Predictably, the Supreme Court refused to take up the Texas lawsuit against four states for illegally changing voting rules. This suit was very different in nature from those filed by Donald Trump’s legal team. The Texas suit stressed that those changes were not authorized by the respective state legislatures and that they clearly influenced the election outcome, which, by extension, clearly affects every state and every citizen.
For the record, refusing to take the case based on “lack of standing,” meaning the Court determined the state of Texas did not have direct legal standing to bring the suit, is very different than declaring the claims for the Texas suit don’t have merit. They most certainly did and do have merit. Apparently, all the leftist claims that Amy Coney Barrett was going to rubber-stamp another term for President Trump were what we knew they were — fake news.
Now that the Electoral College has met to declare Joe Biden the winner of the 2020 election, if he makes it to January 20th, he will be sworn in as the next president — and then the real candidate, Kamala Harris, can soon thereafter step in.
Laughably, Biden declared, “Faith in our institutions held. The integrity of our elections remains intact.” Even more laughable, Biden is now touting the restoration of ethics to the executive branch.
So, what are we to do now when the Biden-Harris regime becomes an oppressive Harris regime — which it will — and then Harris adopts the far-left, constitutionally abrogating policies of her cadres of Demo “progressives”?
Responding to SCOTUS’s refusal to take the Texas case, state GOP Chairman Allen West protested: “The Supreme Court, in tossing the Texas lawsuit that was joined by seventeen states and 106 members of Congress, has decreed that a state can take unconstitutional actions and violate its own election law. Resulting in damaging effects on other states that abide by the law, while the guilty state suffers no consequences. This decision establishes a precedent that says states can violate the US Constitution and not be held accountable. This decision will have far-reaching ramifications for the future of our constitutional republic.”
West then posited, “Perhaps law-abiding states should bond together and form a Union of states that will abide by the Constitution.”
Of course, the Leftmedia propagandists pounced on West’s proposal, insisting it was “secessionist” — you know, like a southern Black man is calling for the South to rise again.
West’s remark is obviously not about secession, much less revolution. It’s about the establishment of an alliance of states “bonded together” by a commitment to “abide by the Constitution.”
This involves a reaffirmation of our Constitution in states attempting to give sanctuary to American Liberty and Rule of Law as opposed to the Democrat Party effort to undermine our Constitution with the rule of men, the terminus of which is, irrevocably, tyranny.
Read the Whole Article Here…
