by Kathy Love, Hamilton
Oh, Helen… I’ve watched you call people names, denigrate them, call them stupid and uneducated and having a fifth grade education. When you have to do that in order to win an argument then you’ve already lost.
I find it interesting that you talk about “devious forces” in the Valley. You are such a contradiction. You have preached COS rabidly and made promises about it that you simply can’t guarantee. For instance, you have assured me numerous times that a COS wouldn’t go after the 2nd Amendment but yet we have Gavin Newsom wanting to propose a COS to add a 28th amendment to the Constitution for an assault weapons ban. With all the 2nd Amendment advocacy work I’ve done in DC, I can assure you they are very serious about it. I have a book that Dianne Feinstein published that I picked up from her office that tells you what you can and can’t own under the ban. Nothing to worry about though, right?
When asked if you believe that Biden was fairly elected you say no but yet you believe in the purity and security of a COS. You believe that we can’t keep elections secure but we can keep a COS secure. After seeing the debacle with elections in other states, how can you possibly trust that process? Do you trust the legislatures of California, Oregon, Washington, Illinois, New York…? How many state legislatures do you trust? But what if it’s not the legislatures that decide? After all, Congress decides the mode of ratification. Do you trust Congress? The same Congress you want to reign in?
Apparently you believe that it is OK for us to put into law in Montana that unverified citizens can vote here as well. MCA 13-1-111 (1)(d) states that a person has to be “a citizen of the United States” to vote in Montana. HB 402 is in direct conflict with Montana law. We’re going to ”catch” them AFTER they cast their vote? Really?? You can’t retrieve a vote that’s been cast. Why aren’t we catching them lying about their citizenship on the registration form BEFORE they cast their vote? You know it’s just a matter of time before a judge rules that if you have it in the law that they can vote then you have to let them register to vote. Can’t have one without the other, right? Now we’re on that slippery slope.
You know that “case” law is not THE law. That tells me that you believe in the Constitution annotated… the one based on case law.
I also think that if you believe Robert Brown can be so easily disproven that you would take his $10,000 challenge. Easy money, right?
Here’s the real kicker though. Do people know that your husband received an email as one of the TOP DEMOCRATS in Montana inviting him to be on a committee to abolish the electoral college? Now your rabid desire to get into the Constitution makes a lot more sense! The dots are finally connected! Who’s the devious force now?
helen sabin says
OOPS FORGOT – Kathy – As long as we have different levels of courts including a Supreme court, down to the Inferior local courts, that “INTERPRETS the constitution,” judges mainly depend on case law. Do. you even know what that means? I don’t think so. You like Theresa Manzella throw around terms you have no true understanding about. Go view the videos in my reply to you and see how Birchers are cult trained just like religious cults do to their members. and you are in a cult…..
Scotus depends on TRUE EXPERTS IN HISTORICAL LAW AND HISTORY LIKE ROBERT NATELSON – except when they show how stupid they are such as the OBAMACARE description from John Roberts that upended medical care as we know it. They do NOT call on THE FORMER slick talking SALESMAN, ROBERT BROWN who calls himself a “constitutional expert, ( cough cough)”. He self describes himself as a constitutional expert and you all follow him like slavering puppies who wants tidbits of “constitutional food” from him and that you all idolize, How sad you all are when you don’t use your brains that the good Lord gave you to use.