Their Game Plan

I think I’ve got their game plan figured out. Ready?

Who doesn’t know Joe is mentally handicapped at this point, due to his age? A few low information voters, maybe. But can you really expect Chris Wallace and all the other news anchors to not know? No, of course not. That’s why they cut and edit, and cut away from Joe during the campaign. 

Why pick Kamala? Was there not a better option? Of course there was. But she LOOKS black. Tulsi, who was a much better candidate,  is Asian Pacific Islander, which means she looks white and tanned. Warren? Enough said.

Kamala isn’t black, though. And she also isn’t qualified to hold office. And she’s just an awful person in general. 

Kamala’s mother was not a legal immigrant until after Kamala was born, and her father has never been a US citizen. Mother is Indian, and her father is Caribbean. Caribbean isn’t black hereditarily speaking, although there are plenty of people who trace African ancestry living in the Caribbean. But her father is mixed white and Caribbean (they claim he is Caribbean, not of African decent). Also, her grandfather was a slave owner. So there’s, that can of worms,too.

So if you want to be credited to have the first black VP woman, how do you get Kamala voted in? She probably would have been the top of the ticket, if she wasn’t such a terrible person and pathetic candidate. They would’ve just rigged it the way they rigged HRC as the top nominee in 2016. And Tulsi just won’t play ball with the establishment in the way Kamala will. Kamala strikes me as someone who will do anything to get ahead, just ask Willie Brown. 

Now, Kamala as the front runner, would have no doubt spent most of her time trying to prove that she can be the President, even as a non natural US citizen. Stick her as VP, now she can be awful because most people are focused on the dementia riddled Joe, and when Joe gets in, Kampala is #2.

We’re getting there, give it a minute.

Remember last year when Pelosi established a 25th Amendment commission? Everyone was talking about how it was for Trump, but I don’t buy it. No one can claim Trump is 25th Amendment qualified, by any stretch, and Pelosi knew it. So why do it? Well, now you have a committee already established, with everyone thinking it’s about Trump, during Trump’s presidency, that now carries on into Joe’s. It’s already an established entity and you play the pretense that it wasn’t meant for Joe, it was set up for Trump.

So, why not go ahead and install Kamala? Here is where it starts to get interesting.

Because the Democrats lost so many seats in the house and were unable to pick up enough seats in the Senate, they must pass their most hated legislation through executive fiat, which is going to anger even their own base, once the costs become apparent. 

They are using Joe to sign Executive Orders that everyone hates, but the establishment wants. Once they are done forcing their will through dictates, they will push Joe out the door, to the merriment of all, and install Kamala.

Kamala didn’t force those EOs through, but “It’s really hard to undo what’s been done already, so I guess they’ll have to stay.”

Kamala, who is beholden to the establishment will not try to force those insanely unpopular dictates undone, and will go through the process of trying to remedy the issues created with further EOs, which will only make the problem worse for us plebs, but will be a boon for her elite friends.

Given HR 1, which tries to completely end any hope for a free and fair election process, I think they will wait until one day after the Joe’s second year. This will mean that Kamala’s first two years do not count towards her two term limit, thus giving her handlers ten years in control of President Kamala.

And they are already preparing for it. Aside from HR 1, they are establishing a committee for Judicial Reform, which means they plan on reforming something. While packing SCotUS is so universally unpopular no one will dare to publicly bring it up and hope to keep their elected position, what if you had a commission come back saying that “The Judiciary as it is, is undermanned. It should have three more Justices established to allow a more even and manageable spread of responsibilities.”

Now you have the pretense that adding justices is a good thing. And ensuring that any claim of unconstitutionality is squashed for the next twenty years.

And that is as far out into the future as my tin foil hat can go. Did I miss anything? Let me know down below.