21 Comments
User's avatar
Dennis Skrincosky's avatar

Excellent dissertation but Arctic Frost was a great example of COMMUNISM! We are in a war in the U.S., i.e., the communist revolution that started in the 60s, expanded by Clintons in the 90s, formalized in the federal and state governments by Barry Soetoro, and last ditch efforts by Biden sycophants the last 4 years to destroy capitalism!

President Trump is the executive to lead the fight and destroy communism and its followers!

The killing of Charlie Kirk must be the start of real combat, a new civil war!

Expand full comment
J Kelly's avatar

Where’s the congressional oversight? I’m tired of hearing about Obama and Biden, where are the Republicans, scumbags

Expand full comment
Ingrid's avatar

I’m tired of Congress acting like a courtroom….THAT IS NOT THEIR JOB!!!!! We have the judicial branch for that!!! Congress only does one of two things: nothing or anything BUT their JOB!!!!! SICK OF IT!!!!! FIRE EVERY LAST ONE!!!!!!!

Expand full comment
Madame Publius's avatar

You say that "This is not democracy" but this is democracy. Democracy as Madison warned us cannot control the violence of faction, which is why they gave us what he called "a strictly Republican" form of government. We've destroyed that Republican form of government with our so-called democracy. Madison warned us that democracies are "as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths," which is why you see the kind of behavior that brings about things like Arctic Frost. Our democracy took the power from the states to control the national government and gave it over to the political parties. They will keep fighting until they destroy our country completely. The only way to save this country is not by exposing the crimes of the other side but to restore our Republican Form of Government as guaranteed in Article IV, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution itself.

Expand full comment
Everette Burk's avatar

Very well said MP. The civil war against the people of the United States began by progressive politicians in the late 1800s. The people of the country were too naive to understand what was happening.

Expand full comment
Madame Publius's avatar

Yes. The move towards democracy started with popular elections of the President in violation of the Constitution and culminated with the ratification of the 17th Amendment in 1913 making Senators' elections completely controlled by the mob thereby making them loyal to the party and not their state. The fact that the democracy forces were able to manipulate the naivete of the public into destroying their Republican Form of Government is just another reason why democracies don't work.

Expand full comment
Everette Burk's avatar

Thankfully the Electoral College still exists, lets hope we as a nation are not so ignorant as to eliminate it. As to the Senate’s direct elections, that is one mistake that our predecessors made that is harming our country now.

Expand full comment
Madame Publius's avatar

As an attorney, I've argued for years that the 17th Amendment is unconstitutional on its face because it violates Article IV, Section 4 and should be struck down by SCOTUS. The Electoral College, on the other hand, exists in name only as it is merely a democratic-hybrid. It was never meant to be a rubber stamp for the 51%. Hamilton explains how it was to work under our Constitution in The Federalist Papers, Letter 68. They were to be selected by the legislatures of each state and then were to meet and vote without influence from the "tumult and disorder" of a popular election, because they would be the “most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station [of the President].” This process also kept power in the hands of the states and away from the political parties. It also “affords a moral certainty, that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications.”

Expand full comment
Rick Janes's avatar

Each morning, I awaken with fresh hope that Soros and his racketeers will be arrested.

Oh well, maybe tomorrow…

Expand full comment
Robert B. Goode's avatar

And yet Roger not one high profile person is behind bars.

Expand full comment
Chris's avatar

For the many of your readers that may be to young, please do a deep report on who Saul Alinsky is. And his link to say, Obama among others.

Expand full comment
Allison Guerriero's avatar

That’s a good idea. I recently told a fourteen year old who he was and what he did (Alinsky) and how he was integrated into the Obama Administration. She had never heard of Saul Alinsky.

Expand full comment
Torrance Stephens's avatar

When this country goes kinetic, I don't want to hear anyone on the left or anyone who posted sick things on social media crying about the atrocities that will inevitably happen. They should stop telling us how much they want us dead because they don't seem to understand that we can hear them.

https://torrancestephensphd.substack.com/p/cant-claim-being-american-running

Expand full comment
Patrick Chine's avatar

No matter what the public ratifies as an Amendment, SCOTUS will gut the will of the public so as to ensure that a government of the Bar, by the Bar, and for the Bar shall not perish from the face of the earth.

Judicial Review replaced 'rule of law' with 'rule of case law', and now SCOTUS has replaced that with 'rule of law schools.' Prosecutors are the new Nazi SS, acting like Heinrich Himmler. The FBI and other law enforcement are the new Gestapo. Legacy media--aka THE LEFT--are the new Joseph Goebbels.

Math models of preferences, and the law is a subset of preferences over behavior, will soon allow constitutional due process to be put on software. Then and only then will you and others be safe, Roger. I already sent an algorithm to Dr. Binz, one of the authors of an AI model called CENTAUR that was written about in the scientific journal NATURE.

A few weeks ago, I posted on Ralph Nader's Radio Hour Substack site than judicial review is an implied power if and only if the opinion is reflexive, symmetric, and transitive with respect to the US Constitution. Unfortunately for SCOTUS, most of their opinions are not symmetric with respect to the US Constitution. Especially immunity for judicial acts and "quasi-judicial" acts, the latter protecting scummy prosecutors. Neo-Nazi John Roberts, and others, invented the term quasi-judicial act, even though the US constitution would not allow for such an act to exist, so that Roberts, Alito and Scalia could not face civil suit for egregious violations of due process when they were federal prosecutors. Ginsburg was extremely angry at the 5 justices who lied to protect prosecutors.

Expand full comment
CHUCKY's avatar

WHERE ARE THE F'N INDICTMENTS??

Expand full comment
Jeffrey K Lyons, PhD's avatar

In other words, the process is the punishment, for those that oppose the Demon-crat socialist/Marxists.

Expand full comment
CAMitchel's avatar

Amazing … how can this be … be continuing? Shut it down… quit wasting tax payers dollars

Expand full comment
Mike's avatar

And trumps weak ass doj does absolutely nothing. So it will happen again.

Expand full comment
Lin Lan's avatar

That man was so full of anger and hatred.

Expand full comment
Tirion's avatar

Spot on, Mr Stone, and - worst of all - the judiciary has been corrupted and politicized such that it no longer has the credibility or integrity it needs to be fit for purpose. If the judiciary does not ensure that justice is done, then that only leaves guns as the remedy, doesn't it?

Expand full comment
David Wolosik's avatar

You are a Patriot Rodger. Thank you. You didn't mention the other option.DEAD, as Bryan Malinowski, who was charged by the ATF with violating statutes THAT DIDN'T EXIST YET!

Expand full comment