To observe the travails of the U.K.’s sitting Tory Government in its dog days is like watching a bloated bluebottle being slowly trapped and devoured by a juridical sundew. With every thrashing of a leg or whirring of a wing, with every desperate lunge of insectoid flesh, yet more court cases are launched, and yet more sticky strands – pitiless, remorseless, hungry – attach themselves to the frantic victim. Panicked, it has no clear idea why any of this is happening, but it has a horribly lucid understanding of what the finale will be. There is no escape.
Hence, in the last month alone the Government was embarrassed by two defeats in major judicial review cases, one concerning climate change policy and the other concerning the application of legislation in Northern Ireland. Neither of them are the first of their genre (see for example here and here). Meanwhile, more hares are running. Earlier this month the FDA, the union of choice for senior civil servants, applied for permission to apply for judicial review of guidance issued by the Cabinet Office on April 29th 2024, which would purportedly require civil servants to act in breach of the Civil Service Code. And everybody expects that the new Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024 will give rise to a further confrontation with the courts later this year, as Act II in the ongoing drama concerning the legality of the ‘Rwanda scheme’.
And these are just the dramatic, headline grabbing examples. At a more humdrum, workaday level, Government policy seems to be increasingly hemmed in by the courts. To pick an example almost at random, last year the Court of Appeal held that the policy of not making advance Universal Credit (i.e., welfare) payments to people who do not yet have National Insurance numbers (the equivalent of a social security number) because they have only recently arrived in the U.K. was unlawful on the basis that the policy was not in the court’s view permitted by the relevant statute. This kind of thing, wherein a relatively minor-seeming Government policy is found to be unlawful on what appears to the layperson to be a technicality, has now simply become an ordinary, common-or-garden feature of our political life – no policy is fixed, because one can never know if some lavishly funded claimant will not turn up to apply to the courts to challenge it.
And this strategy of death-by-a-thousand-court cases is of course hardly unique to the U.K. Readers will likely be familiar with the recent European Court of Human Rights ruling on Swiss Government policy with relation to climate change; they may be less familiar with a brewing decision by the same court with respect to the decriminalisation of the purchasing of sex in France. And then, in a very different context, there is the matter of Donald Trump’s various trials, transparently brought with the aim of ensnaring him in legal process so as to prevent him adequately campaigning and ideally to make his electoral victory impossible. There, the politics of the sundew have been less successful and the bluebottle looks set not only to escape but to be elected President, but the underlying similarity of approach is clear.
All this serves to demonstrate a truth that has long been known to legal theorists of a Left-wing bent (ironically enough), which is that the idea of the judicial process that often exists in the head of the layperson (that law is a ‘neutral’ or objective body of rules which judges simply apply to resolve disputes) is more or less the opposite of the truth. It is in fact the case that the more power we grant to judges, the more politicised our lives become, and the more we become subject to arbitrary exercise of discretion.
This is because judges are the world’s greatest confidence tricksters – all the more effective for the fact that their tricks are for the most part unintentional. Not only do they generally in fact perform politics through the guise of ‘law’, they do so in such a way as to present political questions as faits accomplis, in a manner which cannot be gainsaid – to indeed set political decisions in stone, and insulate them thereby from democratic challenge. This, indeed, may be judges’ most politically significant role of all – and it suggests that a commitment to reinvigorating a depoliticised ‘rule of law’ may actually require a radical reduction in the amount of law that is produced.
Some potted intellectual history, then. Around the turn of the 20th century, a group of highly influential American legal theorists, who labelled themselves ‘legal realists’, began a quiet revolution against what they called ‘legal formalism’ – the idea that law is simply a mechanical process by which a rule is identified and then applied to determine an outcome in a particular case. Most of the realists, who were defined by Jerome Frank as ‘rule sceptics’, argued that a court case is not really a matter of applying rules at all. A rule is never totally determinate – it is always open to interpretation – and no two cases are ever identical, so it is always possible to argue that precedent should not apply. And, in any event, if a rule could clearly be applied to resolve a given dispute, then the dispute would never be being litigated in the first place because the parties would know the outcome in advance. Litigation by definition only really happens when a rule cannot resolve a dispute, and hence when it is arguable either way.
The judge in a case, for the rule-sceptics, therefore does not apply a rule; he applies his discretion in choosing the ‘best’ outcome, with ‘best’ ultimately of course being defined by political, economic, cultural, ideological and emotional – that is to say, extra-legal – factors.
The legal realists – who were mostly New Dealers in favour of Franklin D. Roosevelt’s wide-ranging reforms – were chiefly rebelling against the tendency of the Supreme Court of the era to find New Deal reforms unconstitutional on the basis of a restrictive reading of the Constitution. And they had a relatively humble goal – to make legal decision-making more open and honest. Courts, in their view, should acknowledge that they are not simply neutrally applying ‘the rules’, but are identifying which rule to apply, how it should be interpreted, and what outcome it should produce, on the basis of policy. This was not indefensible, because it was simply inevitable; what was indefensible was failing to recognise it (or, worse, concealing it).
But the later Critical Legal Studies movement, which emerged in the 1960s and 70s, picked up the realist critique of formalism and ran with it, going on to push the central claim that the image of a neutral, objective system of law is not merely a mirage (as the realists thought) but the legitimating myth of an oppressive system which produces injustice while presenting it as ‘lawful’ and hence beyond reproach.
This, the ‘crits’ argued, was of particular poignancy in the liberal understanding of law. Liberalism seeks to elevate law above politics into a sphere of neutrality or objectivity, as though certain matters are simply beyond question: human rights, equality, autonomy, property, freedom of contract, and so on and so forth. But this, according to the crits, was itself a political move – a way of occluding debate about a particular subject by making criticism itself effectively unlawful. As soon as a topic has been made the subject of a legal ruling, it becomes insulated from challenge – and more or less concealed from view as a matter of public debate. It is taken off the table, and the very act through which this occurs is conceptualised (often falsely) as the application of ‘justice’, making it almost impossible then to subsequently challenge democratically.
The classic example, always trotted out in the jurisprudence textbooks, is the famous U.S. Supreme Court decision in Lochner v New York (198 US 483 (1905)). Here, a piece of New York legislation, which limited the hours employees in bakeries could be required to work to 10 hours a day or 60 hours a week, was held to be unconstitutional because it violated the due process clause of the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits “unreasonable, unnecessary and arbitrary interference with the right and liberty of the individual to contract”. The point, of course, is that the amount of time employees of bakeries should be required to work is a political question, as is the meaning of what would be an “unreasonable, unnecessary and arbitrary interference” with the liberty of the individual to contract more broadly – remember, rules are always indeterminate and open to interpretation, and the words ‘unreasonable, unnecessary and arbitrary’ are a perfect case in point. But by framing the matter as ‘constitutional’ the Supreme Court was able to drain it of political import and present the entire (exploitative, in the eyes of the crits) structure of labour relations in the U.S. as a fait accompli: not merely the the right policy, but the law, and hence unquestioned – and unquestionable.
The crits, for all of their flaws, were clearly onto something here. I happen to believe very strongly in the right and liberty of the individual to contract, but I recognise that the legal basis for freedom of contract ultimately rests on political not ‘constitutional’ justification: it is a commitment to the free market itself as a political ideal which underpins the freedom of contract, not mere legal form. And the interesting thing about the crits’ argument is that, as time has gone on and law has come to be representative of rather different interests than those which may have prevailed in the middle of the 20th century and before, their critique has started to slice in the opposite direction.
There is no better illustration than what has happened in the field of immigration law, where a Critical Legal Studies analysis of the present U.K. Government’s legal difficulties would be almost too ‘on the nose’. It would run as follows: the economic system upon which our establishment secures its dominance, its status and its influence is contingent upon the mass importation and exploitation of cheap labour from overseas so as to maintain downward pressure on wages, fuel the service industry whose benefits the establishment classes so enjoy, and plug gaps in the workforce produced by declining birth rates. And, moreover, anyone can observe that the aesthetic sensibilities of that establishment are also self-consciously and nakedly ‘global’; its members are in love with the idea of inhabiting a ‘global village’, enjoy the feeling of being in a ‘multicultural environment’ and feel a strong sense of cultural cringe with respect to British institutions.
It is entirely in keeping with both the economic interests and the cultural tastes of the establishment classes, therefore, that the right of migrants to come to work in the U.K. should be more or less guaranteed whether they do so through official channels or not – and that, moreover, this right should be rendered apolitical, and therefore obviously politically unchallengeable, on the basis of it being ‘the law’. It therefore should be absolutely no surprise that whenever a judge – always and everywhere an establishment figure par excellence – is called upon to decide whether immigration policy is lawful or not, his interpretation of the underlying rules will hinge on these extra-legal preferences for more, rather than less, immigration. And, by extension, it should be absolutely no surprise that such a judge will more likely than not have certain sympathies which play out in his judgments when a matter of immigration law is raised.
To cite just one brief illustration, the recent defeat for the U.K. Government in the Northern Ireland High Court, In re NIHRC and JR 295 (Illegal Migration Act 2023) [2024] NIKB 35 – which I linked to earlier in this piece and will do so again here – contains a classic example of the phenomenon I am describing, which you can find at paragraphs 68-70 of the judgment. I will not go into too much detail here, as the case is complicated and probably deserving of a post in its own right, but in essence the issue being addressed in this part of the judgment is the question of whether asylum seekers in Northern Ireland come under the umbrella of the civil rights commitment in the Good Friday Agreement (the 1998 agreement which brought to an end the Troubles in Northern Ireland). The relevant text of the Good Friday Agreement reads as follows:
(The parties affirm) their commitment to the mutual respect, the civil rights and the religious liberties of everyone in the community. Against the background of the recent history of communal conflict, the parties affirm in particular [a list of rights follows].
Once again, I call you here to recall that no rule is ever wholly determinate: what does ‘everyone in the community’ mean? For the Government, the phrase had to be understood within the context of “the healing of sectarian divisions in Northern Ireland”, and therefore was never intended to include asylum seekers under its umbrella. And it seems to me to be easy to have some sympathy with that view, given that the very next sentence in the Good Friday Agreement text explicitly spells out that it is to be understood “against the background of the recent history of communal conflict” – suggesting that it is really to be read as an attempt to emphasise that both Catholics and Protestants in the province are part of “the community” (rather than two different communities) as such. But notice the interpretation which the judge, Humphreys J., gives to the phrase (emphasis mine):
While it is true to say that the [Good Friday Agreement] did not expressly reference immigration or asylum, there is no basis to exclude such individuals from the wide compass of ‘everyone in the community’…[T]he rights of asylum seekers must come within the definition.
The question-begging here is barefaced: whether or not one thinks there is any basis to exclude (or include) asylum seekers as being part of ‘the community’ derives entirely from how one defines what ‘the community’ means. Is ‘the community’ simply the people living in a place, no matter where they originally come from and no matter what their ties to where they live now? Or does ‘the community’ only encompass people who have some kind of a deep-rooted connection to the place where they live and the others who live there – and who have a lawful basis for their residency?
That Humphreys J. could not even see that there might be a competing interpretation of the words ‘the community’ and that it might suggest a different understanding of the law serves to illustrate the realist point so beautifully that one could hardly dream of anything better. And we see in this example just how easy it is for the political, cultural and, really, the aesthetic preferences of judges, and the class to which they belong, to slip seamlessly into the operation of the legal system. Humphreys J. was not, I am sure, consciously setting out to mould immigration law in Northern Ireland to his personal political preferences; rather, the political preferences in which he undoubtedly marinates moulded his own understanding of the law itself – and the effect was as obvious and as powerful as if it was deliberate: asylum seekers, whether or not they came to Northern Ireland unlawfully, are part of ‘the community’, and that is that.
What is true in this very small example is obviously true across the piece, and across the courts of the developed world – whether the subject matter is climate change policy, Brexit, employment law, the rights of the buyers of sex, you name it. It would be wrong to say that judges have been in some sense politicised or ideologically captured, because what is going on is entirely unintended; it is rather that the very exercise of legal decision-making is in its nature impossible to unentangle from the pre-existing worldview of the person who makes the decision. In the 1920s, when the realists were in their pomp, and in the 1960s, when the ‘crits’ came to prominence, it was undoubtedly true that the worldview of many judges was unreflectingly conservative. Now it is the opposite (or perhaps one should say that it remains impeccably in alignment with the attitudes of the establishment classes of the day, which have themselves shifted in a broadly liberal, progressive direction) and we therefore see the opposite consequences play out.
What, then, is to be done? The answer, as I earlier suggested, must really be to embrace a project not of legal reform so much as of legal minimalism. The aim of depoliticising law as such cannot be fully achieved, but it is possible to diminish its role in our social, economic and cultural affairs through limiting its capacity to facilitate the politicisation of those fields. And this means, paradoxically, that those of us who like the idea of ‘the rule of law’ in the abstract need to reconcile themselves to the idea that less is more. This obviously does not mean that there should be no law at all – the most basic insight of legal philosophy, made plain by Aeschylus, was that civilisation cannot exist without it. Rather, it means a commitment to reducing law to its optimal level – where it fulfils its essential function of providing stability of expectations, and no more than that. It means, in short, reducing the number of avenues down which the politicisation that is an inevitable part of legal decision-making makes its journey into social, economic and cultural life.
This calls conservative politicians in particular to do two things which they are notoriously bad at. The first is to have courage – to refrain from creating legislation merely to be seen to be doing something, and to commit to repealing existing legislation without replacing it. Whenever a piece of legislation is created, another set of opportunities comes into being for judicial interpretation that will likely bend in a particular political direction: this is always what should be at the forefront of the legislator’s mind when dreaming up yet another statute to paper over a real or imagined crack in public policy.
And the second is to think in a serious way, which means thinking in the long-term. A great many of the defeats which have been inflicted on the current Government in the courts have their origin in legislation created during the Blair and Brown era, but others are purely self-inflicted. In re NIHRC and JR 295 (Illegal Migration Act 2023) provides, again, a useful illustration: ultimately, the result of the case was that the legal framework for the Government’s flagship illegal immigration policy was found to be ineffective in Northern Ireland – really because nobody predicted that the Windsor Framework, agreed with the EU in 2023 in the aftermath of Brexit, could be interpreted to bestow EU law on asylum seekers living in Northern Ireland as well as just the citizenry. There is an important lesson in there to learn for future conservative Governments, if indeed there is ever such a thing again: that one cannot simply make law and forget about it, because it is always in the power of the courts to interpret the laws one has made – and that power does not diminish with time. It is inherent to the process, and when one therefore makes law in haste, one repents at leisure.
Dr. David McGrogan is an Associate Professor of Law at Northumbria Law School. You can subscribe to his Substack – News From Uncibal – here.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Agreed.
It must also be in our interests to have as President someone who expresses fondness for the UK rather than the open antipathy or worse which the Democrats have shown for many years.
More reasons than that to want the Donald in the White House.
Very relieved the Donald succeeded. The wokecratic Democrats are the most dangerous political movement in the world driven by crazy dogma lacking any semblance of sense and hell bent on autocratic authoritarian rule. This is entirely aside from being completely under the thumb of hidden hands including Pharma.
Very scary people. Trump might seem crazy sometimes but he has made a lot of sound decisions for the good of the USA.
Imagine what life in the UK would be like if Krazy Kumala were to be US president and the current Labour autocratic authoritarian national socialist party in parallel the UK.
The Democrats lost because they corruptly pretended Biden was not a demented senile man having elected him with a running mate who has a history which seems to me too weird for words and left it too late to do anything about the mess they created for themselves. A well-deserved crushing loss for US Democrats.
I will also be gratefully collecting my winnings from William Hill but I should have instead bought bitcoin before the voting started as a friend did.
“and, in any event, Kamala Harris, like her boss, is no friend of Britain’s”
Nancy Pelosi demonstrated in technicolour that US Democrats are hostile to the UK in threatening to block a UK-US trade deal.
I loved the photo of an armed American Patriot sitting in Pelosi’s office chair with his feet up on her desk. Even though the whole Jan 6th protest was a sad waste of their patriotic faith in Drumpf the AntiChrist, it was a shocking reminder that the people have more power than they realise.
Did you know that “Donald” means “World Ruler”, which is why he likes to be called “The Donald”.
This ties in with the Roman Emperor Nero, who didn’t start persecuting Christians, in whom he had no interest whatsoever, until his Hebrew “sages” complained that the annoying prayers of Christians were interfering with the Hebrew sages “readings of entrails” predicting Nero’s future.
Their entrail readings also told him that he would be “World Ruler” only if he moved his capital from Rome to Jerusalem. When he suggested this to the Roman Senate, they laughed him to scorn, so he got his sages to help him set fire to Rome.
It will be interesting to see the relationship between the Trump government and the Labour government going forward, and the amount of grovelling that involves. It’s when you see Lammy’s congratulatory message to Trump side by side with his various rude and contemptuous messages slagging off Trump from the past you have to think how the hell is he and people like him even in such jobs. Howard Cox wrote a good piece here;
“The legacy press, those Downing Street special advisors, and, of course, Labour’s front bench must have rushed to their anti-nausea tablets to quash a sick feeling deep in their collective gut when they learned Donald Trump, the 45th President of the US, has been re-elected as the 47th.
This political bombshell, not seen by pollsters but predicted by betting organisations, is a colossal nightmare for Sir Keir Starmer! His contriteness must now be more than sincere; it has to be convincing when he next meets the new leader of the free world.
This historic election result for the Western world’s supreme power is, without any doubt, the best outcome for the UK. For starters, it should help secure us lower energy costs, scrap the Net Zero fantasy, maintain fossil fuel supplies, deliver economic trade without punitive tariffs, improve global security, establish more robust border control, ensure the protection of free speech, help fight the worldwide spread of extreme Islamic terrorism, and end military conflicts around the globe.
But sadly, these widely popular common-sense outcomes will only materialise here if our mendacious Labour Government follows Trump’s healing fiscal plans and recognises that the further increase in spending of our bloated nanny state and their anti-business, economically illiterate policies have to be dumped. And that means cutting taxes. Watch Trump put that economic growth strategy into practice once inaugurated.
With that customary clueless stare into those political headlamps, Keir Starmer and the UK’s less-than-intelligent foreign secretary immediately and rightly so, tweeted congratulatory messages to President Trump.
David Lammy, who, as a backbench MP in 2018, with amoebic intelligence, called the ‘Donald’ a neo-Nazi sociopath. And he even attempted to defend his crass comment before this year’s General Election. He must now be quaking in those infamous less-than-appropriate white trainers that a popular right-wing administration is now to run America.
He has to eat diplomatic, humble pie and grovel remorsefully with a genuine apology. Failure to sincerely do so must mean Starmer should sack him. Frankly, he needs to go now. He is walking noose around Starmer’s neck; now Trump is in the White House.
Britain’s top foreign envoy abroad, in such an unstable world involving our closest ally, the United States, not only unnecessarily insulted the prize winner of the 2024 presidential election, but in doing so, he had stupidly accused the people of the US of returning someone unsuited for the most powerful elected office in the world.
Trump holds grudges big time, so watch this space to see how David Lamentable can rise to the occasion. I can’t see him lasting long after Christmas.”
https://x.com/HowardCCox/status/1854223664050225537
Peter Whittle speaks truth ( 5mins );
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EoB7W8qF4L4
David Lamentable?
Lamey?
Lamee?
Peanut Brain?
Mogwai, I was quite depressed the other day by the below-the-line comments following the article on Kemi Badenoch’s win, that included an attack on me as a ‘globalist troll’! It was unpleasant, and I honestly found myself wondering whether I should support the site any more, as so many of the btl comments don’t do the site any favours and certainly bring me down periodically. But your posts, which I have come to like (I usually agree, and you’re very articulate) will keep me here. The piece from Howard Cox is good stuff! I do sometimes speculate on who you are…, but – thank you.
Hi Deborah. What a pleasant surprise your reply was and thank you for your kind words. No, please don’t go. I think we ladies are few and far between enough anyway ( I’m estimating those of us that comment with any regularity make up <1% of posters on this site, as the vast majority of account-holders are evidently men ) so we need numbers increasing not dwindling further.
There’s already quite the ‘anti-women’ sentiment pervading this place as it is.
I have to say I’ve felt exactly the same way. It would appear that certain individuals have an inability to simultaneously disagree with a fellow poster and debate respectfully. The particular individual you’re referring to though, I’ve already classified as suffering from ‘Mogwai Derangement Syndrome’, an affliction whereby certain sufferers troll you round the comments sections, hurl insults and slanderous allegations your way and try to beat anyone who disagrees with them into submission using their ever-present ‘CAPS LOCK RAGE!!’, just to further broadcast the fact they’re completely unhinged and exceedingly unpleasant.
So I get where you’re coming from. Just ignore them because they get satisfaction in reeling you into a stupid, childish spat, then you’re reduced to their level and it’s a win for them. But yes, “certain individuals” are indeed odious. Best thing to do is stick around and post even more. It’s guaranteed to get up their nose.
Says the Queen of Obscene Insults and Rabid, Frothing-at-the-Mouth Rage at anyone who dares to criticize or disagree with her. Now here she is masquerading as Sweet Reason. Give over!
Luckily, the Daily Sceptic editors appear to have put their foot down about obscenities.
Ooooo.
Someone does not like Freedom of Speech/
LOL. Heh, heh.
Don’t let ANYBODY on this site bring you down. If you are up for it give as good as you get or just ignore the flap heads. We don’t always agree with everybody but civility costs nothing.
Well said Hux
It’s called FREEDOM OF SPEECH,
and this website’s courageous founder also founded
THE FREE SPEECH UNION,
fighting valiantly to preserve
ALL OUR HUMAN RIGHTS TO FREEDOM OF SPEECH.
No one has any right to special protection against criticism or insults. NO ONE.
I never whine or complain about downvotes or insults directed at me, as long as they are not obscene, so why should you?
“I never whine or complain about downvotes or insults directed at me, as long as they are not obscene, so why should you?”
Freedom of speech?
LOL. Heh, heh.
David Lammy has infamous white trainers?
Not surprising. He has earned them.
He demonstrated that in trumps as he behaved like a dictatorial white imperialist colonialist of a long past age towards the Chagosians in tramping over their property rights and without even consulting them handed their land to Mauritians whose government has never ever owned nor had a claim over the Chagos Islands.
Clearly he has been well-taught and has adopted the worst kinds of practices and he does not even seem to realise it.
If only I had enough money to help the Chagosians to sue David Lamey and win a claim to recover their property [the Chagos Islands] from the dictatorial white trainered imperialist colonialist that he is.
Also of course an extremely stupid act of giving the islands away when completely unnecessary.
The Chagosians want to be under British protection so this country could have retained Diego Garcia on the Chagos Islands which could have been ruled by the Chagosians under the protection of the British Crown.
I agree with Toby. I would have voted for Trump too.
I hope the same will happen in Britain, although Labour is the epitome of woke, so I expect they will double down on their efforts to turn the country into a vibrant, multicultural, net-zero dystopia. They won’t change and they are beyond help. Only this morning, reading the analysis on the BBC website about why Kamala lost, their conclusion is that it was because she “couldn’t get her message through”. Not that the message was crap, oh, no, that’s just not possible. She just didn’t articulate it quite right. So I think we have some hard times ahead.
Call me shocked. Yet again the Lefties wailing that it wasn’t their policies that lost them an election. Remember that Jeremy Corbyn won the election other than getting the most votes.
Starmfuhrer should learn how to win elections like that. The world would be a better place.
And on Channel Four tonight, it was because she didn’t have enough time to get her message across.
Not as hawkish on the Uketopia?
Are you serious or stupid?
This conflict, started by NATO with 2 coups and 15K dead Russians and endless expansion, will end up going nuclear.
ONE OF THE MAIN REASONS TO VOTE TRUMP IS THAT HE MUST, WILL, HAS TO, END THIS CONFLICT. He can do so in 1 day – by withdrawing ALL funding. Gone. Without US money and NATO equipment, the Uketopia (US 51rst state) will have one or two weeks left.
What exactly was Hunter Biden up to in Ukraine?
Does everything a Biden touches end in corruption and disaster?
Remember what Obama promised during his own election campaign years ago? He railed against the War in Afghanistan, and declared that the first thing he would do if elected President would be to bring all the troops back home.
“That is the first thing I will do! And you can take that to the bank!”
The crowd went wild with cheers, but the first thing he did after getting elected was to announce “A Surge”, ordering masses more US servicemen and women to go get maimed and killed in Afghanistan.
Then he was given the Nobel Peace Prize, not long after.
The blob will not relinquish their intentions. Perhaps we can expect another global ‘pandemic’ or similar requiring global ‘collaboration’?
Of course. As the saying goes: “If at first you don’t succeed ……“
I watched Bannon’s War Room every day for 3 years after the 2020 steal. The Democrat corruption was massive, obvious and proven in hundreds of situations. Every one of these was ignored by the MSM.
That truth will now be properly aired, so get ready for criminalisations of many major figures.
Trump is arguably the finest American President in history.
Some inconvenient facts about his 2016 tenure for the haters:
1. No foreign wars.
2. No deaths of US Military personnel
3. Booming economy
4. Energy independence, energy exporter.
5. Strong dollar
6. China and Russia behaved
7.Record employment for blacks and Hispanics
8. Jerusalem recognised as Israel’s capital, embassy moved
9. Golan Heights recognised as sovereign Israel territory
10. Complete absence of Palestinian terrorism
11. Iran supressed, JCPOA cancelled.
I could go on.
I believe Trump will disdain Starmer and his gang, but differentiate with the people of Britain.
Interesting days ahead …
It’s going to be especially galling for Keir-Ching! to know that every policy area he raises with Trump (and vice versa) will be filtered through Nigel Farage
Why I would have voted for Trump. First 10 …. are are more.
And he thinks abortion is something other than healthcare?
I’m pretty optimistic that Trump will seriously degrade the power and influence of deep state actors, and their acolytes. Even if Trump is assassinated, JD Vance will carry the battle forwards. I hope our own ‘deep state’ and associated acolytes are sweating now.
I felt euphoric when he won but I was also aware that it is because we live in an age of diminished expectations. You see this pattern when empires fall. People come along promising to care for the people or bring back old glories but it can’t be done. At least he is is so volatile and unpredictable and sufficiently deranged that he might put a few spanners in the works of the Satanists. On the other hand this is a man who loves to boast about Warp Speed vaccines and he hasn’t recanted. It is a sad indictment on our sense of the possible that such a figure makes us happy. I suppose that you could retort that RFK Jr will be working with him which is a good start on the path to redemption.
Here is an interesting opinion from one of the Heroic Jews, Henry Makow of Canada, who boldly tells the truth about Jewish involvement in Globalism:
“Trump was reinstated to lead the USA into WW3. Gold and oil were down today because people think Trump will stop the “endless foreign wars.” But Trump is a Cabalist Jew. He is following a fanatical script that requires the destruction of the Old Order. He is leading the Masonic Zionist faction (Nazis, NATO, Israel, Ukraine) against the Masonic Communist faction (Russia, Iran, China, BRICS) in a repeat of WW2.
Israel is in deep trouble. Netanyahu just fired his Defence Minister Gallant because Gallant balked. Similarly, Wagner chief Progozhin balked when he realized there was AN OCCULT AGENDA THAT PRIORITIZED KILLING SLAVS OVER WINNING THE WAR.
Nevertheless I am elated that Trump has won. I much prefer the Zionist method of execution (a blinding white nuclear flash) to the Communist form of execution, the slow destruction of the soul, plandemic and police state. The first is over in a second, while the latter lasts for generations.
I am surprised the election was as close as it was. Americans truly are brain-dead to give Harris 67 million votes compared to Trump’s 72 million.”
(from Nov 6 – Deep State S-elects Trump; How I Knew it Would”)
henrymakow.com – Exposing Feminism and The New World Order
It doesn’t seem to matter to Will Jones that she’s an abortion enthusiast who can only speak of it in terms that implicitly deny what it is; does it not matter to you either?