Posted on 12/06/2022 4:38:39 AM PST by Lazamataz
Recently, our beloved president, Donald Trump, posted this on TruthSocial:
In it, is a statement that could be interpreted one of two ways. One interpretation was sinister: ("I'd dismiss the Constitution and just become president, if I could")
The other interpretation was not only constructive, but very accurate: ("Fraus Omnia Vitiat... Fraud vitiates everything. The orchestrated fraud of Democrats in 2020, are such that all rules -- even the Constitution -- has been destroyed by them.")
Many people on our side immediately saw that he was trying to express the second interpretation. However, the left immediately jumped on the first interpretation and began excoriating him for it.
Even I, at the first glance at his post, was alarmed. Briefly after, though, I saw what he really meant. Then it occured to me that there were two possible interpretations. Why should it be possible to have two interpretations of his statement?
The leftist media will take his statement and feed it to the masses of leftist zombies, further cementing in their mind that a re-elected Trump would be a tyrant, and that January 6th was an actual attempt to execute a coup. People who feel that way are extremely dangerous, and will commit acts of violence to stop a 'coup' or a 'tyrant'.
Why should he have given our political enemies any ammunition at all? Couldn't he have been more clear, and thus removed any chance to be misinterpreted?
There is another poster here, AnotherUnixGeek who put it really well: The words of most politicians are far better than their actions. Trump is the opposite - his actions as president were overwhelmingly positive and good for the United States, while the stuff that comes out of his mouth and out of his typing fingers can be cringe-inducing.
I love President Trump's actions as president! He was amazing in just about every way, doing so well that I feel his performance exceeded Ronald Reagans.
What we loved about Donald Trump in 2016, was his bold and combative style. He took it right to the Enemedia. He allowed NOTHING they said to go unchallenged. It was refreshing and energizing, and in the end, it made him president.
However, after six long years of the Enemedia twisting what he said -- even when he was very clear -- I would expect the man to be much more articulate and careful. I'd expect him to re-read every post, trying to predict how he'd be misquoted or misinterpreted. There is absolutely no reason he should have stepped into this one.
On the other hand, Jim Robinson had a good take on it: Trump would not be the man we all know and love if he has to run everything he says through a committee or a focus group —like RINOs do. Trump is fine. Let Trump be Trump as he fights the media and the leftists. Results are what counts.
And let's remember, one of us became President of the United States, and the other one of us (myself) is writing an editorial on Free Republic.
Not much of a difference,banana republican..
I don't think I am misinterpreting Jim Robinson's post, and so in that context, I am pretty sure I know how the Founders felt about this kind of thing, and felt strongly enough to put their signatures on it at the risk of a rope around their necks.
And I am not hankering to pick up a gun. Nobody in their right mind wishes for that. To quote John Adams in a description he had with Dr. Joseph Warren in the troubles leading up to the American Revolution: "...I was solicited to go to the Town Meetings and harrangue there. This I constantly refused. My Friend Dr. Warren the most frequently urged me to this: My Answer to him always was "That way madness lies." The Symptoms of our great Friend James Otis, at that time, suggested to Warren, a sufficient comment on these Words, at which he always smiled and said "it was true"..."
I had someone on another thread remark that they took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution.
I took that oath as well. And I take oaths seriously.
However, observing a Constitution that is wholly broken and ignored by lawless people is not strength, honor, or duty, it is weakness, even to the point of craven weakness.
It is even a more egregious and disgraceful weakness when those who abuse, degrade, and ignore the Constitution use the inherent goodness and honor of those who oppose their malignant intent to fully exploit their opponent's respect for that law as a weapon against them.
Opposing those people and fighting for the full observation of the Constitution of The United States in order to uphold it is the honorable thing to do. Failure to do so is dishonorable and the breaking of the oath.
I would like to think we all think that way. At this point, many of us disagree on how to fight against them. Eventually, we may be pushed into a corner and be forced to fight back.
A warning we must heed is that Liberty squandered and lost is far, FAR more difficult to regain than Liberty that is fought for while it is possessed. I pray we can find common ground before we squander and lose what Liberty we have left.
Cue Admiral Ackbar.
It is an obvious distinction to any sane person of good will.
I quickly jumped on board because of some OTHER obvious elements;
Language format aside, he was honest and correct,
Every child is a successful, workaholic adult patriot,
He publicly told Hilary she should be in jail.
This statement is nothing more than a reminder that He DID win the election, it was stolen, and he is still interested in rectifying a terrible wrong and willing to put it all on the line for we, the people.
Equating Trump to Veruca Salt is going to earn you points in Banana Republican and Democrat circles..
Enjoy it while you can..
Screaming at the sky is probably in their future, too.
Nice circle to hang out in..
John Adams said that some years (in the latter 1760s, IIRC) before the Declaration, and his words could well apply now. We have not even begun to approach having exhausted all Constitutional avenues to restoring our Republic, and therefore not yet to the point of a Declaration being our only recourse. See:
https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/4113720/posts?page=313#313
I, too, hope we can all agree on insisting the Constitution be honored and observed. Our first order of action should be restoration of electoral integrity, because without free and fair elections, and without restoration of trust in our electoral process, we may need to go to the next step, as outlined in the link above. We are still a number of steps away from a Declaration as our last resort.
Sadly, your comments will fall on some deaf ears, including those who advocate tyranny, and those who are advocating for the military overthrow of the US Government.
No, it is not a contract between the states and the Federal Government. Yes, it defines what you say — it is the supreme guiding document, not a contract.
The ability to make amendments to the Constitution does not make it a contract. Amendments may be made to all sorts of documents that are not contracts.
Yes, citizens enjoy the rights afforded to them under the Constitution, but that does not make it a contract. And on and on with the rest of your list. This is getting ridiculous.
Here, maybe this very short video will help you understand. You will like it in that the professor stresses the ways the Constitution is similar to a contract. You may not like his firm stance that it is not, in fact, a contract:
“Professor Randy Barnett argues that the Constitution is not a contract but there are important similarities. Officials who swear an oath to defend the Constitution are bound to it contractually. Also, contracts are interpreted according to their written words (as opposed to intentions) and according to the meaning they had at the time of agreement. The Originalist theory of Constitutional interpretation also utilizes these principles.”
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6-lmr6I2GAs
I think you could do with a nice cup of coffee :)
You're misrepresenting that phrase regarding who wrote it.
"Fraud vitiates everything" was in a book discussing Res judicata by Wells (sect. 499) and was cited by the Court in it's explanation of the case at hand.
Here's what the Court wrote (whole paragraph included for context):
"'The maxim that fraud vitiates every proceeding must be taken, like other general maxims, to apply to cases where proof of fraud is admissible (emphasis added). But where the same matter has been actually tried, or so in issue that it might have been tried, it is not again admissible; the party is estopped to set up such fraud, because the judgment is the highest evidence, and cannot be contradicted.' It is otherwise, he says, with a stranger to the judgment. This is said in a case where the bill was brought for the purpose of impeaching the decree directly, and not where it was offered in evidence collaterally. We think these decisions establish the doctrine on which we decide the present case; namely, that the acts for which a court of equity will on account of fraud set aside or annul a judgment or decree, between the same parties, rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction, have relation to frauds, extrinsic or collateral, to the matter tried by the first court, and not to a fraud in the matter on which the decree was rendered."
If people are going to hang their hat on United States v. Throckmorton (98 U.S. 61) as a justification to act in an extra-constitutional manner - good luck.
Alas, there will always be tyrants and hotheads among us. I trust the great majority of us are neither, at least for now and the foreseeable future.
Re: 171 - n.b as there’s going to be confusion unless I add.
The Court’s decision in United States v. Throckmorton quoted the paragraph which states “The maxim that fraud vitiates every proceeding must be taken, like other general maxims, to apply to cases where proof of fraud is admissible (emphasis added)” from Greene v. Greene (2 Gray (Mass.), 361.
I think we can agree on this. It isn’t time.
But we are running out. It may be a year. It may be five, or even 10.
But we have to turn this ship around, IMO.
:)
Yes, agreed. We need to turn this ship around, get up out of our chairs, roll up our sleeves and get busy with insisting on and working for electoral reform where we can (it can be done — see what DeSantis and his army of workers did in Florida) or work hard to beat the Dems at their own game (which can also be done — see the Republican who beat the Dems at their own mail-in ballot game).
As much as I hate to say it, I am very worried about 2024, though. Even if we are able to restore election integrity ... well, see my post #157:
https://freerepublic.com/focus/news/4114238/posts?page=157#157
We really need to win in 2024.
“His rabid base (many people on this site) only talk to other Trump-ophiles so they have no perspective when it comes to 2024.”
Ever-Trumpers
Bad publicity is better than no publicity.
President Trump loves the attention.
He is also smarter than 99% of us. He knows what he is doing.
Well said.
Because Trump’s words were under seige, his actions went unnoticed by the left...and the voters. If he had focused on his actions, the left would have opposed them. It’s like a qb who looks left and throwe right.
But we need to be better at educating the average voter. Ds-information is in the name American Rescue Plan as it only rescued gov bureaucrts and caused inflation. we should dedicate the next two years, not to name calling, but to communicating effectively with the average voter.
Well said.
Because Trump’s words were under seige, his actions went unnoticed by the left...and the voters. If he had focused on his actions, the left would have opposed them. It’s like a qb who looks left and throwe right.
But we need to be better at educating the average voter. Ds-information is in the name American Rescue Plan as it only rescued gov bureaucrts and caused inflation. we should dedicate the next two years, not to name calling, but to communicating effectively with the average voter.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.