Have you seen this missing Christmas tree, or another one that looks just like it?
According to Julia Musto of Fox News, “GOP lawmakers’ second Christmas tree vanishes from Wisconsin Capitol!”
“Vanishes?!”
What?!
Did someone come down the capitol’s chimney in the middle of the night?
Maybe we should change the capitol of Wisconsin’s name from Madison to Whoville!
“Two Wisconsin Republican lawmakers who put up an artificial Christmas tree in the state’s Capitol Rotunda on Tuesday, just hours after a first tree was removed, found it had vanished on Wednesday morning.”
“The earlier attempt had been thwarted by Democratic Governor Tony [‘The Grinch’] Evers, who said no permit had been provided for the display and that the coronavirus pandemic had closed the building to the public.”
Ahhh, the dreaded government permit.
You’re a mean one, Mr. Evers!
“Reps. Paul Tittl and Shae Sortwell had requested to put up a ‘historical display’ on the rotunda’s ground floor, but their motion was swiftly denied by Evers.”
“The ‘great and powerful’ Evers denies your request!”
“An appeal was also shot down on Thursday by Capitol Police Chief [Wisconsin ‘SS’ Police Chief] David Erwin, who said that the Department of Administration did not have the authority to approve displays on the ground floor of the Capitol.”
In this Dec. 7, 2020 file photo, an artificial Christmas tree that two Republican lawmakers set up stands in the Wisconsin Capitol rotunda in Madison, Wis. The tree was removed Tuesday, Dec. 15, 2020, because the lawmakers did not have a permit.”
“Traditionally, in a year without a pandemic, the Capitol’s tree draws visitors from around the state during the holiday season.”
Wow, the pandemic works as an excuse for everything!
The democrats must be so proud of themselves for coming up with the virus strategy, along with the help from the Chinese, of course.
“Evers has insisted on referring to that tree as a ‘holiday tree,’ citing inclusivity.”
“Inclusivity?”
What about when protesters of former Governor Scott Walker invaded the capitol building there, hung obnoxious posters and banners everywhere, and refused to leave?
That didn’t threaten inclusivity?
I know I definitely felt excluded.
Although, we should all know by now that only non-democrats are required by the democrats to be “inclusive.”
Democrats are allowed to censor, lie, exclude, and deceive at their leisure.
“In a letter explaining why their first [Christmas tree] had been removed, the Department of Administration’s Assistant Deputy Secretary Olivia Hwang suggested that the lawmakers reach out to Rep. Amy Loudenbeck. Loudenbeck, also a Republican, had received a permit to erect an artificial Christmas tree on the first floor.”
Ahhh, Olivia Hwang…, such a good little Nazi in training…, fresh out of indoctrination training at the University of Wisconsin there.
“When Tittl and Sortwell found out that their festive addition would be removed from the Capitol’s ground floor, they acted quickly — applying for a permit with both Loudenbeck and the administration.”
“Then, they set up a second tree on Facebook Live.”
“The lawmakers called the act a peaceful protest of Evers’ administration, pointing to their First Amendment rights.”
“The artificial tree, they argued, does not cost anything.”
Apparently, they think republicans have the right to peacefully protest like rioters, arsonists, vandals, and looters do!
Silly republicans!
“The ornaments on the fake evergreen were sent in from all over the country and Tittl plans to donate extra ornaments to nursing homes in his district.”
‘“It doesn’t hurt anything,’ he said in an interview with The Associated Press. ‘It’s not using any resources. It doesn’t have to be watered. Kids from all over the country have sent us ornaments to put on the tree.’”
“The next morning, though, the second tree was gone.”
‘“Last night they took our tree down again, with ornaments and all,’ Tittle posted to his Facebook page.”
That sounds like a familiar storyline!
Yes, you truly are a mean one, Mr. [Grinch] Evers!
If you’re not already “following” me and you liked my blog(s) today, please choose to “follow” me, which will keep you up to date on all of my latest posts, and/or leave me a comment. I value your feedback and I’d love to hear from you!
Yes, welcome ladies and gentlemen to the first annual “Fredo” Awards!
We all know how much liberal elitists like giving each other awards and receiving awards, so I thought I would hand out some awards of my own that these liberal losers have actually earned.
If you’re not familiar with the term, what exactly does being a “Fredo” refer to?
According to the Urban Dictionary website, “In proper application referring to someone as a ‘Fredo’ means they are just a dumb [a$$] loser like ‘The Godfather’ movie character,” who was the weak and naïve son and brother.
There you have it!
So, without any further adieu…, on to the awards!
First off, the Honorary “Fredo” Awards.
Our first Honorary “Fredo” Awards go to the award’s namesakes, New York Governor Andrew “Fredo Sr.” Cuomo, and his brother, host of the CNN show, “Cuomo Prime Time,” Chris “Fredo Jr.” Cuomo.
Without these two liberal turds, the “Fredo” awards would not have been possible.
Our next award, and our first category award, goes to The Worst Liberal Politician in a Leading Role.
This was an extremely tough category to award. There were so many worthy recipients. But, in the end, one liberal politician did manage to stand out above the rest…, and that liberal politician is Congresswoman and Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi!
Her incessant lying and obnoxious partisan idiocy seemingly has no limits.
The next award goes to The Worst Liberal Politician in a Supporting Role.
Again, there were so many scumbags worthy of consideration here. But, the worst liberal, and sleaziest democrat, in a Supporting Role has to go to Congressman Adam Schiff.
Like his fearless leader, Nancy Pelosi, Schiff’s continual ability to lie without any apparent conscious, and his ability to shamelessly drive fictitious narratives are unequalled.
Our next award goes to The Worst Costume Design for a Liberal Politician.
The winner of this award really didn’t have any serious challengers.
The winner of the worst costume design for a liberal politician goes to Congresswoman Frederica Smith Wilson of Florida!
Our next award goes to The Worst Adapted Testimony for a Liberal Politician.
The winner of this award becomes our first two-time winner. He wins his second award based on his adaptation of President Trump’s call with Volodymyr Zelensky, the then-newly elected Ukrainian leader. His “adaptation” was later debunked, however, when it was learned there was an actual transcription of the call. Ooops!
So, the winner of the worst adapted testimony by a liberal politician goes to California Congressman, Adam Schiff!
Our next award is the Worst Original Story (hoax) by a liberal politician.
The worst original story (hoax) by a liberal politician has to refer to the whole “Russia collusion” hoax. This hoax unabashedly proclaimed that President Trump was an actual Russian spy and a puppet for Russian President, Vladimir Putin. We heard nightly, for over two years how everyone had proof of this…, but in the end, there was no proof to be found, and no retractions or apologies either.
There were really too many democrats involved in this hoax to award individual awards. These included a President, a Vice President, various Cabinet secretaries, various executive branch officers, members of the DOJ and the FBI, and, of course, the co-conspiratorial mainstream media, just to get the party started.
Accepting this award on behalf of all the treasonous democrat vermin involved in this hoax (and attempted coup), is Rachel Maddow, the clueless MSNBC commentator who willfully and joyfully perpetrated this big lie on a nightly basis.
The next award is for the Worst Speech and Press Briefing Editing.
During the course of the 2020 presidential election campaign, it became common knowledge that Joe Biden utilized a teleprompter for almost everything he said and, even then, he usually managed to stick his foot in his mouth. That, coupled with the cherry picking of “friendly” questions, and the outright refusal to even answer other questions, earned these two individuals their awards.
This award for Worst Speech and Press Briefing Editing goes to Jennifer O’Malley Dillon, Biden’s Campaign Manager, and Joe Biden himself.
The next award is for The Worst News Editing, by a liberal organization, in a supporting role.
We are awarding multiple awards in this category.
Those organizations receiving awards for their anti-American censorship and propaganda by omission are: CNN, MSNBC, Facebook, Twitter and Google.
Congratulations for lowering our news and social media to levels normally seen in Communist China, Russia, North Korea, Venezuela and Cuba.
Our next award is for The Most Clueless Liberal in a supporting role.
Again, there was no shortage of liberals in consideration here, but one individual definitely stood out above the crowd!
This clueless liberal torpedoed thousands of good paying Amazon jobs in her city, wants our country to abandon all civilized progress in the name of climate change, and is campaigning to turn our country into a socialist nightmare.
Taking all of this into consideration, the award for The Most Clueless Liberal in a supporting role can only go to Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
As you can see, Ms. Ocasio-Cortez is so clueless, she is happy about winning this award!
Our next award is for The Biggest Liberal Meathead in a supporting Role.
One “Fredo” nominee clearly stood out for this award. It was actually created especially for him!
The award for The Biggest Liberal Meathead in a supporting Role goes to Californian Congressman Eric Swalwell!
A member of the “Russian collusion hoax club,” Swalwell, we have now learned, carried on about Russian influences in our government, all while he was cavorting around with his own little China doll spy, Christine Fang! You just can’t make this stuff up. I’m sure it was a big surprise to his wife as well. Ouch!
Swalwell even entered the race for president. His campaign lasted about ten minutes. I’m sure Fang encouraged Swalwell and was his driving force!
I can just hear her now…, “Oh, Eric, I love you…, the people love you…, they need a big strong leader like you, Eric…, you must run for president…, you owe it to the American people…, they need you!”
A truer “meathead” you just couldn’t find!
And finally, the “Fredos” inaugural Lifetime Achievement award goes to Seth Myers, host of “Late Night with Seth Myers.”
Seth Myers chose to ruin his show and dedicate at least 10 minutes a night to bashing presidential candidate Donald Trump, and then he beat Hillary Clinton anyway!
We have all heard of the term “influencer.” Seth Myers may now best be known as an “anti-influencer,” since all of his efforts obviously had no effect on the election, and quite possibly the opposite of his desired effect!
Then, having learned nothing from his “influencer” failure, he continued to bash President Trump for another four years on a nightly basis!
President Trump then won again, only to have the election stolen from him.
Well, that wraps-up our award ceremony.
I hope you enjoyed the First Annual “Fredo” Awards!
I know I enjoyed bringing them to you.
I hope to see you next year for the presentations of the Second Annual “Fredo” Awards!
If you’re not already “following” me and you liked my blog(s) today, please choose to “follow” me, which will keep you up to date on all of my latest posts, and/or leave me a comment. I value your feedback and I’d love to hear from you!
The Wisconsin Supreme Court tossed out President Trump’s election lawsuit on everything BUT the merits of the case.
According to the Associated Press, “The Wisconsin Supreme Court on Monday rejected President Donald Trump’s lawsuit attempting to overturn his loss to Democrat Joe Biden in the battleground state, ending [President] Trump’s legal challenges in state court about an hour before the Electoral College was to meet to cast the state’s 10 votes for Biden.”
“The President sought to have more than 221,000 ballots disqualified in Dane and Milwaukee counties, the state’s two most heavily Democratic [and most heavily populated] counties. In a 4-3 ruling, Justice Brian Hagedorn, a conservative writing for the majority, said the Trump campaign was ‘not entitled to the relief it seeks.’”
Okay…, first of all…, why is it important to note that Justice Hagedorn is supposedly a “conservative?” Is that supposed to lend some credence to his opinion?
I guess so.
“Hagedorn used a sports analogy when ruling against Trump, saying he waited too long to raise his complaints.”
‘“Our laws allow the challenge flag to be thrown regarding various aspects of election administration,’ Hagedorn wrote.”
He seems to assume everyone reading his ruling is familiar with American football, and the National Football League.
Actually, I think that is quite culturalist and even misogynistic.
But that’s okay, as long as it’s a ruling against President Trump and conservatives.
‘“The challenges raised by the [President’s] Campaign in this case, however, come long after the last play or even the last game; the Campaign is challenging the rulebook adopted before the season began.’”
As I have stated in earlier blogs, is it ever too late for justice to be served?
And you shouldn’t be looking at any “rulebook” adopted by anyone else other that the state’s legislature, which is solely given the rights to create the laws governing a state’s elections by The United States Constitution.
“[President] Trump wanted to disqualify absentee ballots cast early and in-person, saying there wasn’t a proper written request made for the ballots; absentee ballots cast by people who claimed ‘indefinitely confined’ status; absentee ballots collected by poll workers at Madison parks; and absentee ballots where clerks filled in missing information on ballot envelopes.”
Please note that there is nothing in Wisconsin’s election laws, established by the legislature, allowing for any of this.
“The court ruled that [President] Trump’s challenge to voters who were indefinitely confined was without merit and that the other claims came too late.”
“Liberal justices Rebecca Dallet and Jill Karofsky, who sided with Hagedorn, wrote separately to emphasize that there was no evidence of fraud in Wisconsin’s election.”
‘“Wisconsin voters complied with the election rulebook,’ Dallet and Karofksy said. ‘No penalties were committed and the final score was the result of a free and fair election.’”
Even though these two wrote separately from Hagedorn, they sure seem to be writing from the same “playbook,” if you want to use football terminology.
“Karofsky blasted [President] Trump’s case during Saturday’s hearing, saying it ‘smacks of racism’ and was ‘un-American.’ Conservative justices voiced some concerns about how certain ballots were cast, while also questioning whether they could or should disqualify votes only in two counties.”
“Smacks of racism?!”
“Un-American?!
Please, Justice Karofsky, we don’t need an obviously biased and disingenuous lecture from you on top of your misguided and partisan decision regarding this case.
Karofsky is the larger pictured justice on the right.
“Biden [supposedly] won Wisconsin by about 20,600 votes, a margin of 0.6% that withstood a Trump-requested recount in Milwaukee and Dane counties, the two with the most Democratic votes. Trump did not challenge any ballots cast in the counties he won.”
Oh really?!
That’s odd.
Why would he challenge the counties he won?
And a recount of the same illegal ballots is, of course, just going to produce the same results.
Yes, folks, the “fix” was obviously in.
It’s a real shame that many of these state supreme courts are now making their judgements based on politics rather than the law.
In many cases, our judicial branch of government has “sold its soul” to the politically corrupt neo-fascist manipulators in our country.
“Justice” has now become what some liberal perceives it to be, or wants it to be, and not what it actually should be.
If you’re not already “following” me and you liked my blog(s) today, please choose to “follow” me, which will keep you up to date on all of my latest posts, and/or leave me a comment. I value your feedback and I’d love to hear from you!
Late Friday night, The United States Supreme Court elected to not even hear the Texas election lawsuit.
Even though the lawsuit was backed by The President, 18 states, and over 100 members of Congress, The United States Supreme Court felt this would be a waste of their time to even hear the arguments is the case.
I was personally shocked by their decision which, I believe, will go down in history as one of he most shameful decisions ever rendered by a United States Supreme Court.
CBS News reports that, “In a tweet overnight, Mr. [President] Trump said, ‘The Supreme Court really let us down. No Wisdom, No Courage!’ after the court’s 7-2 ruling rejected a push from Texas to block electors in four battleground states from voting in the Electoral College.”
For the record…,
The seven justices who rejected the case are:
John G. Roberts, Jr., Chief Justice of the United States,
Stephen G. Breyer, Associate Justice,
Sonia Sotomayor, Associate Justice,
Elena Kagan, Associate Justice,
Neil M. Gorsuch, Associate Justice,
Brett M. Kavanaugh, Associate Justice,
Amy Coney Barrett, Associate Justice.
The two justices who felt the case was worth hearing are:
Clarence Thomas, Associate Justice,
Samuel A. Alito, Jr., Associate Justice.
None of the three Justices appointed by President Trump: Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, nor Amy Coney Barrett, opted to defend The President.
I’m sure the liberal justices would have acted the same way if this had been a challenge supporting former President Obama.
NOT!
“The decision effectively ends The President’s five-week effort to legally challenge President-elect Joe Biden’s victory.”
“In rejecting the lawsuit, the court wrote that ‘Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections.’”
So, The Supreme Court of The United States is saying that Texas, and all of the other states that joined in the lawsuit, somehow has no interest if other states don’t follow Constitutional law, allow their election to be compromised by cheating, and thus allow an illegitimate winner to be installed as President of the United States?
Really?
“The four states — Michigan, Pennsylvania, Georgia and Wisconsin — all went to Mr. Biden.”
“The lawsuit filed Monday by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton asked the court to invalidate the four key states’ votes, but judges across the country have repeatedly tossed out those claims due to a lack of evidence.”
“Lack of evidence?!”
There is an overwhelming amount of evidence, if any of these courts would care to look at it.
“Over 100 House Republicans filed a brief in support of Paxton’s suit claiming the election was riddled with allegations of fraud and irregularities.”
“Mr. [President] Trump had been counting on a Supreme Court victory. Three of the seven justices who rejected the case were Justices Kavanaugh, Gorsuch and Barrett — all his own appointees.”
Yes…, and shame on all of you.
Gorsuch
Kavanaugh
Barrett
“Earlier in the week, the president struck an optimistic tone at a White House Hanukkah party.”
“In a video posted to Twitter, he said: ‘I understand a lot of congressmen and women have joined in, a lot of people are joining in because they can’t allow this to happen.’”
‘“You can’t have a country where somebody loses an election and becomes president,’ Mr. Trump continued.”
The Supreme Court obviously doesn’t feel there is a problem with that.
“Paxton released a statement calling the court’s decision ‘unfortunate,’ asserting he ‘will continue to tirelessly defend the integrity and security of our elections and hold accountable those who shirk established election law for their own convenience.’”
“Unfortunate” is the very, very, very least that can be said to describe this turn of events.
“The President’s personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani joined ‘Hannity’ on Fox News Friday evening, and said the Supreme Court’s decision was wrong.”
‘“The Supreme Court has made a terrible, terrible mistake in not getting this resolved in a fair, in a decent and in an equitable way,’ Giuliani said. ‘Because it’s gonna leave a real black mark with regard to this election throughout our entire history.’”
Well said, Rudy, and I absolutely agree.
Additionally, according to National Public Radio (NPR), “The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday night rejected an eleventh hour challenge to Joe Biden’s election as president.”
“The court’s action came in a one-page order, which said the complaint was denied ‘for lack of standing.’”
“Texas, supported by President Trump, tried to sue Pennsylvania, Georgia, Wisconsin and Michigan, claiming fraud, without evidence.”
Again, since when aren’t signed affidavits evidence?
“But in order for a state to bring a case in court, especially the Supreme Court, a state must show it has been injured. In essence, the court said Texas could not show that it was injured by the way other states conducted their elections.”
I believe Texas demonstrated quite clearly how it believed it had been injured.
According to the Morris Bart, LLC Law firm website, regarding “standing to sue,” “When a party files a lawsuit there are many things he or she must prove besides just the facts of the case. One of these legal concepts is known in Latin as ‘locus standi,’ in other words, ‘standing to sue.’ Here is the essential breakdown of this principle and how it might affect your legal rights.”
“What does it mean to have ‘standing’ in court? In layman’s terms, legal standing to sue is about who has the right to bring an action in court, not about the issues or facts of the actual case. Under Article III of the Constitution, courts can only hear actual ‘cases’ or ‘controversies,’ so standing law helps enforce this requirement by requiring that the party filing sue suffer an injury caused by the other party that can actually be addressed by the court.”
“It’s important to note that because standing law is established by the US Constitution, these requirements only apply to federal court lawsuits. For state standing requirements, you would look to state law.”
“What are the three elements of standing to sue?”
“In the legal world, ‘element’ is another word for a factor that the party must prove as part of a broader legal concept. In terms of standing, a party must prove three elements.”
“INJURY IN FACT means that a person has suffered an actual injury. This can be a physical injury or economic loss, the two most common types of injuries. However, this element can also include harm that is caused to conservation, aesthetic, or recreational interests as well. Importantly, in most cases, the injury must already have occurred, rather than being something hypothetical that might happen in the future.”
“CAUSATION means that the injury to the plaintiff was caused by the person or party that is being sued. In other words, the party bringing the lawsuit needs to show that “but for” the defendant’s action or inaction, they would not have been injured. If the plaintiff cannot prove a connection between the defendant’s conduct and the injury, they will not be able to prove that they have standing to bring the lawsuit.”
“Finally, REDRESSABILITY means that the court will actually be capable of doing something to correct or make up for the plaintiff’s injury. This can mean ordering the defendant to undo what it has done, or if that isn’t possible, imposing penalties or fines that would have a deterrent effect. It’s important to remember that the court’s jurisdiction does not extend outside of the United States, and courts can only order parties to take certain actions, so there is a limit on whether a court’s order can “redress” the injury the plaintiff has suffered.”
“When interpreting these standards, courts have also added other rules, often called ‘prudential standing,’ to help them consistently apply standing law. These rules include limits on when taxpayers can sue for grievances that affect the general public, and the requirement that the injury be within the ‘zone of interest’ a statute is intended to cover, among many others.”
“Why do courts require standing for a lawsuit to proceed? At the most basic level, courts require standing because the Constitution requires them to enforce the law. However, there are many policy reasons that courts require legal standing. Because of the requirement that federal courts only hear actual ‘cases or controversies,’ these requirements prevent courts from litigating abstract political questions that have public significance, but have not actually yet harmed anyone. This means that courts can use their time and efforts only on those cases where they can have an actual impact.”
This is why we get jokes like:
What do you call a busload of lawyers driving over a cliff?
A good start.
In my opinion, these justices were just looking for an excuse to not get involved.
When over 75 million voters feel like they’ve been “injured,” I’d say that is something worth addressing.
Our country was looking to them to help pull us out of the fire, and they just turned their backs on law-abiding American citizens, and our country in general.
Thanks for nothing Supreme Court.
If you’re not already “following” me and you liked my blog(s) today, please choose to “follow” me, which will keep you up to date on all of my latest posts, and/or leave me a comment. I value your feedback and I’d love to hear from you!
The only question left is: Is The Supreme Court going to sit back and allow the democrats to steal this election or not?
According to Tyler Olson and Bill Mears of Fox News, “Texas on Friday morning filed a ‘reply brief’ with the Supreme Court as it asks the tribunal to hear its lawsuit that aims to essentially nullify the presidential elections in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Georgia and Wisconsin — putting the ball in the justices’ court to issue an order in the case.”
“The ‘briefing stage’ of Supreme Court litigation consists of the first party, in this instance, Texas, asking the court to hear the case. Then opposition briefs are filed by those on the other side of the case. Then the first party is allowed to file a ‘reply brief,’ which Texas did Friday morning.”
‘“Defendant States do not seriously address grave issues that Texas raises, choosing to hide behind other court venues and decisions in which Texas could not participate and to mischaracterize both the relief that Texas seeks and the justification for that relief,’ the Texas brief says of the opposition briefs filed by Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Georgia Thursday.”
“Texas continues: ‘An injunction should be issued because Defendant States have not—and cannot—defend their actions.’”
“The justices now could simply issue an order saying that they refuse to hear the case. They could also agree to hear the case and promptly dismiss it or rule in favor of Texas. The justices could also request oral arguments before ruling.”
“The crux of the Texas case is the argument that the four states it is suing — all four of which swung for President-elect Joe Biden — unconstitutionally changed their election statutes in their judiciaries or executive branches, when only the legislature is allowed to make election law. The reply brief Friday says that the four states failed to adequately dispute their point that this makes their entire elections invalid.”
‘“Defendant States do not credibly dispute either that they changed election statutes via non-legislative means or that the Electors Clause preempts such changes,’ the Texas brief says. ‘Accordingly, Texas is likely to prevail on the merits.’”
“Texas’ Friday brief says that it not asking the Supreme Court to decide or overturn the results of the presidential election, but right a constitutional wrong.”
‘“Texas does not ask this Court to reelect President Trump, and Texas does not seek to disenfranchise the majority of Defendant States’ voters,’ Texas’ brief says.”
“It continues: ‘Texas asks this Court to recognize the obvious fact that Defendant States’ maladministration of the 2020 election makes it impossible to know which candidate garnered the majority of lawful votes. The Court’s role is to strike unconstitutional action and remand to the actors that the Constitution and Congress vest with authority for the next step.’”
How can the Supreme Court not act in this case?
‘“The timing is extremely late and the justices have been reluctant to resolve election disputes too close to an election, much less after a presidential election has been conducted and votes certified in the states at issue,’ [University of Richmond School of Law professor Carl] Tobias told Fox News.”
“Late?”
Is that all you’ve got?
“Late?”
“Late” regarding what?
Is it ever too late to request that justice be served?
They just finally completed counting votes not too long ago!
And it seems like they keep finding more ballots to count all the time!
“There is no specific time limit for the justices to issue an order in the case, though some action is likely to come before Monday [12/14/2020], which is when presidential electors across the country will assemble in their state capitals to cast their electoral votes for president.”
Again, it is my belief that, considering all of the possible ramifications, this decision by The Supreme Court will go down in history as the most important decision it has ever made.
We’ll now see if the five conservative judges on the Supreme Court have the courage to do the right thing. I already know how the liberal judges are going to vote.
I’ll continue to keep you posted.
If you’re not already “following” me and you liked my blog(s) today, please choose to “follow” me, which will keep you up to date on all of my latest posts, and/or leave me a comment. I value your feedback and I’d love to hear from you!
The “defendant states’” responses are in. Now it will be up to the Supreme Court to decide if Texas’ lawsuit is even worth consideration.
Tyler Olson and Bill Mears of Fox News report that, “Pennsylvania, Georgia, Wisconsin and Michigan filed briefs Thursday in response to the Texas case seeking to bar their presidential electors from voting.”
“In briefs submitted with the Supreme Court on Thursday, Georgia, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin slammed the Texas lawsuit to prevent those four states from casting their electoral votes as a ‘meritless’ effort to ‘decimate the electorate of the United States.’”
Excuse me Georgia, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin, but the Texas lawsuit is hardly “meritless.”
Taken from the filed Texas motion and supporting documentation:
“Expert analysis using a commonly accepted statistical test further raises serious questions as to the integrity of this election.”
“The probability of former Vice President Biden winning the popular vote in the four Defendant States—Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin—independently given President Trump’s early lead in those States as of 3 a.m. on November 4, 2020, is less than one in a quadrillion, or 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000. For former Vice President Biden to win these four States collectively, the odds of that event happening decrease to less than one in a quadrillion to the fourth power (i.e., 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000^4). See Decl. of Charles J. Cicchetti, Ph.D. (“Cicchetti Decl.”) at ¶¶ 14-21, 30-31. See App. 4a-7a, 9a. 11.”
So, expert mathematical analysis is saying that Joe Biden winning the vote in these four states, given the circumstances, was basically impossible.
We have to listen to the “experts” after all, don’t we?
We have to follow the Science, don’t we?
Just sayin’.
“The response briefs were filed just ahead of a 3 p.m. deadline the Supreme Court previously gave the states to respond to the Texas suit.”
“It [the Texas lawsuit] aims to take advantage of the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction in disputes between states, bypassing lower federal courts, which have uniformly ruled against other election-related litigation by President Trump and his allies.”
Bypassing the lower federal courts, in this case, was key. The lower courts, in regards to this case, would most certainly dismiss it out of hand, either because the judge had a liberal bias, or the judge did not want to assume the responsibility for ruling in favor of Texas.
“The Texas suit gained the backing of 17 other states Wednesday when, led by Missouri, they filed a brief endorsing the Paxton’s case. Then on Thursday, Missouri and five other states filed another brief with the Supreme Court this time asking to be allowed to join Texas as litigants in the case.”
“But despite the widespread support from red-state attorneys general for Texas’ case, attorneys general Pennsylvania, Michigan, Georgia and Wisconsin attacked the suit in their responses as ‘meritless’ and ‘nakedly political.’”
‘“Texas waited until now to seek an injunction to nullify Pennsylvania’s election results because all of the other political and litigation machinations of Petitioner’s preferred presidential candidate have failed,’ the Pennsylvania brief, led by Attorney General Josh Shaprio, states.”
So, what?
What does this, if even true, have to do with the merits of Texas’ lawsuit?
‘“The Trump campaign began with a series of meritless litigations. When that failed, it turned to state legislatures to overturn the clear election results,’ Pennsylvania continued. ‘Upon that failure, Texas now turns to this Court to overturn the election results of more than 10% of the country. Texas literally seeks to decimate the electorate of the United States.’”
Nooo…, Texas now turns to the Court to stop the fraudulent election results from 10% of the country decimating the rights of the other 90% of the country!
‘“Texas asserts that this Court’s intervention is necessary to ensure faith in the election. But it is hard to imagine what could possibly undermine faith in democracy more than this Court permitting one state to enlist the Court in its attempt to overturn the election results in other states,’ the Wisconsin brief says. ‘Merely hearing this case—regardless of the outcome—would generate confusion, lend legitimacy to claims judges across the country have found meritless, and amplify the uncertainty and distrust these false claims have generated.’”
“Michigan, led by Attorney General Dana Nessell, also laid out a variety of factors that it believes weigh heavily against the Texas case.”
‘“The base of Texas’s claims rests on an assertion that Michigan has violated its own election laws. Not true,’ the Michigan brief says.”
Now there you go lying again, Ms. Nessell.
I know…, it just comes with the job, and with being a democrat.
“The crux of the arguments from Texas and the states that support it is that the Constitution gives only state legislatures the power to set rules regarding presidential elections. Therefore, when the executive and judicial branches in Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Georgia changed how their elections would work this year in light of the coronavirus pandemic, their elections became invalid.”
‘“When non-legislative actors in other States encroach on the authority of the ‘Legislature thereof’ in that State to administer a Presidential election, they threaten the liberty, not just of their own citizens, but of every citizen of the United States who casts a lawful ballot in that election—including the citizens of amici States,’ the Wednesday brief filed by Missouri and 16 other states says.”
Bingo!
Now, what’s so hard to understand about that, and how can that thinking even be argued with?
Regardless, the democrats are arguing against it.
“But most legal experts agree that for many procedural reasons the Texas case is almost certain to fail, and that their merits argument is fatally flawed too.”
‘“To begin with, the imagined “rule” is universally ignored since states have in fact allowed their governors, judiciaries, or both to make rulings and determinations affecting the manner in which presidential elections are held and electors thus chosen,’ Walter Olson of the libertarian Cato Institute told Fox News.”
This “imagined rule” you refer to, Mr. Olsen, is a little thing called The Constitution of the United States!
And whether or not states have chosen to ignore The Constitution in the past, has no bearing on whether or not their current election processes are legal or not.
It’s really a childish excuse.
“We’ve established illegal voting processes before, so…”
“Harvard law professor [Okay…, I can already see where this is going!] and former Supreme Court clerk to late Justice Antonin Scalia, Lawrence Lessig, meanwhile, said that the motivations for the Texas case are purely political.”
See, I told you!
‘“This is political posturing through litigation. Not one of those attorneys general believes they are entitled to win,’ he told Fox News. ‘As lawyers, that should stop them from signing onto such an action. But they are acting as politicians, not lawyers here — to the detriment of the rule of law.’”
I really can’t believe you were able to get that statement out, Mr. Lessig, without choking on your own words!
People “acting as politicians,” and the “detriment of the rule of law?!”
Seriously?
Along with all of the additional states supporting the Texas lawsuit, The President has signed on in support of it, as have 106 House members who filed a brief with the Supreme Court as well.
It is my belief that, considering all of the possible ramifications, this decision by The Supreme Court will go down in history as the most important decision it has ever made.
I’ll continue to keep you posted.
If you’re not already “following” me and you liked my blog(s) today, please choose to “follow” me, which will keep you up to date on all of my latest posts, and/or leave me a comment. I value your feedback and I’d love to hear from you!
It looks like everyone wants to get in on the fun now.
According to the CBSDFW.com Staff (The Dallas/Fort Worth CBS local affiliate), “Eighteen states — now including Arizona — have joined a Texas lawsuit filed by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton against the states of Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Georgia. That lawsuit was filed directly with the United States Supreme Court on Monday, Dec. 7.”
Eighteen states!!!
That’s over a third of the United States!
“The suit asks the court to order the ‘defendant states’ legislatures to displace ‘tainted’ election results in those states and choose their own slate of electors.”
“Paxton sued battleground states on behalf of the state of Texas saying the ‘defendant states’ made unconstitutional changes to their laws before the 2020 election.”
“He said those states tainted the integrity of the vote for Texas and all states.”
“An amicus brief (amicus curiae) or ‘friend of the court’ brief was filed with the high court earlier Wednesday. The states of Missouri, Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah and West Virginia have all signed on to the brief that backs the Texas suit.”
“Arizona was the latest state to file an amicus brief on Wednesday bringing the total to 18 states.”
Thank you, thank you, thank you, to all of these other states which have chosen to stand up for justice and stand up for America.
“According to the American Bar Association, ‘Friend of the court’ or amicus curiae briefs are often filed in appellate cases heard by the U.S. Supreme Court and state supreme courts, as well as intermediate courts of appeal. And there is considerable evidence that amicus briefs have influence.”
“On Tuesday evening, the Supreme Court ordered the defendant states to reply by 3 p.m. on Thursday, Dec. 10.”
‘“It’s not unusual,’ SMU [Southern Methodist University] Constitutional Law Professor Dale Carpenter told CBS 11. ‘I don’t think it indicates anything very important… I think the court will act quickly on Thursday.’”
‘“The states violated statutes enacted by their duly elected legislatures, thereby violating the Constitution. By ignoring both state and federal law, these states have not only tainted the integrity of their own citizens’ vote, but of Texas and every other state that held lawful elections,’ said Paxton. ‘Their failure to abide by the rule of law casts a dark shadow of doubt over the outcome of the entire election. We now ask that the Supreme Court step in to correct this egregious error.’”
‘“Ken Paxton is asking that Republican state legislatures in four states be allowed to displace the will of the voters in those States and choose their own slate of electors, presumably to hand the election to Donald Trump in January,’ said [Professor] Carpenter. ‘The Supreme Court is not going to allow that to happen.’”
Nice try professor!
“Displace the will of the voters?!!!
You mean “displace the will” of the cheaters?
That’s the whole point here, Professor! Tens of thousands, possibly hundreds of thousands, of fraudulent and illegal votes in these 4 defendant states displaces the actual will of legal voters, who submitted legal ballots in the 4 defendant states and every other state in the union.
Excuse me…, but you are such a “tool” and such a “useful idiot,” Professor Carpenter.
I have also heard that President Trump and his legal team have officially signed on to the lawsuit, and that they have asked Senator Ted Cruz of Texas to represent them all and plead the case in the Supreme Court.
Today may end up being a VERY big day in the history of United States and a big day for the future of these United States.
I’ll keep you posted.
If you’re not already “following” me and you liked my blog(s) today, please choose to “follow” me, which will keep you up to date on all of my latest posts, and/or leave me a comment. I value your feedback and I’d love to hear from you!
More states are joining Texas in the fight against the 2020 election fraud.
According to Edmund DeMarche of Fox News, “Missouri joins ‘fight’ alongside Texas to challenge election before Supreme Court.”
“Eric Schmitt, the attorney general from Missouri, announced on Twitter late Tuesday that his state is ‘in the fight’ after Texas announced its election challenge that would invalidate the 62 Electoral College votes from four battleground states and award President Trump with a second term.”
Bam!
Now that’s what I’m talking about!
‘“Election integrity is central to our republic,’ Schmitt tweeted. “And I will defend it at every turn. As I have in other cases—I will help lead the effort in support of Texas’ #SCOTUS filing today. Missouri is in the fight.’”
‘“If other states don’t follow the Constitution and if their state legislature isn’t responsible for overseeing their elections … it affects my state,’ Ken Paxton, the attorney general from Texas said. ‘Our job is to make sure the Constitution is followed and that every vote counts. And in this case, I’m not sure every vote was counted. Not in the right way.’”
Oh, I’m very sure the votes in these swing states were not counted in the right way.
Attorneys general from Louisiana, Alabama, Arkansas and other states have reportedly announced their support of the lawsuit as well.
KATC News, an ABC affiliate covering Louisiana, reported that, “Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry issued a statement on Tuesday supporting the complaint filed by the State of Texas before the U.S. Supreme Court regarding 2020 presidential election.”
“According to a release from the attorney general’s office, Landry said: ‘Millions of Louisiana citizens, and tens of millions of our fellow citizens in the country, have deep concerns regarding the conduct of the 2020 federal elections. Deeply rooted in these concerns is the fact that some states appear to have conducted their elections with a disregard to the U.S. Constitution.’”
Amen.
‘“Furthermore, many Louisianans have become more frustrated as some in media and the political class try to sidestep legitimate issues for the sake of expediency.’”
Amen again.
‘“The U.S. Constitution in Article 1, Section 4, states plainly: ‘The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature …’”
‘“The power for the conduct of federal elections is held by the State Legislatures in each state. In states like Pennsylvania, the judicial branch attempted to seize control of these duties and obligations and to set their own rules.’”
‘“These actions appear to be unconstitutional. If it is unconstitutional for Pennsylvania to take this action, it is similarly unconstitutional for other states to have done the same.’”
‘“Louisiana citizens are damaged if elections in other states were conducted outside the confines of the Constitution while we obeyed the rules.’”
Stay tuned. I’ll keep you posted on any further updates regarding this election lawsuit.
If you’re not already “following” me and you liked my blog(s) today, please choose to “follow” me, which will keep you up to date on all of my latest posts, and/or leave me a comment. I value your feedback and I’d love to hear from you!
That’s right ladies and gentlemen…, and, “Don’t mess with Texas!”
Evie Fordham of Fox News reports that, “Texas sues 4 key states at Supreme Court claiming unconstitutional voting changes.”
Alright now…, here we go!
“Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton sued battleground states Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan and Wisconsin on Tuesday to challenge their 2020 presidential election results.”
‘“Using the COVID-19 pandemic as a justification, government officials in the defendant states of Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin, and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (collectively, ‘Defendant States’), usurped their legislatures’ authority and unconstitutionally revised their state’s election statutes,’ Paxton’s complaint says. ‘They accomplished these statutory revisions through executive fiat or friendly lawsuits, thereby weakening ballot integrity.’”
There is no doubt that everything Mr. Paxton just said there is true.
“Paxton is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to ‘declare that any electoral college votes cast by such presidential electors appointed in Defendant States Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin are in violation of the Electors Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and cannot be counted.’”
You tell ’em Mr. Texas Attorney General!
“Disputes between states are among the few cases of original jurisdiction for the Supreme Court, meaning lower courts cannot first hear the cases.”
The fact that this suit goes straight to the Supreme Court is huge!
“The four states are among a handful where the Trump campaign is trying to overturn results that handed President-elect Joe Biden the victory. Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan and Wisconsin have certified their results, but the Trump campaign is continuing to exhaust its legal options, including through a lawsuit filed last week in Wisconsin.”
Like they say, “It ain’t over ‘til it’s over.”
“The election ‘suffered from significant and unconstitutional irregularities in the Defendant States,’ the filing says, citing the ‘appearance of voting irregularities in the Defendant States that would be consistent with the unconstitutional relaxation of ballot-integrity protections in those States’ election laws.’”
What he said.
All we can do is keep our fingers crossed on this one, but at least we should find out pretty quickly what the Supreme Court has to say about this.
I’ll keep you posted.
If you’re not already “following” me and you liked my blog(s) today, please choose to “follow” me, which will keep you up to date on all of my latest posts, and/or leave me a comment. I value your feedback and I’d love to hear from you!
Even Smokey Robinson never saw a miracle like this one!
My apologies to all of the millennials out there for that reference.
According to Benny Johnson on “The Benny Report,” “It’s a magical time of year. It’s a season of wonder and amazement! When millions of American go to bed, and while we are all sleeping, something magical happens, and we wake up to a miracle! Obviously, we’re not talking about Christmas here, we’re talking about Joe Biden’s 2020 election night.”
Yes, that was an amazing night!
I remember going to sleep with President Trump ahead by tens of thousands of votes, and even hundreds of thousands of votes in some cases, then waking to find Joe Biden had somehow, in the early hours of Wednesday, November 4th, closed the gap or taken the lead in a number of these swing states.
But before we can truly appreciate Joe Biden’s “election miracle,” we need to point out a few 2020 election facts and some historical presidential election facts.
In 2020, President Trump expanded his voter base by 11 million votes.
The votes President Trump received from African-Americans rose by 50%!
And the votes President Trump received from Hispanic Americans rose by 35%!
And yet, he supposedly lost.
Joe Biden supposedly received 80 million votes. The most, by far, of any presidential candidate in history.
In fact, that’s 11 million more votes than Barack Obama received at the height of his popularity.
Hmmm.
Despite beating Obama’s turnout in 2008, Biden won a record low number of counties.
Hmmm, again.
Only 17% of American counties, a record low of 527 counties (out of 3,143), were won by Joe Biden.
Former President Obama won 873 counties in 2008.
Yet, Joe Biden supposedly won.
President Trump won 18 of the 19 “bellwether” counties that have historically predicted the presidential election winner.
Yet, Joe Biden supposedly won.
Joe Biden underperformed Hillary Clinton virtually everywhere, except in a few key swing state counties…, those counties encompassing the metro areas of Milwaukee, Detroit, Atlanta, and Philadelphia.
Hmmm, again, again.
Additionally, Joe Biden somehow managed to win despite democrat losses nationwide.
Twenty-seven seats in Congress were regarded as toss-ups.
Republicans have not lost a single one of those “toss-up” elections.
That means that voters went out and voted for their local republican candidates, but voted against the most popular republican president in history?
That’s odd.
But wait, there’s more.
President Trump received over 90% of the republican primary vote. Historically, no incumbent who has received over 75% of their party’s total primary vote has ever lost re-election.
A record 18 million voters came out for President Trump in the 2020 primaries. That’s more than any incumbent in history.
The previous record was held by Bill Clinton who only had 9 million.
That’s impressive.
And Joe Biden didn’t even bother to campaign against President Trump.
Benny Johnson adds that, “Trump had an army [of supporters], and Joe Biden had kindergarten circles!”
Now, all of this would have to be classified as circumstantial evidence, but taken as a whole, it is quite substantial.
At the very least, all of this circumstantial evidence has to make you wonder, if not seriously question the 2020 presidential election “results.”
According to the “Britannica” website, “The notion that one cannot be convicted on circumstantial evidence is, of course, false. Most criminal convictions are based on circumstantial evidence, although it must be adequate to meet established standards of proof.”
And, well, there you have it.
It is my opinion that the 2020 presidential election should definitely be put into question, and at least be investigate thoroughly, so as to establish the integrity of the election.
I do believe in miracles…, just not this one.
If you’re not already “following” me and you liked my blog(s) today, please choose to “follow” me, which will keep you up to date on all of my latest posts, and/or leave me a comment. I value your feedback and I’d love to hear from you!
Mr. Erickson Rules! 