Tue Feb 8 02:01:28 UTC 2022

Couple of thoughts from my friend Enak
I would have thought the enemy would before the November elections declare the "pandemic" over, take credit for ending it, and use it to garner much-needed support for the elections. It would be easy enough - the president and various Dim congress-critters, along with blue-state governors and big-city mayors would proclaim it, while the lapdogs in the 'news' media would universally parrot it. Combined with the relief of the sheeple at having their bonds removed it could only help. And given that it is much more difficult to rig elections in 50 states they need every available advantage. I don't believe they are smart enough to pull it off, assuming they think to try. While a number of blue-state governors and mayors have already 'lifted the mandates' (as if they were legitimate to begin with) for the obvious purpose of improving their chances for being re-elected, it really doesn't look good for them. They might still manage to get it done, with the announcements and propaganda campaign beginning around September, but that may be too late.

Meanwhile, here's an idea for the Republicans. The election of Bill Clinton in 1992 led to a an unprecedented (for the time) assault on the constitutional rights of the people, while the Waco Massacre raised concerns about the possible extent of further such actions, while the first serious attempt was made at creating a socialized health care monopoly.

During the 1994 mid-term election campaigns House of Representatives members Newt Gingrich and Dick Armey wrote a document called the 'Contract With America', a legislative agenda candidates seeking House seats were asked to sign. All but two of the incumbent representatives and all of those seeking election for the first time signed it, and it was widely publicized in the weeks preceding the election. The result, while no doubt due in some measure to the actions of the administration and the evidence of corruption already exposed by that time, resulted in both houses coming under Republican control, the House for the first time in forty years. During that time the Senate had only been in Republican hands for only three sessions, all during the Reagan administration.

While the majorities were not veto-proof and most of the promised legislation was either vetoed or diluted through negotiations, the new House members kept their promise to try, and the position of each side was clear. That was twenty-seven years ago, and many voters in the upcoming elections were at that time not yet born. Thus it is an opportune time for a similar action on the part of the Republicans. In addition, the situation is now an order of magnitude (or two) worse than in 1994,

Obviously the name should not be the same. That would leave an easy attack vector for the enemy, and in any case more appropriate and effective options exist. As to what should be in it, some are readily apparent - protection of the people and business from unconstitutional mandates, lawsuits against every unlawful executive order, and of course introducing legislation (even if it will be vetoed) to correct various abuses of the current President. The point being, as in 1995, to clearly demonstrate where each side stands. Such things as re-investigating the 6 January false flag attack by the minions of the enemy, as well as such things as passing resolutions for the record (e.g. memorializing the murdered Ashli Babbitt, condemning the actions of mayors and governors who encourage lawlessness) should not be addressed in the covenant as they would only serve as fodder for attacks from the left. They should certainly be done, obviously, immediately upon convening. If sufficient majorities exist in both houses, joint resolutions might be desirable. For the time being, a wink and nod to the base when addressing those subjects will suffice, with nothing on record.

It may seem to some, indeed to most, that a Republican takeover of both houses of Congress in the 2020 election will occur. While it is certainly likely, it is by no means a fait accompli. Fraud will almost certainly again be a factor in the 2022 elections, and even more so in 2024. In the mid-terms it will be more difficult, as the elections in all 50 states would have to be compromised. No opportunity to bring about this result should be dismissed, and this one could be very effective. A final note: in 1994 the 'Contract' was introduced six weeks before the election. This is important as doing so now, with the election ten months away, would give too much time for it to be attacked, so it should again be done later in the campaign. Timing is essential.

~~ Enak