For the Sake of the Second Amendment, and State and Local Republicans, We Should Still Vote Republican

An intelligent person would know that ANYTHING from Elizabeth Warren would be revolting to the Republican base, but, then, there's Jim Inhofe, Elizabeth Warren and the Democrat Party's best friend. He is certainly no friend of President Trump or Republican voters.

What an insult to the patriotism and Southern blood spilled winning all of America's wars since the end of the War Between the States.

Around 44% of the United States Army today are Southerners, though the South is only 36% of the American population.⁴

President Trump has been the strongest supporter of Southern history, heritage and culture maybe in all of American history, and he has paid a price for it by the fraud and lies of the fake news media.

The Charlottesville violence shows how utterly corrupt the news media is because President Trump was perfect, and it is on video. Every word he said was perfect.

He said there were good people on both sides and he meant good people among the leftist protestors, and good people there to support the statue of Gen. Robert E. Lee.

Trump was crystal clear and it is irrefutable. There is no other way to interpret it.

The mainstream media in American in this day and age is the enemy of our country and democracy. They are abject liars, censors and suppressors of important news if it hurts the Democrat Party. Nobody should believe anything in the media without intense scrutiny.

The local news is sometimes accurate and non-biased but everything else is a horror designed to support the race-obsessed Democrat Party.

The associated press leads the way with its capitalization of the B in black, for black people, while leaving the w in white, for white people, lower case.

The associated press (which nobody should capitalize) is a propaganda organization that is in most newspapers across the country every day regurgitating the racist, woke identity politics of the Democrat Party.

We Should Still Vote Republican

As despicable as the Republican Party is (not counting President Trump, of course), we should still think clearly about the current situation and not shoot ourselves in the leg, though the temptation is mighty to lash out and punish national Republicans.

First, REPUBLICANS ARE GREAT ON THE STATE LEVEL and in state positions such as governor (with the exception of the cowardly Brian Kemp of Georgia, who is owned by Stacey Abrams).

There are Republican legislatures in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Georgia and Wisconsin, and they still may play a big role in delivering the election of 2020 to the legitimate winner, President Donald J. Trump. Republicans have a majority of the State Houses nationwide.

Republican state legislatures have written good legislation in many places in the country protecting Confederate and other important historical memorials, statues, monuments, street names, etc.

Think about Virginia when in the hands of a Republican legislature. There was glorious Monument Avenue and all the Confederate statues, and Gen. Lee in the Capitol.

Today, since Democrats have taken over, woke Richmond is a bloodbath of destruction and anarchy, a horror of hate that will never heal, a true American disgrace.

We can be proud of the good Republicans in state legislatures and state offices across the country and should enthusiastically support them, vote for them, and force ourselves to vote for the national party because of them and President Trump.

Another HUGE thing is the Second Amendment, the right to keep and bear arms, which national Republicans support. They get it right on this one and will strongly defend the Second Amendment, while Democrats will destroy it.

Democrats will continue attacking gun and ammunition manufacturers and everybody associated with firearms. Their frivolous law suits will bankrupt the industry and they will destroy the Second Amendment that way.

Can you imagine how horrible it would be if you could not own a gun with which to protect your wife and children, your loves ones?

What if you had to rely on the government to protect you as political as it is today? You could end up like Mark and Patricia McCloskey in St. Louis, prosecuted, instead of rescued by the government. We would live in an even greater tyranny than we have now.

People in Europe and other places don't have firearms with which to defend themselves, even though self-defense and the defense of one's home and loved ones is the most basic human right.

How can you do that without a firearm in this violent world we live in as leftists defund the police, do away with bail, and let millions of criminals (and good Democrat voters) out on the street?

A few years ago, there was a terrorist attack on, if I recall correctly, the London Bridge, in London, England. Some of the terrorists ended up hiding in a pub but the patrons could do nothing but throw beer bottles at them. Good British citizens were at the mercy of filthy murdering terrorists when in a sane country, the terrorists would be at the mercy of armed British citizens.

Republicans empower citizens and not criminals. Democrats make no distinction.

Republicans will strengthen the Second Amendment so that American citizens can defend themselves and their loves ones with lethal force if necessary. There is no question about Republican commitment to the Second Amendment, and that is huge.

Other good things that Republicans will defend are the unborn. Republican legislation nationally and in states, keeps evil Democrats like Ralph "blackface" Northam, governor of Virginia (but more like fuhrer than governor) from killing babies after they have been born, as he has advocated; or killing babies as they are being born, as the New York legislature approved.

The strong support for our military and capitalism are other good reasons to keep voting Republican despite their enormous shortcomings.

We just have to hold them more accountable with Southern history. We should raise money and lobby them and make it clear, we do NOT change Confederate names of anything in the South, EVER.

Those names represent honor and valor, and if you don't understand that, you are a politically correct, woke fool who is unworthy of arguing with. You must be defeated politically. Period.

Actually, the base names are a rare exception where we have to defend Southern history on a national level. Most Southern history is preserved in state legislatures where Republicans rule and are an outstanding party. They deserve strong support from us.

Right now, we should definitely vote for the two Senate candidates in Georgia's runoff, January 5th, Georgia's current senators Kelly Loeffler and David Perdue.

President Trump is holding a rally in Dalton, Georgia on Monday, January 4th, and he wants us to support Loeffler and Perdue, and we should.

It ain't over for President Trump, who is the legitimate winner of the 2020 election.

If he is able to prevent Democrat Party and media corruption from disenfranchising his 74 million American voters, then Trump might be able to get Elizabeth Warren's Section 377 taken out of the NDAA for 2021, or somehow change it.

The following outstanding article by William J. Olson and Patrick M. McSweeney first appeared in The Western Journal December 24, 2020. It may be found at: https://www.westernjournal.com/twj-exclusive-bombshell-new-legal-memo-giving-trump-supporters-hope-christmas-eve/. I accessed it 12-30-20.

Here is an Editor's Note from The Western Journal that precedes this excellent article:

The Western Journal is presenting this memorandum, written by two prominent conservative legal scholars, essentially verbatim, with only enough editing to format it for the Op-Ed section of our website. This is the second memo by Messrs. Olson and McSweeney to be published exclusively by The Western Journal, and it, like the first, outlines a possible legal strategy for the Trump campaign to follow in the coming weeks. Prior to its publication here, it was sent to President Trump. — Ed. note

Overcoming the Court’s Abdication
in Texas v. Pennsylvania

William J. Olson & Patrick M. McSweeney
December 24, 2020

In refusing to hear Texas v. Pennsylvania, the U.S. Supreme Court abdicated its constitutional duty to resolve a real and substantial controversy among states that was properly brought as an original action in that Court. As a result, the Court has come under intense criticism for having evaded the most important inter-state constitutional case brought to it in many decades, if not ever.

However, even in its Order dismissing the case, the Supreme Court identified how another challenge could be brought successfully — by a different plaintiff. This paper explains that legal strategy. But first we focus on the errors made by the Supreme Court — in the hopes that they will not be made again.

Texas v. Pennsylvania

The Supreme Court declined to hear the challenge brought by the State of Texas against four states which had refused to abide by Article II, § 1, cl. 2 — the Presidential Electors Clause, which establishes the conditions and requirements governing the election of the President of the United States. In adopting that provision, the Framers vested in each State legislature the exclusive authority to determine the manner of appointing Presidential electors. The Framers’ plan was shown to be exceedingly wise, because we have now learned that allowing other state and private actors to write the election rules led to massive election fraud in the four defendant states. Individuals can be bought, paid for and corrupted so much easier than state legislatures.

In refusing to hear the case, the sole reason given was that Texas lacked “standing.” In doing so, all nine justices committed a wrong against: (i) Texas and the 17 states that supported its suit; (ii) the United States; (iii) the President; and (iv) the People.

The Court’s Many Wrongs in Texas v. Pennsylvania.

As Alexander Hamilton explained in Federalist No. 78, courts have “neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment.” As such, in deciding cases courts have a duty to explain their decisions so the rest of us may know if they constitute arbitrary exercises of political power, or reasoned decisions of judicial power which the People can trust. In Texas v. Pennsylvania, all that the justices felt obligated to do was to state its — “lack of standing” — supported by a one sentence justification: “Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its election.” Resolving a case of this magnitude with one conclusory sentence is completely unacceptable.

The Supreme Court docket consists primarily of only those cases the High Court chooses to hear. However, just like when it agrees to decide a case, and in disputes where the original jurisdiction of the Court is invoked, it has a duty to decide cases properly brought to them. Two centuries ago, Chief Justice John Marshall construed the obligation of contracts clause in a decision where he wrote: “however irksome the task may be, this is a duty from which we dare not shrink.” Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 17 U.S. 518 (1819). Courts have a duty to resolve important cases even if they would prefer to avoid them. In Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803), Marshall described “the duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is” because “every right, when withheld, must have a remedy, and every injury its proper redress.” Abdication in a case of this sort is not a judicial option.

The Supreme Court’s reliance on standing as its excuse has had one positive result — provoking many to study the origins of that doctrine who may be surprised to learn that the word “standing” nowhere appears in the Constitution. There is compelling evidence to demonstrate it was birthed by big-government Justices during the FDR Administration to shield New Deal legislation, and to insulate the Administrative State from challenges by the People. Those who favored the Texas decision argue that standing is a conservative doctrine as it limits the power of the courts — but the true constitutionalist uses only tests grounded in its text. The true threshold constitutional test is whether a genuine and serious “controversy” exists between the States that could be resolved by a court.

The only reason given by the Supreme Court was: “Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its election.” In truth, Texas did make such a showing. When Pennsylvania violated the exclusive authority bestowed on state legislators in the Constitution’s Electors Clause, it opened the door to corruption and foreign intrigue to corrupt the electoral votes of Pennsylvania, and as Alexander Hamilton explained in Federalist 68, that is exactly why the Framers created the Electoral College. During the 2020 election cycle, changes to the election process in Pennsylvania were made by judges, state office holders and election officials which would never have been made by its state legislature.

If the process by which Presidential Electors are chosen is corrupted in a few key states, like Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan and Wisconsin by rigging the system in favor of one candidate, it becomes wholly irrelevant who the People of Texas support. That political reality presents a real “judicially cognizable interest” no matter what the Supreme Court decided. What happens in Pennsylvania does not stay in Pennsylvania, as electors from all States acting together select the President of the United States.

In the Federalist Papers, both James Madison and Alexander Hamilton recognized the need to combat “the spirit of faction” and the tendency of each State to yield to its immediate interest at the expense of national unity. They reasoned that the Constitution provided a solution to this centrifugal pressure while reserving a measure of sovereignty to each State. When differences arise between States that threaten to lead to disunion, the Republic can be held together, as Hamilton observed, either “by the agency of the Courts or by military force.” A constitutional remedy to enable the States to resolve their differences peacefully is the provision that permits any State to invoke the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to address and settle their differences.

In the vernacular, the Supreme Court blew it, threatening the bonds that hold the union together.

Round Two:  The United States Must Enter the Fray

Fortunately, that might have been only the first round in the fight to preserve the nation. A strategy exists to re-submit the Texas challenge under the Electors Clause to the Supreme Court in a way that even that Court could not dare refuse to consider. Just because Texas did not persuade the Justices that what happens in Pennsylvania hurts Texas does not mean that the United States of America could not persuade the justices that when Pennsylvania violates the U.S. Constitution, it harms the nation. Article III, § 2, cl. 2 confers original jurisdiction on the Supreme Court in any case suit brought by the United States against a state. Thus, the United States can and should file suit against Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan and Wisconsin. Like the Texas suit, that new suit would seek an order invalidating the appointment of the electors appointed by those four defendant States that refused to abide by the terms of the Presidential Electors Clause. That would leave it to the state legislatures in those four states to “appoint” electors — which is what the Constitution requires.

When those four States violated the Constitution by allowing electors who had not been appointed in the manner prescribed by the state legislature, the United States suffered an injury. Indeed, there could hardly have been a more significant injury to the nation than that which corrupted its Presidential election.

The United States has a vital interest and a responsibility to preserve the constitutional framework of the Republic, which was formed by a voluntary compact among the States. As with any contractual relationship of participants in an ongoing enterprise, no party is entitled to ignore or alter the essential terms of the contract by its unilateral action.

The President who has sworn to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution has the right and the duty to order the U.S. Department of Justice bring such an action in the Supreme Court — and should do so quickly.

Reasons for Great Hope at Christmas

In rejecting the invocation by the State of Texas of the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to resolve the dispute between Texas and four other States that refused to abide by the terms of the Presidential Electors Clause, for now, a majority of the Justices foreclosed the use of that constitutional safeguard by Texas to provide a peaceful means of resolving the controversy that has deeply divided States and the citizens of this Republic as at no time since the 1860s.

That consequence is too dangerous to be allowed to stand.

If the same case previously brought by Texas were now brought by the United States of America, there is every reason to believe that the Supreme Court would be compelled to understand it must hear it and decide it favorably.

Although outcomes are never certain, it is believed and hoped that a majority of the Supreme Court could never take the position that the United States has no business enforcing the process established in the Constitution by which we select the one government official who represents all the People — The President of the United States.