans question – nay, deny – the faith of Washington and Jefferson. They question whether the faith of Eisenhower or Reagan was real or put upon as a way to garner votes. And they deny that someone in uniform can be a practicing Christian.
Well, we are here to prove them all wrong!
So here, you fill find a collection of quotes and anecdotes that PROVE our country was founded on these great Judaeo-Christian principles and that our presidents, generals, and leaders, do indeed believe and worship a Supreme Being. That when faced with the enemy, they turned to God.
It has always been USA-eVote’s policy to remain neutral on all issues by reporting the facts in an unbiased matter, and letting the individual voter make an educated decision.
Nearly everyone has to admit, it is nearly impossible to remain neutral and unbiased on the Impeachment of President Trump. It seems most individuals and the majority of news media outlets have approached this issue with a decision and verdict set in their minds and all discussions concentrate on one thing, convincing the general public their far sighted decision is true and factual.
After reviewing something in the neighborhood of 300 news reports and other information on the Internet, USA-eVote has been able to unravel the following facts, and more or less, raised the following questions.
It is important to note, we, as well as you, have to learn to screen information. Many factions are hitting the Internet with fake websites featuring fake news. Those sites can be identified by their advertising. Much of their paid ads involve outlandish, hardly believable stories on famous people such as movie stars. Their disguised ads also include sensationalized stories on various subjects, attempting to lure visitors to click those links which are indeed ads, and often contain computer viruses and spyware. USA-eVote advises its readers to avoid such websites.
After reviewing all the major news media websites, it is shocking to see only one site appears neutral and unbiased. That would be the BBC. It is not only strange, but shocking to see, not one American news site capable of remaining unbiased on this, and every issue effecting this nation at this time. What they want to accomplish is speculation at this time, but it goes without saying, it will be too late to do anything when they reveal their true motives.
Although American news is slanted, information does reach the Internet that is useful in reaching an actual educated decision. The thing is, it takes much longer to dig into the information on your own and do the job an unbiased reporter used to do as well as hang their reputation on. We have also seen a number of stories about major news personal leaving one company for, “undisclosed reasons.” There is a reason why we have seen personal changes spike during the Impeachment proceedings.
To get to the root of the issue, we have to review a number of speeches from both sides of the house. At this point we can say without a doubt, both Democrats and Republicans are unified on their stand on the issue. Which should raise a red flag to every educated voter in the US. When concepts and evidence are viewed under the microscope of party loyalty, nothing but faults will be magnified and exposed. Evidence will also be covered up, and justice can never be fully served. When decisions are made strictly along party lines, that tells us a small group of 3-5 leading members are calling all the shots, and deciding what evidence is presented, and what is covered up, locked away, and sealed. Which is a nice way of saying destroyed.
It is difficult to figure out where to begin. It may be best to reach back as far as our research has allowed.
In this video recorded May 15, 2016, Nancy Pelosi discusses her vision of immigration and brands Trump supporters as, “white …. whatever.”
In this video Nancy Pelosi refers to President Trump as, “the deflector and chief.” This video reminds us of issues in the 2016 election when President Obama was suspected of using Russian spies to dig up information on Donald Trump during the 2016 election.
After reviewing a few pre and post election videos, it is clear that Nancy Peloci did have a deepening dislike for the President. Did that dislike turn into a hatred, and thirst for revenge? Is that what drove Peloci to initiate the impeachment hearings in the Senate? We have to look at factions of her personality revealed in this short list of videos. How many times did Peloci refer to herself as the most powerful Democrat in the country, and the most powerful woman in the country? Does that reveal another underlying trait? When we look at her post election statement, we see where Nancy Peloci’s mind set was.
Washington, D.C. – Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi released the following statement on the results of the 2016 election:
“The peaceful transfer of power is the cornerstone of our democracy. After an election in which Donald Trump won the electoral college and Hillary Clinton won the popular vote, we have a responsibility to come together and find common ground. Only by recognizing and respecting the important contributions that all Americans make to our country’s success can we build an inclusive and stronger future for America.
“Millions of people are proud of the candidacy and leadership of Hillary Clinton. We are inspired by her, thank her and know that she will continue to be a magnificent force for good in our country.
“As President-elect Trump indicated last night, investing in infrastructure is an important priority of his. We can work together to quickly pass a robust infrastructure jobs bill. Our first responsibility is to protect and defend the American people; we must do so in a manner that is strong and smart, and that honors the sacrifices of our men and women in uniform.
“I congratulate President-elect Trump and his family, and pray for his success.”
In her statement Peloci grouped the President-elect of the United States with every normal American while exemplifying Hillary Clinton’s success, and pointing out what Peloci later claimed was a flaw in the election process. In her closing paragraph Pelosi focused on making America strong. But her actions after that election threaten to erode the foundation of that strength.
On the other side of the coin we have to look at Trump’s attitude. Trump’s attitude toward women has been well documented. The media has presented Trump as a male chauvinist on steroids. This a trait President Trump has so far suppressed during the election process and into his service as President. Based on the fact the news media had to dig far into the past to expose Trump’s attitude on women, indicates that is an attribute he has outgrown. At least to some extent.
We have to admit, the relationship between President Trump and Nancy Peloci goes far beyond political rivals. When we trace the origin of that relationship, it is not difficult to see how Nancy Peloci has been tightening the screws on the President. Trump’s past actions with certain women is viewed as a weakness. Peloci has gone way past the normal negotiation process into what can only be termed as a childish playground attitude, trying to pick a fight. Her actions fit those of the school bully trying to pick a fight. Not in the physical sense, but on a psychological level. She concentrates on her position as a woman. She concentrates on the fact Trump ran against a woman. She is trying to bring President Trump’s superiority over women to the surface and use that against him. Peloci’s plan has been a slow, methodical process that began during the election process and has escalated into impeachment hearings. Even her attitude today exposes Peloci’s plans. Her, as the most powerful woman in the country wrote the impeachment articles, and now keeps them under her pillow until she decides it is time to forward them to Congress.
Her repeated comments and reminders that the fate of the President lies in the hands, attitude, mind, and will of a woman is enough to drive any normal man crazy. Her timing is a reminder, she controls the quest for free time, family time, and any short bouts with peace of mind the President seeks during the holidays. A time for peace of mind, time with the family, and a reflection of the past. Peloci never tried to hide her sinister use of timing, and disrespect for the season itself. Through all of this, President Trump has exhibited a restraint few men are able to achieve. Any normal man would not have mixed words on the controlled basis President Trump has shown over the past few months. Imagine what would have happened if Peloci was using those tactics to egg on a real male chauvinist is a bar scene or on the streets? Is that the way America wants to see the most powerful woman in the country act? Didn’t she take an oath for the office she occupies?
Each member of Senate must swear an oath.
“I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”
Their oath only focuses on defending the Constitution. The military oath of service is completely different.
I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.
The military oath includes following the orders of the President, based on the fact the President is Commander in Chief of the armed forces. All elected representatives should know and respect this. But when we see a person claiming to be the most powerful Democrat and woman in the country disrespecting the office of President, all American voters, especially those who have and are now serving in the military should raise a red flag and let that person know their actions are not appreciated. Currently there are 77 Members in the U.S. House of Representatives who are Veterans. You would think a few of them would have raised that red flag when Nancy Peloci made public comments disrespecting the President.
We do not need representatives in any branch of government who are lead and inspired by personal opinions, and swayed by revenge when they do not get their way. Like it or not, elected officials in every branch of government are role models. It wasn’t long ago the Senate addressed the subject of sports stars as role models. December 14, 2014.
Why does the Senate look into athletes as role models but ignore the impact its own members have on society? This is one example showing the short sighted views elected officials have on the American culture as a whole.
For the sake of argument, let’s take a look at how Peloci’s disrespect for the President can spread through the armed forces. As a leader and role model, Peloci opened the flood gates for every member in the military to disrespect the President based on the fact, they may not agree with one or any of the orders the President may hand down to the armed forces. Common sense tells us, this is far from defending the Constitution, and opens major gaps in the US military defense. These are gaps we know our enemies are paying close attention to. Based on the fact the impeachment charges focus on correspondence with the Russians, we have to ask which side Nancy Peloci is on.
The open and blatant disrespect goes deeper than the military. Anyone viewing those videos thrusts that attitude on every elected official. All of them are placed in a single group by millions of people. The attitude Peloci lives by and portrays is used as an excuse to disrespect police and every branch of law enforcement. No one can imagine how far the the Peloci role model will extend throughout various social classes across America. Another one of the attitudes Pelosi conveys is her concept of judgment.
When we take a deeper look at the actual impeachment charges filed against the President, we have to admit, they are rather vague.
Impeachment charges focus on two main issues. The first, discussions with Ukraine. Of course this brings us back to the allegations of wire tapping during the 2016 elections. Was there wire tapping? President Trump had every power at his disposal to uncover evidence of wiring tapping during the 2016 election. Reports online are conflicting. Some claim there is evidence, a possibility, and others claim no evidence exists.
The fact of the matter is, foreign sources did attempt to sway the 2016 election. But were those sources controlled by any government? Mixed in all this mess is the birth and growth of fake news agencies. Many of those fake news agencies are run by individuals who were normal middle class citizens before they tapped into the power of the Internet, the thirst for sensationalized stories, and big rewards from Internet advertising, and money spyware and virus companies were willing to pay to infect computers. There is more at stake here then politics. Spying has become a multi-billion dollar industry. Information from computers and phones is stolen and sold all over the world. Many of those viruses originate on fake news sites.
Are our elected officials wasting time blaming each other for those fake news stories? Wouldn’t time be better served searching for a solution to that problem? To date we have not heard any reports about any of those fake news agencies facing charges. Sure they claim freedom of speech for their stories. But what about the information they stole, and the countless billions of dollars US citizens lost? Not one charge has been filed against those Internet pirates? Why? Well governments are the biggest spies. Governments bid against one another to purchase spyware from Internet thieves. Instead Congress has passed laws to protect Internet thieves and scammers.
You used to be able to track an email back to its origin through the email header. It was a simple process. Find the IP address, conduct a simple search, and a map would show the general area where the email originated. Congress passed a law that requires email servers to hide that information. Why? Scammers are human. They have ways of masking their location, but often times forget to initiate that process.
What we need is elected officials who look out for the safety of the general public. Not what they may be able to use in the future to secure their personal goals.
All of this boils down to the simple fact, the majority of politicians today are looking out for themselves. And who is looking out for the general pubic? It seems we are all on our own. That is until we learn our lesson and stop electing carrier politicians.
To be fair, we have to take a look at what the President may have gained by dealing with Ukraine. When we look back at the 2016 elections, the President may have been trying to turn up evidence on the Democrats attempting to use a foreign power to sway the election results. If President Trump was convinced he was being spied on, he would not give up his search for evidence. What was the President to do? Just let it go. If that was the case, let’s take a look at a possible scenario. Bidden is elected president in 2020. Later evidence arises proving he interfered with the 2016 election. Does the Senate then impeach Biden on attempting to fix an election the Democrats lost? It seem the Democrats are impeaching Trump on crimes they think he will commit in the future. This entire process has its twists and turns.
We all know Trump is a negotiator. He lives to negotiate. It is in his blood. A good negotiator gathers all the information they can on the subject at hand and on their competitor. As far as some of the guesswork and less than stellar news on Joe Biden’s involvement in Ukraine, much of that speculation ignores the fact, helping to turn Ukraine into a democratic state was Biden’s claim to fame. It was part of the legacy he wanted to leave behind.
There are two things President Trump could have learned by asking Ukraine about Biden’s involvement. The first was to learn about the advise and methods Biden used to assist the Ukraine shift to a democracy. A good negotiator learns from the success of others. The second thing President Trump could have learned from Biden’s work in the Ukraine was how to approach this topic if it ever came up in a possible face to face presidential debate. A great negotiator is always prepared. If the President was only gathering information for a debate, was that a crime? Can any branch of the Senate control the information a candidate gathers in preparation for a debate?
What about Joe Biden’s son Hunter? I don’t want to waste the time looking into Hunter. He has a job working for a Ukraine oil company willing to pay him $50,000 a month. The BBC claims Hunter has no education or experience in oil production or marketing. So what is up with that arrangement? A smart negotiator will gather information to hold onto. To use it as a sort of shield. If Trump had information on Hunter Biden that Joe Biden knew about, Trump could us that information as a sort of shield to deflect or avoid any personal attacks Biden may be planning. Based on accusations and actions taken in office, President Trump believes Democrats spied on his campaign in 2016. Court records proved spying was part of the campaign process. Members of Trump’s campaign team were placed on trial. The evidence submitted was obtained by tapping into phone calls, intercepting emails, and other forms of spying. There is no question, Trump and members of his campaign team were under constant surveillance. But the media decided not to link it to spying. Democrats insisted that surveillance was necessary for national security. It is all a play on semantics. Which brings up a question. Why is one party able to spy on another party, call it one thing, then bring the other party to trial for using the same methods, but call it another name, and place it under a different light? In the real world this is a case of double standards.
At this point, President Trump has not released any damaging information on Joe Biden. In short, the charges against him are pure speculation. If Peloci brought this evidence into a court of law, her case would be thrown out. The oath she took centers on protecting the Constitution and what it stands for. A great deal of the Constitution deals with delivering a fair trial to every US citizen.
When we look at the conduct displayed in the impeachment hearings and the evidence presented, we can’t help but see how the Constitution has been compromised. Take for instance the right for the accused to face their accuser.
The Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that “in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right…to be confronted with the witnesses against him.” Generally, the right is to have a face-to-face confrontation with witnesses who are offering testimonial evidence against the accused in the form of cross-examination during a trial.
This has been a right denied to the President of the United States and has been included in the Articles of impeachment. This is not the only misinterpretation of the Constitution that has surfaced. As pointed out earlier, one person does not control the future of this country, any one Bill, or the Articles of Impeachment. The Constitution is designed to guarantee a balance of power. A point Peloci has talked about in a number of videos included in this report. Peloci is a classic case of say one thing and do another. All of this points to Peloci’s personal interpretation of the Constitution.
During the impeachment trial, Democrats produced a series of hand picked experts on the Constitution. Many of them claimed to be quoting the Constitution, but the words, phrases, and laws they used in their speeches is not found in the Constitution. I was surprised to see members of the House of Representatives remain silent as one after another witness misquoted the Constitution. This is not the type of action one would expect to see in a room full of people under oath to protect and uphold the Constitution. Maybe Republicans were biding their time. Maybe Republicans were waiting to see if there was one Democrat who would break ranks and consider their oat more important than their political affiliation. But that has not happened. After the impeachment, Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy delivered a speech some may consider a Republican view of the impeachment. When you pay close attention to the speech, you see McCarthy did his research. He looked at the Constitution and read comments from its founding fathers. In his speech, McCarthy points out some of the threats to the Constitution this impeachment has brought about.
During this investigation USA-eVote sees another threat. Because USA-eVote concentrates on the facts history has revealed, the information gathered over the years raises red flags which cannot be denied. Not only threats to the US Constitution, but to American way of life and freedom as a whole.
This investigation has shown how Nancy Peloci has been building herself as a leader. A leader with new, innovative ideals which claim to be Constitutional, but are from from the original intent from the Constitution. Kevin McCarthy pointed those threats out in his speech, but failed to go into specific details and back those details up with historical facts.
A number of actions and claims by Nancy Peloci mirror those of Adolph Hitler and his climb to power. His reinterpretation of the Constitution is only one of the parallels to history. The other is Peloci’s reluctance and reasoning behind her decision to withhold the Articles of Impeachment from the next phase. It is clear, Peloci will not allow he progress to continue until she is assured of the results. Which in her case is a guilty verdict with no questions asked. Even though her charges lack evidence, the key witness remains a secret, and the majority of the charges are based on actions she thinks may take place in the future, Peloci insists she needs a guilty verdict guaranteed in writing before a trail is conducted. We’ve seen this in the past. This is one of Hitler’s tricks to gain supreme power.
On July 13, Hitler gave a speech announcing the 74 “justified murders”: “If anyone reproaches me and asks why I did not resort to the regular courts of justice, then all I can say is this: In this hour I was responsible for the fate of the German people, and thereby I became the supreme judge of the German people”
Although the events surrounding the night of the long knives is different from the impeachment, events leading up to that event have some rather unusual parallels to the action of the Majority Leaders in the House of Representatives.
The court was established in 1934 by order of Nazi leader Adolf Hitler, in response to his dissatisfaction at the outcome of the Reichstag fire trial, in which all but one of the defendants was acquitted. The court had jurisdiction over a rather broad array of “political offenses”, which included crimes like black marketeering, work slowdowns, defeatism, and treason against the Third Reich. These crimes were viewed by the court as Wehrkraftzersetzung (“disintegration of defensive capability”) and were accordingly punished severely; the death penalty was meted out in numerous cases.
Much like Peloci, Hitler expected a certain guilty verdict. When that didn’t happen, he took action to circumvent Germany’s Constitution in favor for a more modern interpretation guaranteed to represent the will of the people in Hitler’s eyes. This parallel cannot be ignored. Whenever we see an elected official claim the Constitution needs a modern, code word for personal interpretation to better serve the people, we have to take a step back and examine all the evidence looking for the real motive behind such suggestions. Something Germany failed to do and suffered the consequences.
Peloci has made it clear, she considers herself the most powerful woman in the nation. She planned, wrote, and applied the impeachment charges. Peloci wrote the articles, called for a vote, and now wants a written guarantee her verdict of guilty will be respected by Congress. A parallel to Hitler. USA-eVote believes that threat exists.
Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy summarized his speech my mentioning Democratic Socialism 12:20 into his speech. What does McCarthy see that he is reluctant to point out at this time? Voters need to look at Democratic Socialism and learn where it originated. At this time USA-eVote has little information on the road to power some of the founders of socialism took, but the parallels we see with Hitler are alarming. We need to pay attention to those red flags to make certain we do not repeat mistakes other countries made in the past.