The Trump Armada Is On Its Way! Good Will Always Defeat Evil…..

Over the last few days I have written a few articles pertaining to the Federal Courts. You can find them below:

Our President isn’t playing around!

From the article linked above:

The White House on Tuesday announced the re-nomination of 51 federal judicial nominees left over from the previous Congress, kickstarting the administration’s effort to install more conservative judgesafter GOP activists worried that such appointments had stalled.

Nine of the 51 appointments are for spots on prestigious and influential federal appellate benches, including two on the mostly liberal San Francisco-based 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which President Trump has often derided as “disgraceful” and politically biased.

Satan was celebrating his victory in NY yesterday. However, Our Father in Heaven has the ultimate plan in place that is being executed by his child, PDJT.

Good Will Always Defeat Evil!

 

106 thoughts on “The Trump Armada Is On Its Way! Good Will Always Defeat Evil…..

  1. Thank you, Flep!

    The Trump Armada is the Truth Armada!

    It’s the Law and Order Armada!

    And the Constitution and Bill of Rights Armada!

    Meanwhile, the left is trying their damnedest to stage a Coup!

    WHOEVER imagined they would try to stop a President from presenting his State of the Union Address?

    Or that a former President would stage and manipulate opposition, follow a sitting president around the world to try to undermine the policies of a lawfully elected POTUS?

    Or that a sitting president would spy on a political campaign?

    Liked by 18 people

    1. This corruptness is way past being “voted” out of office as a solution (all the corrupt bastards, not just one person!).

      It will at some point take force—and I’ll let you fill in the blanks as to “by whom” and “when”.

      Liked by 7 people

        1. How do your Scriptures say the spiritual warfare taking place on Earth (cf. Eph. 6:11-18 cp. Rev. 13; Rev. 19) eventually materializes and is consummated???

          Liked by 4 people

          1. Hmmm – I’m not sure, but it does say we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but evil spiritual principalities, powers, demons.

            I am not an end times scholar, nor an eschatological theorist.

            Jesus said there will be wars and rumors of wars. Revelation of St. John is fascinating and often we see things he might have been describing.

            Liked by 6 people

            1. Don’t you believe in the Second Advent, the Second Coming, the Parousia of Jesus Christ in power and great glory???

              And if you do, then events on earth take place that requires (demands) His return to defeat the forces of evil. Man will not or cannot defeat this evil!

              Liked by 3 people

    2. If true, this is jaw-dropping news, but I can’t find it at any other source. A search brought up Free Republic, which quotes the CTH article. I am skeptical until I know more.

      Liked by 1 person

        1. Here is info from this article:
          https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/world/nancy-pelosi-refused-to-allow-white-house-officials-access-to-the-house-floor-for-a-state-of-the-union-walkthrough/ar-BBSBAp9
          Last week, Pelosi cancelled a scheduled walk-through for the SOTU.

          Yesterday, the White House sent a letter requesting “another chance to survey the House chambers.” I can’t find info saying that Pelosi blocked their entrance in response to that letter.

          “Ultimately, whether the State of the Union goes on as scheduled is up to Pelosi, not Trump. Trump cannot deliver a State of the Union address on the floor until the House and the Senate vote to convene a joint session of Congress.”

          “.ABC News reported on Tuesday morning that the White House was planning to move ahead with an address outside Washington and another formal State of the Union at some point.”
          ____________________________________

          I’m not seeing explicit reports confirming this statement from CTH, today:
          “Speaker Pelosi has informed the House Sergeant at Arms that no executive branch official will be permitted entry into the Capitol building.” Maybe that’s what she said last week, but the White House sent another letter yesterday. I can’t find reporting about any response to yesterday’s letter.

          The article I cited above says both houses of Congress must call for a joint session, not that Pelosi has blocked any exec branch official, TODAY. But it might be true; we’ll see.

          At any rate, it looks as if Pres. Trump is going to proceed without Congress, which is fantastic! Maybe it will be the first time in modern history that a President will not be delivering the SOTU before a joint session of Congress.

          Liked by 5 people

          1. “a joint session of Congress”

            From what I’ve gathered from the anons, including sauce, a joint session of Congress can ONLY be convened by each of the joint parties – the House, and the Senate – adjourning their sessions. The House of Representatives must adjourn, and the Senate must adjourn, before any JOINT session can occur.

            This leaves each party VULNERABLE to arrest. They are protected against arrest while being “in session”.

            IMO, there won’t be any such adjournment, by either sub-branch of Congress. It’s WAY too risky for them, especially keeping in mind the “envelopes” issued at GHWB’s show-funeral. Also, of course, because of the recent ATTEMPTED COUP (Nan skipping town, with ALL her family, just before the rocket-attack on the WH was to take place).

            They KNOW what jeopardy the SOTU before a joint session of Congress will put them in. They cannot – they WILL NOT – “adjourn”.

            Desperate times (for THEM) require desperate measures (by THEM).

            Liked by 5 people

  2. Thanks Flep for your great reporting!

    With MOAR SHUTDOWN and the LIBEL of the Covington students sucking all the oxygen out of the reporting cycle, it’s easy to miss what’s happening with Justices.

    Queen Pelosi is powerless to stop Trump’s judicial appointments. What we are seeing is the beginnings of a generational change in the courts.

    That horrible video in NY also exposes another great truth that Flep has talked about a lot. All the people in that video are older generation – overwhelmingly majority are clearly and visibly beyond their childbearing years. They are the ones pushing this.

    Where is the youth representation? Where are the thirty year old women in that picture? They aren’t there.

    Legalizing abortion is NOT an issue that resonates or plays well with young voters. The U.S. already has some of the most liberal laws in the world for legal abortion and yet this older generation keeps pushing them further. Do they really think that young people are going to take up the charge for more abortion “progress” at this point?

    Quite simply, NO. The young people are the refugees and victims of the older generation’s great “sexual revolution” and have unfairly suffered the consequences of their parent’s selfish pursuits. Unlike their parents they aren’t true believers in the lies of “free sex” and abortion, even with their support of LGBT issues and marriage they aren’t exactly bursting with enthusiasm to push the boundaries any more.

    The Boomer generation has reached retirement age. Past tense. The last gasps of the 1960s activism and grab for power are upon us.

    Good will always defeat evil.

    Evil is powerless. It has no capacity to build or create. It’s only power is to destroy. At some point there is nothing left for evil to burn, what then?

    Good triumphs over evil just as life triumphs over death. Springtime always comes – life is resilient and always springs anew from the ashes.

    Liked by 13 people

          1. Yet the whole point of legalised abortions anywhere in the West was to avoid back alley terminations by doctors who had been struck off the medical register.

            This was well illustrated in the original Alfie (Michael Caine version), which had a sharp and memorable scene with a back alley abortion.

            Liked by 1 person

        1. My impression is that it’s much harder for a public figure to sue for defamation than a private citizen, and so much of the day-in-day-out defamation is against public figures. (Someone in the know can enlighten us on this point.) But yes, a defamation dream team is excellent!

          Liked by 6 people

          1. Public figures must show actual malice, generally that means they intended to hurt the target. Private persons do not have to prove malice – only that there was reckless disregard for the truth. The demand for a retraction, if refused, establishes malice (which is even helpful for private person suits).

            Like

    1. She claimed the boys were saying, “It’s not rape if you enjoy it.” I can’t imagine that being so. No one else has claimed that it happened. She should be sued.

      Liked by 4 people

    2. This I did not know. From Wayne’s article:

      ‘In libel law, you must demand a retraction as part of the foundation for the lawsuit.’

      He’s doing this for a purpose and giving them a fair amount of time to do it. Someone on another thread said that 48 hours was too generous a time limit. It isn’t, as this is the reason why.

      Liked by 2 people

  3. Thanks, Flep for shining the light on this critically important move forward! One of POTUS’s greatest attributes IMHO is his ability to focus on the outcome he determines as his next step in completing a larger project and I often see his experience in the construction industry as a parallel for what he is doing to improve the lives he holds dear to his heart….definitely a multi-step endeavor which requires intense focus and bringing enough people on board to shift consciousness and clear the way for getting done what needs to be done.

    I am reminded of the book “Real Influence: Persuade Without Pushing and Gain Without Giving In” where Mark Goulston and Dr. John Ullmen reveal a new model for authentic influence…the kind that creates a strong initial connection and survives long after an agreement has been reached. The model has 4 Basic Steps:

    1. Go For Great Outcomes
    2. Listen Past Your Blind Spot
    3. Engage Them In Their There
    4. When You’ve Done Enough…Do More

    The model is based on listening, genuine engagement and commitment to win-win outcomes as you 1. Examine your priorities 2. Learn about the key players and what they need 3. Earn their attention and inspire them to hear more 4. Add value with your questions and actions. POTUS shows us daily that being straight with everyone means winning for all. More about the book can be found @ http://www.getrealinfluence.com

    The light you shine on these positive moves is such a huge component of focusing more people’s attention where good defeats evil every single time! Again THANK YOU!

    Liked by 9 people

    1. Pro Tip:

      These 4 steps work great in Marriages too.
      50/50 will never cut it.
      I follow a 75/25 Rule:
      Give 75% of the time and expect to get 25% of the time…..
      If BOTH parties follow this simple rule…..
      Things usually work out around 50/50

      Liked by 8 people

      1. I’ve come the same conclusion, about family relationships.

        When one only tries to hit “50”, then ANY failure at all puts one the relationship in jeopardy. But, by shooting for 75 (or even 100), one maximizes the chances of actually MEETING halfway.

        When both parties in the relationship do this, the relationship almost always works, for BOTH.

        A very perceptive rule, rayzorbak! Cheers!

        Liked by 7 people

    1. Yes, Florida and America dodged a bullet there. The Dem communist would have destroyed the state, and probably cheated Trump out of Florida in 2020!! Not to mention their SC!

      Liked by 2 people

  4. Not sure of the status of this case:

    “In the court filings, however, TMLC presented overwhelming and un-rebutted evidence from experts and AIG itself to demonstrate that AIG, with the direct support of the U.S. Government, was engaging in religious indoctrination. Specifically, in addition to AIG’s own description of its Islamic financing as based upon Sharia and Sharia in turn described as “Islamic law based on Quran [sic] and the teachings of the Prophet (PBUH),” AIG promotes Sharia and SCF as a way to proselytize non-Muslims through an “ethical product” and a “new way of life.” Indeed, in the U.S. Government’s filings in the case, it admitted that SCF involves “a theological proposition.”

    Muise concluded: “Apparently, the court does not believe that the federal government violates the U.S. Constitution when it provides $153 million in taxpayer money to support Islamic religious activities. This is certainly more than the ‘one pence’ James Madison warned about when he helped craft the First Amendment, and I am sure this decision is news for all of the Christian and Jewish organizations and businesses that are prevented from receiving a dime of federal tax money to support their religious activities.”

    The appeal is expected to take at least a year to complete.”

    https://www.thomasmore.org/press-releases/sharia-law-gains-foothold-us-federal-judge-upholds-government-funding-islam-t/

    Liked by 5 people

    1. Oh please. While I completely agree with you that religious organizations should not receive tax dollars, we DO in fact fund religious organizations. The nine federal contractors for the “refugee” programs are all religious charities organized and run by various Christian and Jewish denominations. Personally I’d like to see every single one of them prevented from ever receiving another penny of tax dollars. This is the ultimate taxation without representation – I must fund my demographic replacements.

      Liked by 6 people

  5. This is old – 2015 – but that fact alone should scare people – they have been trying since LONG before that! I do seem to recall something, however, about this “tribunal” going away as a result of some issue with the gay Major of Houston and the Houston-area pastors – when she wanted copies of all their sermons, I think. Not sure, tho.

    “Islam is diametrically opposed to every Constitutional principle on which this country was founded. Under the muzzie point of view, Sharia Law trumps all other laws. It’s meant to overtake and replace all Western civil, criminal, and government jurisdiction. The founding principles of this country did not hinge on a violent, ideological theocracy that advocated the deaths of those who didn’t hold the same religious beliefs.”

    https://freedomoutpost.com/islamists-establish-sharia-tribunal-texas/

    Liked by 5 people

  6. Just a reminder that the fight over life is still being waged in flyover country:

    Iowa ‘fetal heartbeat’ abortion restriction declared unconstitutional

    https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/01/23/iowa-fetal-heartbeat-abortion-law-ruling/2655252002/

    From the article:

    In his decision striking down the abortion law, Polk County District Judge Michael Huppert cited the Iowa Supreme Court’s ruling last year in a challenge to a different abortion-restriction law. The high court held that “a woman’s right to decide whether to terminate a pregnancy is a fundamental right under the Iowa Constitution” in that ruling.

    The “fetal heartbeat” law, passed last spring, had been on hold during a legal challenge by Planned Parenthood of the Heartland and the American Civil Liberties Union of Iowa. Huppert overturned it in a nine-page ruling Tuesday.

    Liked by 5 people

    1. “The high court held that “a woman’s right to decide whether to terminate a pregnancy is a fundamental right under the Iowa Constitution” in that ruling.”

      __________________

      I have not read the Iowa Constitution, but without even looking, I am positive it says nothing at all about a woman or her ‘right’ to terminate a pregnancy.

      Any Constitution containing such language would necessarily have been written post 1960, and Iowa became a state long before 1960.

      So this court is high on crack.

      They’re just making crap up, the same way the (not)Supreme Court did in Roe v. Wade.

      Like

  7. Good Heavens – a sane thought from a journalist!

    Liked by 9 people

      1. Thank you for posting this, GA/FL.

        He’s calling their bluff, IMO, so that they OWN the cancelled SOTU. The optics are tremendous.

        As I posted previously, adjournment is REQUIRED by both the Senate and the House, in order to even HAVE a joint session.

        VSGPDJT has so much leverage on them that they CANNOT, WILL NOT subject themselves to arrest, by allowing adjournment.

        It’s another way, to show those who aren’t paying attention, that the D “party” is the guilty party, against America.

        They’ve painted themselves into a lose-lose corner.

        “[…] and very importantly, on location!”

        Face-plant!

        Liked by 7 people

          1. The constitution authorizes the President to adjourn them both if certain conditions are met. One of them is when they are in dispute. Anyway, it’s in Art 2, sec 3 (IIRC).

            Liked by 1 person

    1. When one thinks of all the horrible crimes being committed every day, coast to coast, in the United States, and a group of Leftists (activists, media people, Democrat legislators) continues to have a go — with threats and innuendo — at a group of clean-cut high school kids guilty of no crime?

      The US is upside down at the moment in that regard.

      Liked by 4 people

  8. Here we go with those fake poll numbers again….

    Liked by 10 people

      1. Posting this here, because there was no room below.

        “Well, tough shit.

        You aren’t his boss, and you aren’t the arbiter of what is and is not “unacceptable” (from your original gripe).”

        _______________

        What could I possibly have said to elicit such a harsh and defensive reply?

        And actually, you are his boss — and so am I. He works for us. He’s not a king, and this isn’t a monarchy. It’s a Republic, and we hired him. That’s true generally, but in DJT’s case, it goes much further. We hired him to represent US, because nearly the entirety of the rest of the government was corrupt.

        There was no way to vote out roughly 530 of the 535 members of Congress. It’s not even possible, because they’re not all up for election at the same time.

        But what we could do is hire someone who wasn’t part of the corrupt system and put him in the branch of government with the most direct Authority and power.

        Which is what we did.

        .

        “People on our side do NOT have to do what you want, and (given that you’ve groused similarly about Trump) you really, really need to learn to accept it.”

        ______________

        Look, I love pissing contests as much as anyone, but what is it that has set you off?

        If you’re upset about something, and you’re just looking to take it out on someone, then that’s fine, I don’t mind. We’re all on the same side, my feelings won’t be ‘hurt’, and tomorrow we’ll be fighting shoulder to shoulder again.

        But if you are upset to this degree over anything I actually said, don’t you think it’s a bit of an overreaction?

        Because if it’s not, then it sounds like you think we’re just supposed to be ‘yes men’ — unquestioning, unthinking, and uncritical.

        Are we just NPCs wearing different jerseys?

        I don’t know about you, but that’s not me.

        If I ‘see’ something, I’m going to ‘say’ something.

        A ‘yes man’ is about the second most dangerous man in the room.

        That’s not what I am.

        And it’s not what you are, either.

        I don’t think that’s what any of us are here — that’s one of the reasons we’re here.

        Like

        1. You’re engaging in “Trump Needsta” and “Q Needsta” (I’m not assuming they are the same individual) and you’re trying to dictate to them by the passive-aggressive means of giving them failing grades.

          Even if you figure “we are his boss and we get to make demands” you are just one person. I hope you don’t imagine you actually speak for anyone else, though you sure spend a lot of time trying to stampede people into condemning the job he’s doing.

          And your tone is extremely disrespectful to him. If I worked for you and you talked to me like that, I’d more than likely up and quit.

          There are ways to disagree with someone on tactics without that tone.

          You are ONE MAN telling the President what he MUST do. He not only has a much better grasp on the situation than we do, he’s certainly better at handling it than any of us would be, if we were in his shoes right now. I’ll tell you, I’ve watched, many a time as he did something other than what I thought he should do–and it has come out quite well. I’m not going to presume to advise him at this point; I know I’m not in his league.

          But you aren’t even trying to give him advice to consider, you’re trying to give the man orders and tell him what is and is not acceptable behavior.

          Do I get frustrated? Sure. But he’s the general, ultimately, with both authority and situational awareness, and I’m a private–and it makes no difference that I am one of millions who granted him that authority. I’d be gravely mistaken to tell the general it’s “unacceptable” that he doesn’t drop what he’s doing and give me a briefing right now either directly or through Q.

          Your attitude stinks.

          Liked by 2 people

          1. “You’re engaging in “Trump Needsta” and “Q Needsta” (I’m not assuming they are the same individual) and you’re trying to dictate to them by the passive-aggressive means of giving them failing grades.”

            ________________

            Man, you are really all wound up tonight, lol!

            Didn’t you try to make a discussion here personal the other day, and I let it go, redirecting back to the topic at hand?

            Then you tried to do it again earlier today, so I brought it to your attention, and I let it go (again).

            This makes three times now, in what… 24 or 36 hours?

            I haven’t attacked you. But you keep following me around, trying to pick a fight, so what gives?

            That’s all right, go ahead, get it out of your system. Some of my best friends are people I got in a fight with first.

            .

            “Even if you figure “we are his boss and we get to make demands” you are just one person.”

            _______________

            I was just making a point… it was my understanding that there would be no math….

            .

            “I hope you don’t imagine you actually speak for anyone else,”

            _______________

            Pretty sure I’m not the one who’s imagining things here…

            .

            “…though you sure spend a lot of time trying to stampede people into condemning the job he’s doing.”

            ________________

            I would ask what in the world you’re talking about, but I’m getting the sense you wouldn’t tell me, would you…

            .

            “And your tone is extremely disrespectful to him.”

            _______________

            I knew it, I knew that might be a problem. I specifically asked my tone people to set the controls to compensate for that. I specifically said it. It was right after I said “13 minutes to Judge Wapner”…

            .

            “If I worked for you and you talked to me like that, I’d more than likely up and quit.”

            _______________

            Talked to you like what? What is it that I have said that is so horrific, so beyond the pale, that it has your knickers tied up in a knot so tight that you’ve turned yourself inside out?

            Can we all see the evidence for the charges against me?

            It’s a written forum, so it should be easy to do, just copy and paste it and put it in quotes.

            The least we can do is take a look at this apparent atrocity for which I stand condemned, can’t we?

            .

            “There are ways to disagree with someone on tactics without that tone.”

            _____________

            %^&* those tone people… it’s all ball bearings these days… and I paid good money to them, too…

            .

            “You are ONE MAN telling the President what he MUST do.”

            _____________

            So is it a NUMBERS thing?

            Because I was specifically told there would be no math.

            Where did I tell the president what he “must” do? Since you won’t do it, I checked my earlier posts, and the closest I found was “But DJT needs to communicate directly while retaining plausible deniability (for now), which (presumably) is where Q fits in.

            That was clearly an observation regarding the purpose of Q, it was not a command of any kind.

            You do realize that we’re not actually talking to the president when we post comments here, right? I mean, it’s flattering to think he might stop by and exchange pleasantries — especially if he might see someone so nobly defending his honor…

            ….which has been attacked by no one…

            .

            “He not only has a much better grasp on the situation than we do, he’s certainly better at handling it than any of us would be, if we were in his shoes right now.”

            _____________

            So no questions, no criticism, no engagement — just praise and sunshine?

            You do realize, that to whatever extent you believe I committed this heinous, unspeakable deed to which you have taken such umbrage… that I was referring to Q, and not the president?

            Are you saying we can’t question Q?

            Or the president?

            Or both?

            .

            “I’ll tell you, I’ve watched, many a time as he did something other than what I thought he should do–and it has come out quite well. I’m not going to presume to advise him at this point; I know I’m not in his league.”

            _____________

            As my old friend Clint once said, ‘a man’s got to know his limitations…’

            .

            “But you aren’t even trying to give him advice to consider,”

            ______________

            You do realize… you know he’s not really here, right?

            I mean, I think it’s charming, your playing Lancelot to his… Guinevere?

            But you keep trying to defend his honor, when no one has attacked it…

            .

            “…you’re trying to give the man orders and tell him what is and is not acceptable behavior.”

            ______________

            Have you ever noticed that you make a lot of accusations? I was just noticing it myself, and I didn’t know if you’d caught it yet.

            This is fun though, isn’t it?

            I mean, it beats the crap out of watching reruns of Sports Center.

            The contest, I mean… if it wasn’t fun, we wouldn’t do it… we certainly wouldn’t be any good at it.

            The difference (at the moment) between you and me is that for some reason you seem intent on attacking me personally, and I’m… not.

            Because I know tomorrow we’re still going to be on the same side, and we have enough problems without negligent fratricide. 😉

            .

            “Do I get frustrated? Sure. But he’s the general, ultimately, with both authority and situational awareness, and I’m a private–and it makes no difference that I am one of millions who granted him that authority. I’d be gravely mistaken to tell the general it’s “unacceptable” that he doesn’t drop what he’s doing and give me a briefing right now either directly or through Q.”

            ______________

            Well it’s a good thing I didn’t do anything like that, then… I can see how mad you’d be if I had…

            If you would quote the person to whom you are replying, you wouldn’t lose sight of the context. Here is what I actually said:

            “Speaking of which, it’s about time to start putting Q on milk cartons where the ‘missing children’ photos go. [snip] Seems like leaving us high and dry is becoming his Modus Operandi. And that’s not acceptable.”

            See what I did there? That rhymed… ‘high and dry’, ‘modus operandi‘… nevermind, the moment is lost 😁

            Whose ‘modus operandi’?

            Q’s.

            I wasn’t talking about the president at all, that was just a mistaken conclusion you jumped to, in your rush to judgment.

            But suppose I was talking about the president… am I on double-secret probation now?

            It’s NOT acceptable.

            To me.

            Why do you care if I express that?

            Who does it harm?

            Do you think Q frequents this nape of the woods, neck of the wape… do you think Q is here?

            And if he was, do you think his feelings would be hurt by anything I said… or what?

            I’m just trying to understand how it is that my simple comments have caused you to go off the deep end… because I’m not seein’ it.

            .

            “Your attitude stinks.”

            _______________

            Someone’s sure does…

            Mirror, mirror on the wall…

            Did somebody pee in your Wheaties today? 😁

            .

            Can we be friends now?

            No, you’re right.

            Let’s do one more round first… for the good times 😁

            Like

              1. You deemed Q’s modus operandi “not acceptable”

                _____________

                Well, it has taken a lot of work, hasn’t it — not to mention the countless hours put in by my own personal special prosecutor — but I think all that effort is about to pay off.

                I think we may be on the verge, the cusp, the event horizon, if you will — of utter nonsense here.

                After roughly 2,270 words (169 paragraphs, 12,198 characters… so far) we have, at last, identified the root cause of all this restless angst.

                It turns out that it all depends on what the definition of the word is ‘unacceptable’ is.

                Or something. 😁

                But as I testified previously, it was not acceptable to me.

                At this late stage of my trial — with all hope nearly lost, and in consideration of my life, which surely may hang in the balance — I shall endeavor, however briefly, to avail myself of the right to cross-examination.

                Steve (in Co)… do you not have the capacity to determine what is acceptable to you? Assuming your answer is ‘yes’, do we not all possess this same capacity to make such determinations for ourselves?

                And for this High Crime and Misdemeanor, is my penalty to be death — by relentless pedanticism?

                But are you not guilty of this very High Crime yourself?

                Did you not determine for yourself that my own determination — about the ‘unacceptability’ of Q’s apparent current modus operandi — was, in like manner, ‘unacceptable’ to you?

                Are you not guilty as charged?

                Furthermore, have you not exercised your own capacity to express your most profound and dogged displeasure about what was not acceptable to me?

                Are you not again guilty as charged — with aggravating circumstances to include stalking and premeditation, with malice aforethought — charges of which even I do not stand accused — not even by you? 😁

                Will you not hold yourself accountable for these crimes — High and Egregious though they be — as you have sought to hold me?

                For I did verily express myself, regarding what was not acceptable to me.

                And have you not done the very same — and now far more?

                What should be the penalty for such High crimes?

                Are you not honor-bound to give yourself the same sentence as you rendered unto me — since no greater sentence can be given?

                Will you commit suipedanticide?

                I don’t think there’s even a ‘hotline’ for that… I’m not sure the operators could even pronounce it 😁

                Or might there be some other way — perhaps, even… a pardon, of some sort, might be in order?

                And if, after considerable soul-searching, you are successful in granting a complete and total pardon for thyself, then perhaps — out of your boundless mercy and good conscience, which is of wide repute — you might somehow see your way clear to lessening my own sentence…

                …to Life without Pedanticism?

                Like

              2. After roughly 2,270 words (169 paragraphs, 12,198 characters… so far) we have, at last, identified the root cause of all this restless angst.

                Uh, if so, it’s because you dodged and weaved all along. I identified this phrasing in my very first response to you. Go back and read it.

                I read no further than this. Your discussion tactics are to throw as much fog and misdirection into things as possible and try to overwhelm your opponent with a lot of specious points, trying to pull him off his initial complaints. I’m ashamed to say you succeeded a lot more with me than I would have liked, but now your game is obvious.

                I may come back and read the rest of your response, but if you’re going to play games like this (claiming that “at last” we’ve come to the cause when I identified it in the original post), my thoughts right here and now is that you’re just an evasive arguer who deflects and then blames me when I am forced to identify the issue a SECOND time.

                Have a nice day.

                Liked by 1 person

          2. “Uh, if so, it’s because you dodged and weaved all along. I identified this phrasing in my very first response to you. Go back and read it.”

            ________________

            If you don’t at least click the ‘like’ button, I don’t have any way of knowing that you left a reply. Or was that your intent?

            How long have you been harboring this secret hatred toward me, Steve? Because this degree of animosity is not the result of a random post about my frustration with Q’s absence.

            What is it that has caused you to engage in these serial and bitter personal attacks?

            It couldn’t possibly have been because I expressed my personal dissatisfaction with Q’s latest silence.

            You won’t move on, and you won’t allow me to give you a graceful way out, and you won’t stop attacking me personally — so what is it exactly that you want?

            .

            “I read no further than this. Your discussion tactics are to throw as much fog and misdirection into things as possible and try to overwhelm your opponent with a lot of specious points,”

            _______________

            Good grief you are humorless lately, lol!

            There was a lot of funny stuff in my last post, but you’re so overcome with misplaced anger that you missed it entirely.

            If all you want to do is fight, then okay, just say that. I can have fun doing that to. I’ve let your personal animosity go at least four times now, and this is the fifth.

            As weird as it is to say this, if the only thing you will accept is to be ‘enemies’ (over WHAT, I literally don’t know), if there is nothing I can do to change your mind, then just say so.

            There is not even anything I can think of to apologize for, because I have no idea what has caused you to become so unhinged.

            .

            “…trying to pull him off his initial complaints. I’m ashamed to say you succeeded a lot more with me than I would have liked, but now your game is obvious.”

            _____________

            No… if you were ashamed of anything, you would have stopped this a long time ago, lol! You’re on some kind of personal mission.

            .

            “I may come back and read the rest of your response,”

            ____________

            I’m on pins AND needles 😁

            .

            “…but if you’re going to play games like this (claiming that “at last” we’ve come to the cause when I identified it in the original post),”

            _____________

            Humor is clearly wasted on the humorless… but I still enjoy it 😁

            .

            “…my thoughts right here and now is that you’re just an evasive arguer who deflects and then blames me when I am forced to identify the issue a SECOND time.”

            ______________

            It’s called trying to give you (yet another) way out, without responding to your hostility in kind, Steve. Five times now.

            So not a soul on this board can say I didn’t try.

            But you can’t see it, blinded as you are by your (truly!) inexplicable hostility.

            It’s more than just a little bizarre, Steve.

            I’ve been posting here for months now, with not a single problem between us (or anyone else, for that matter), and then out of the blue — literally out of nowhere — without any explanation, you go from mild mannered Dr. Jekyl to full on Mr. Hyde.

            .

            “Have a nice day.”

            ______________

            I’m having a great day! But then, I’m not the one stewing over a manufactured outrage about nothing, and conducting myself like an implacable jerk on a three or four day bender.

            I’d tell you to have a great day too, but I’m sure you’d take that the wrong way, as you do everything else. 😁

            If there is any chance at all that you would still like to be friends, then now would be a good time to BTFO.

            But if you will accept nothing less than enmity — no matter what I do, and for reasons unknown to anyone but yourself — then let every member of Wolf’s Treehouse be a witness that that choice was yours.

            It will still be one-sided enmity — yours — but you’re all out of free shots now 🙂

            Like

  9. I think this goes beyond targeting the next Supreme Court nominee. I think they’re targeting the ENTIRE SUPREME COURT.

    “There are nine justices on the Supreme Court, and four of them (Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Sonia Sotomayor) are practicing Catholics, as is retiring Justice Anthony Kennedy. Conservative Neil Gorsuch was raised Catholic but reportedly attends an Episcopal church. (The other justices on the bench—Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan—are Jewish.)”

    They know they’re about to lose the court for an entire generation. Maybe the long-term play here is to rally the masses into supporting a radical overhaul of the Supreme Court–term limits, neutering power, etc.

    Liked by 4 people

    1. “They know they’re about to lose the court for an entire generation. Maybe the long-term play here is to rally the masses into supporting a radical overhaul of the Supreme Court–term limits, neutering power, etc.”

      _________________

      How could they accomplish such a thing, without amending the Constitution?

      What amazes me is that Hussein didn’t nominate a Muzzie to the (not)Supreme Court. That is exactly what they will do next, if there is ever a devilrat president again, which is why the D-Party must be electorally exterminated.

      Muzzies have already worked their way into the CONGRESS. islam is all about subversion, working its way into government and destroying the host country from the inside out. If they ever get a Muzzie on the (not)Supreme Court, Revolution will follow right behind.

      Liked by 3 people

      1. Perhaps the goal is to sow long-term distrust and resentment in the institution so that people will accept proposed amendments at a later time in the future. Or maybe they hope to whip the masses into a frenzy to riot and demand change (you saw how worked up people got over the Covington stuff). Personally, I don’t think the Q team would ever let it get that far, but that doesn’t mean the cabal won’t try.

        Liked by 3 people

        1. “Personally, I don’t think the Q team would ever let it get that far, but that doesn’t mean the cabal won’t try.”

          _________________

          Speaking of which, it’s about time to start putting Q on milk cartons where the ‘missing children’ photos go.

          I find myself thinking about checking for new Q posts less and less with each passing day.

          He was on vacation from Dec. 22 to Jan. 5th, then back on vacay from the 13th through the 23rd now, and still counting.

          Seems like leaving us high and dry is becoming his Modus Operandi.

          And that’s not acceptable.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. Scott, I would respectfully disagree.

            Q’s job was to wean millions of us around the world, feeding us the truth, breadcrumb by breadcrumb from the very last days of October 2017.

            At times, Q said that we were not putting the pieces together or digging enough. The chans — and, indirectly, we ourselves — responded.

            Perhaps the world responded, too, in some respect (e.g. the yellow jacket movement).

            Did you expect your mom or dad to be with you by your side at school or playing with your friends? Of course not. Your parents expected you to function independently of them, bit by bit. They trained you to do that.

            Q’s job was to wean, encourage and direct. Q has to pull away at some point.

            Remember, ‘You have more than you know’.

            Liked by 3 people

            1. “Q’s job was to wean millions of us around the world, feeding us the truth, breadcrumb by breadcrumb from the very last days of October 2017.”

              _______________

              Seemed more like Q was waking all the normies out of a coma.

              But you don’t just wake someone out of a lifetime coma and say “Good luck!”.

              .

              “At times, Q said that we were not putting the pieces together or digging enough. The chans — and, indirectly, we ourselves — responded. ”

              _____________

              I like your analogy, but Q has had every opportunity to enlist our digital army — we’re ready, willing and able — but he insists on going it alone, fighting a shadow war behind the scenes, only teasing us with glimpses and questions we can’t answer.

              Q has the answers, we don’t. Q knows the big picture, we don’t. Q has access to the evidence, we don’t. Because Q has access to the evidence, he doesn’t require faith, he has certainty.

              We mostly have faith, built on whatever evidence we can cobble together — some of that evidence is pretty convincing, but we’re never quite sure of what. It’s too much to be nothing, but never enough to prove anything, certainly not to a skeptic. Every time Q goes AWOL, we lose momentum.

              .

              “Perhaps the world responded, too, in some respect (e.g. the yellow jacket movement).”

              ______________

              Agreed!

              .

              “Did you expect your mom or dad to be with you by your side at school or playing with your friends? Of course not.”

              _____________

              No, but I don’t look at Q like a father-figure, either. I look at Q like a leader, and a leader has many functions, including motivation, training, preparing for a mission and executing that ‘plan’ we’re all supposed to be trusting.

              Every time there is a long absence of activity, momentum is necessarily lost.

              Liked by 1 person

              1. ‘No, but I don’t look at Q like a father-figure, either.’ Nor do I, but I also never expected Q to hold my hand.

                Also, think of the security considerations involved. A huge domestic terror attack almost took place last week and people are wondering why Q isn’t dropping breadcrumbs?

                Like

            2. “Q’s job was to wean, encourage and direct. Q has to pull away at some point.

              Remember, ‘You have more than you know’.”

              _____________________

              I don’t know what reason there is to think think we are anywhere close to that point.

              The entire apparatus is against us. We have DJT on our side, and that’s it.

              But DJT needs to communicate directly while retaining plausible deniability (for now), which (presumably) is where Q fits in.

              The ‘movement’, the public ‘awareness’ which Q initiated, should be growing exponentially, toward a tipping point. The only reason it isn’t, is because Q keeps pulling back.

              And every time Q decides to Take it Easy and head to the Hotel California for another Tequila Sunrise, it doesn’t leave this Desperado with anything resembling a Peaceful Easy Feeling.

              I Can’t Tell You Why, but In the Long Run, Q may to Take it To the Limit one time too many. The New Kid in Town and the Witchy Woman might start wondering whether to believe Q or their own Lyin’ Eyes.

              One of These Nights Q may come back only to find a lot his supporters are Already Gone.

              Sitting in a Sad Cafe, somewhere In the City, After the Thrill is Gone, wondering if it wasn’t really Wasted Time.

              😉

              Like

              1. ‘I don’t know what reason there is to think we are anywhere close to that point.’

                Q started saying that we have more than we know early on. That’s one of his/their catchphrases that stuck in my head.

                The other was to keep rereading the breadcrumbs.

                I’m grateful for what we have with Q.

                Like

          2. Q has taken longer breaks before. This isn’t abnormal.

            Have you ever followed the Q Clock stuff? Very long story short, if you wrap the dates on which Q made comments around a clock face, they lead to very interesting and mathematically improbable “coincidences” with current events. The breaks may be necessary to the timing of this operation.

            Liked by 2 people

            1. “Q has taken longer breaks before. This isn’t abnormal.”

              ______________

              Yep, and I didn’t like it then, either!

              This is a problem. If Q is going to lead, then lead. If he’s not, then don’t.

              But you can’t do both.

              You can’t lead people out into the wilderness and then just take off for a month. It doesn’t just undermine confidence in the leader(s), it undermines confidence in the operation itself.

              Basic leadership principles are being violated here, and being that Q is either military intelligence or working in concert with military intelligence, he/they have to know this.

              Either you are growing a movement and opening peoples’ eyes to the truth, or you’re not.

              Like

              1. Yep, and I didn’t like it then, either!

                Well, tough shit.

                You aren’t his boss, and you aren’t the arbiter of what is and is not “unacceptable” (from your original gripe).

                People on our side do NOT have to do what you want, and (given that you’ve groused similarly about Trump) you really, really need to learn to accept it.

                Like

            2. “Have you ever followed the Q Clock stuff? Very long story short, if you wrap the dates on which Q made comments around a clock face, they lead to very interesting and mathematically improbable “coincidences” with current events. The breaks may be necessary to the timing of this operation.”

              ____________

              I am aware of the Q clock, but I haven’t followed it closely.

              It appears to be another rearview mirror predictor, i.e., you can’t use it to predict anything in the future, but once some current ‘event’ happens, you can see how it lines up with previous ‘dates’ on the clock and it will appear like the most recent ‘current event’ was planned as part of a larger scheme.

              But since things are happening all the time, how do we know which events are meant to be plugged into the Q clock, and which events are either unrelated or coincidence (I know, I know… there are no coincidences, lol!).

              I’m just saying that for every true believer, there are 20 doubting Thomases — people who are prepared to go to the mattresses — but you gotta ‘SHOW ME’ first.

              And no doubt, Q understands that full well.

              Like

  10. Sarah Sanders: “President @realDonaldTrump is winning the fight to save our Constitution and the rule of law from out of control liberal judges ”

    _______________

    She must be referring to the judges which the Chief Clown of the (not)Supreme Court doesn’t think exist!

    That was really something, that Chief Half-Baked would publicly state — with a STRAIGHT face — that there is no such thing as Obama-judges… it was like claiming the sun doesn’t rise in the east or set in the west — it was EXACTLY that LUDICROUS.

    It was as if he said pigs fly.

    It was… ha! It was his BAGHDAD BOB moment!

    That was Baghdad John, claiming there was no such thing as Obama-judges. Apparently this dumb-ass can’t recognize them even when they are sitting at the same table he is, each time the (not)Supreme Court is in session.

    And what it demonstrated was that Head Clown Roberts is either completely detached from reality, or he is completely compromised.

    And in doing so, he further diminished the already vanished credibility of the most doubtful court in the land.

    It should be called the Court of No Confidence.

    Liked by 2 people

  11. “New York just passed a bill making it legal to abort a baby for any reason up until birth. Watch how they celebrate infanticide. This is barbaric. ”

    ________________

    They have turned that chamber into a temple of Satan.

    That position is so far beyond extreme that it is tantamount to codifying Child Sacrifice.

    Which is exactly what Planned Parenthood is all about. It is a Satanic cult. Organ harvesting (and taxpayer funding) is its financial operation, and sacrificing children to Molech / Baal is their religion.

    Devil worshippers.

    Out in the open, for all the world to see.

    Liked by 4 people

  12. Matt Walsh: “Late term abortion is now legal in New York. Capital punishment is illegal. Which means it is only okay to give lethal injection to infants. If that seems rational or moral to you, you’re a psychopath.”

    ______________

    OR… a devil worshipper.

    Not only is that a completely legitimate possibility, considering all of the information Q has brought to our attention over the past year — but just imagine how much more effective the term ‘Devil worshipper’ or ‘Satanist’ is, compared to ‘psychopath’.

    Most of the people, almost certainly a majority, of those who rise to the level of national politics are certifiable psychopaths or sociopaths. That personality type is drawn to positions of power over others, so wherever power is located (CEOs of major companies, government), the percentage of psychopaths is concentrated.

    And the power or shock value of the word ‘psychopath’ is diluted from casual use.

    ‘Devil worshipper’ is not diluted from overuse.

    And it clearly paints them as what they are, the blackest most evil people in this world.

    They have made it a battle between good and evil.

    They are PROUD of their evil. They revel in it, and glory in their evil.

    Let them wear the name of their master, Satan.

    Let them be called what they really are — Devil worshippers.

    Liked by 3 people

  13. Larry Schweikart: “Next up, NY will pass the “kill inconvenient babies act.”

    _________________

    No.

    STOP playing the game, and START FIGHTING.

    The proper response is to appeal this immediately and directly to the Supreme Court — over and over and over again.

    The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution recognizes and guarantees our inherent natural and God-given right to LIFE.

    Make the criminals on the Supreme Court either defend this atrocity perpetrated by the coven in New York, or overturn it.

    Liked by 3 people

  14. Allie Beth Stuckey: “Late term abortions now legalized in NY, in which a fully formed ~6lb child is poisoned to death. God forgive us for being a country that celebrates infanticide.”

    ____________________

    NO.

    Our COUNTRY does not celebrate infanticide; our country, our Founding documents and the large majority of We the People ABHOR and DETEST infanticide, and God knows it.

    These people are sick.

    These people are evil.

    Identify them by name — the men and women who voted for this atrocity — and have the courage to call them what they are.

    They are Satan worshippers.

    Let them explain that to their children. Let them explain that to their friends at the country club (if they don’t already know). Let them be questioned about it and have to explain or attempt to defend against the charge at every public gathering they attend. Let every public appearance they make devolve into a discussion about why they shouldn’t be called Devil worshippers.

    Make them own that label.

    Being outraged, virtue-signalling to the choir, is safe, it’s reassuring, it’s reaffirming, it’s a lot of things, some of them are even good.

    But it’s not FIGHTING.

    Liked by 4 people

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s