The Enslavement of Native People
On October 12, 1492 (the first day he encountered the native people of the Americas), Columbus wrote in his journal: "They should be good servants .... I, our Lord being pleased, will take hence, at the time of my departure, six natives for your Highnesses." These captives were later paraded through the streets of Barcelona and Seville when Columbus returned to Spain. [4]

From his very first contact with native people, Columbus had their domination in mind. For example, on October 14, 1492, Columbus wrote in his journal, "with fifty men they can all be subjugated and made to do what is required of them." [5] These were not mere words: after his second voyage, Columbus sent back a consignment of natives to be sold as slaves. [6]

Yet in an April, 1493, letter to Luis de Santangel (a patron who helped fund the first voyage), Columbus made clear that the people he encountered had done nothing to deserve ill treatment. According to Columbus:
Hg
"they are artless and generous with what they have, to such a degree as no one would believe but him who had seen it. Of anything they have, if it be asked for, they never say no, but do rather invite the person to accept it, and show as much lovingness as though they would give their hearts." [7]
Nonetheless, later in the letter Columbus went on to say:

"their Highnesses may see that I shall give them as much gold as they need .... and slaves as many as they shall order to be shipped." [8]
https://secure.understandingprejudice.org/nativeiq/columbus.htm

A propos the courts and their refusal to hear legitimate arguments on cases: twice in the past ten years judges have refused to hear cases based solely on the premise that those presenting their facts " do not have standing " in that court. In my view that is nothing more than judicial cop-out . They just don't want to have to make some difficult choices. In both the cases I refer to , they had national ramifications. Therefore, I maintain that the court then is no longer the judges private domain, but rather is the people's court and the people have a constitutional right to be heard.

Rinaldi, just a few general observation to your post.

I have not been whining, crying or caterwauling. I have no actual proof that President Biden did not win the election.

1. I am a conservative who voted twice for Trump’s policies. I always vote for a philosophy of government, not the the candidate. Being a conservative, how could I have voted for Clinton or Biden?

2. I don’t think many Democrats or the rest of the public had any idea of the proposed Democrat politics. I don’t think a vast majority of Americans want Socialism.

3. Yes, many saw Biden as an opposite to Trump. The rest of your your comment is exactly correct. Trump’s personality is why he lost. He is an narcissistic bully.

Your Friend,
Larry Joe

With no thanks to democrats and other establishment elitists, our government is corrupt beyond belief, and that includes our system of justice.

If you think the courts today, especially federal courts, are the only way to disprove voter fraud, you are sadly mistaken. Fact is, if you need to cover up any malfeasance or crimes committed by the democrats, just take it to a federal judge.

In every case, judges summarily dismissed the complaints during the filing process, so the plaintiffs were never allowed to proceed to discovery where the hard evidence is presented to the court.

And, the idea that all the evidence was hearsay is ludicrous.

There is no way Joe Biden could have won the election without defrauding American voters.