RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2020/12/a_supreme_court_in_hiding_is_dangerous_for_our_country.html

In accordance with Art VI of the Constitution, every sitting Supreme Court justice has taken an oath swearing that he or she will “support this Constitution.” The Constitution the justices have sworn to protect is predicated upon free and fair elections so that the government reflects the will of the People. When the justices refuse to protect election integrity, they are violating their sworn oath and putting our constitutional republic at grave risk.

I recently wrote a suggested Supreme Court opinion. It said the Court must decide “credible and significant” claims of election wrongdoing on their merits before elected officials are sworn in—-except for the President, where the Constitution provides a fallback political method of election. My article suggested what the Supreme Court should do. This article discusses their inaction and warns of the consequences if the justices continue to run and hide.

Americans paying attention to the 2020 Election must be baffled by our courts. A thousand sworn statements about election wrongdoing, bizarre 4 a.m. “vote spikes” for one candidate, hundreds of thousands of ballots driven from one state to the another, counting machines with 68% error rates, etc., etc. Such claims should at least get a day in court.

Yet so far, they can’t get a sniff. With few exceptions, no state or federal court in our country has had the courage to look at the merits of these claims. The most significant challenge to our Constitutional Republic since the first Civil War can’t get a parking ticket.

The Pennsylvania Supremes liked “laches” or simply put, “you waited too long.” The claim asserted was simple—- the Pennsylvania Constitution does not authorize mail-in voting so the legislature can’t do it. (One brave judge said “good point” and was promptly swept away by her betters). The Pennsylvania Supremes said you had to sue before the election. Of course, if you had, they would have said “go away you haven’t been injured.” Welcome to the legal Land of Oz.

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2020/12/what_denying_election_fraud_accomplishes.html

There were voluminous reports, from eyewitnesses and experts, of widespread election fraud in the so-called battle states and beyond.  Specific allegations were made, and evidence of election rules violations and statistical anomalies were collected.  Yet the courts refused to listen to virtually all witnesses and experts, rejected most of the evidence, and refused to subpoena more evidence requested by the plaintiffs.  Many state government officials and some top representatives of companies supplying voting machines and software categorically denied any election fraud.

So, on the one hand, there is plenty of evidence strongly suggesting that the widely observed election fraud took place during the 2020 presidential elections.  On the other hand, all we have are assurances of the election fraud–deniers that there was no election fraud, which were later changed to admissions that although election fraud did take place, it wasn’t large enough to sway the results.  No verifiable facts that would clearly invalidate the specific election fraud allegations were presented to the public as of time of this writing, while quite a lot of obstruction of investigations, like denials to subject the vote-counting software and hardware to examination by independent experts, took place.  Some of this obstruction had all appearances of a cover-up.

I must say that anyone who, knowing the above, claims that Joe Biden has received required majorities of legitimate votes to become a duly elected president is either stupid or willing to cover up the truth about the rigged elections that we have allowed to continue in America.

I am not going to analyze the stupid.  However, I would like to look into possible reasons why an intelligent observer would opt for cover-up of election fraud if it did take place.

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/matt-margolis/2020/12/26/legal-memo-outlines-strategy-for-trump-to-succeed-having-supreme-court-hear-election-dispute-n1286650

The Western Journal has published a legal memo written by William J. Olson & Patrick M. McSweeney that, they say, “outlines a possible legal strategy for the Trump campaign to follow in the coming weeks.” The legal memo was reportedly sent to President Trump prior to it being published on The Western Journal.

The authors of the memo contend that by refusing to hear Texas v. Pennsylvania, the 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,” resulting in intense criticism that they had evaded “the most important inter-state constitutional case brought to it in many decades, if not ever.”

“However,” the authors say, “even in its Order dismissing the case, the Supreme Court identified how another challenge could be brought successfully — by a different plaintiff.”

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.

Olsen and McSweeney say that if this happened, it would “leave it to the state legislatures in those four states to “appoint” electors — which is what the Constitution requires. The United States suffered an injury when those four states “violated the Constitution by allowing electors who had not been appointed in the manner prescribed by the state legislature.”

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/matt-margolis/2020/12/27/heres-how-a-republican-could-end-up-speaker-of-the-house-instead-of-nancy-pelosi-n1287467

According to a report, Democrats are panicking, fearful that the COVID-19 pandemic could prevent Nancy Pelosi from being re-elected as House speaker despite Democrats holding a majority in the chamber.

Is this really possible? Well, let’s see.

While House members can vote by proxy due to emergency rules adopted in May to protect members from getting and spreading COVID-19, but, as The Hill reports, “the proxy-voting rule expires with the new Congress, requiring lawmakers to be in the Capitol in person if they want to participate in the Jan. 3 floor vote for Speaker.”

New rules governing the 117th Congress happen after the vote for speaker.

House Democrats have been taking advantage of this proxy-voting rule in significant numbers. On December 18, nearly 90 Democrats voted by proxy.

This means that candidates for speaker of the House must receive a majority of the votes cast in person to be elected speaker. Democrats already have a thin majority of 222 seats following the 2020 election, and three moderate Democrats say they don’t intend to vote for Pelosi when the vote takes place on January 3. In addition, several Democrats have health conditions that have kept them from the Capitol in 2020. It would only take a small number of Democrats being exposed to COVID-19 prior to the vote for Pelosi to potentially be in trouble.

“COVID is a wild card,” said Rep. Hank Johnson (D-Ga.). “If we have sick members who cannot come back, and we only have a four-vote majority, it throws our entire advent of the 117th Congress in peril — a smooth advent.”

https://pjmedia.com/columns/david-solway-2/2020/12/27/the-emperor-has-no-clothes-a-tale-for-the-times-n1287449

Hans Christian Andersen’s celebrated folk tale The Emperor’s New Clothes serves as a parable for our ideological age and in particular for the current political environment in the U.S. in which a presidential election has been stolen from the people by massive and undoubted electoral fraud.

We remember how the tale begins. A team of weavers come to town and convince the Emperor that they can weave him a magical suit of clothes of unsurpassed magnificence that can also serve to distinguish the foolish from the wise. Only those unfit for the jobs and positions they hold will not be able to see it; the rest will be in awe of the beauty of the apparel. The weavers pretend “to work at the empty looms until late at night…cutting the air with their scissors and sewing with needles without any thread in them.”

The Emperor sends his emissaries to examine the wondrous cloth. Unwilling to admit that they see nothing, thus exposing themselves as nitwits, they return full of praise for the invisible stuff. “What a splendid design! What glorious colors!” they gush. Meanwhile “the thieves ask for more silk and gold to complete what they had begun and put all that was given them into their knapsacks.” When all is ready and the Emperor properly fitted, he appears in public “walking under his high canopy” in a grand procession “through the streets of his capital.” The people are amazed by the spectacle. “‘Oh! How beautiful are our Emperor’s new clothes!’ they cry. ‘What a magnificent train there is to the mantle; and how gracefully the scarf hangs!’ No one would admit that these much admired clothes could not be seen because, in doing so, he would have been saying he was either a simpleton or unfit for his job.”

Except, of course, for the proverbial “little child,” the incarnation of innocence and honesty, who speaks the truth—“But the Emperor has nothing at all on!”—and manages to convey his message to the crowd. “What the child has said was whispered from one to another.” The Emperor realizes that he has gone from riches to rags. He has no choice but to accept his disgrace and “walk on in his underwear,” while his attendants go through the motions of holding up his train, “although, in reality, there was no train to hold.”

Obviously, the tale cannot be applied point by point to the current situation unfolding in the political theater that passes for an election. As Samuel Taylor Coleridge said in his Biographia Literaria, “No metaphor runs on all four legs.” Nonetheless, there are enough similarities to establish the story as a political primer, with variations and idiomatic applications, for the sordid scene we are witnessing daily. The sartorial travesty is or should be plain for all to see.