Kavanaugh Stabbed
Supporters, Nation in the Back over Vote
Looking back now at the great Presidential
election theft of 2020, it becomes ever clearer that the best chance to bring
it to a halt and reverse course was represented by the lawsuit of the state of
Texas challenging the election result in the key swing states of Pennsylvania, Georgia,
Michigan, and Wisconsin (summarized in the American Thinker here). Texas was joined by 126 members of the U.S.
Congress and 17 state attorneys general in an amicus brief. The suit and the brief argue, I believe very
persuasively, that authority granted by the Constitution to the state
legislatures in choosing presidential electors was usurped by the executive
branch in each of those states, creating novel voting systems that virtually
invited voter fraud and that, in administering the vote, they practically
assured that fraud did take place by, among other things, preventing proper
observation of the voter count. They
also argued that Texas had standing in the case because the election was
national, not confined to choosing only representatives in the states in
question, and the choice of electors by illegal means in those four states
diluted the votes of the legally chosen electors in their own states. The Constitution provides that the Supreme
Court is the only judicial body that can resolve disputes between states, so it
had immediate jurisdiction.
The suit was rejected by the Court on a 7
to 2 vote on the basis that the state of Texas did not have legal standing,
that is to say, how the other states ran their elections was not properly any
of Texas’s business. Those who want us
to believe that the court ruled correctly point out that even the three
new justices appointed by President Donald Trump voted with the majority.
One can’t help but notice that the case
they make is very similar to that made by those who would assure us that Deputy
White House Counsel Vincent W. Foster, Jr., committed suicide. Even Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr
concluded that he did. We had been sold
the story that Starr, the former solicitor general in George H.W. Bush’s
administration, was a hard-bitten conservative foe of the Clintons, not the
Deep State swamp creature (who was later a member of Jeffrey Epstein’s legal
team) that he clearly is. If Starr said
that Foster was guilty of self-murder, then it surely had to be so, they wanted
us to believe.
There is another big reason that we should
bring up the Foster case. That is
because Starr’s lead hatchet man for reaching the Deep State’s suicide
conclusion, in spite of the tons of evidence to the contrary,
was the young Yale University product (both undergraduate and law school), Brett Kavanaugh. He might well have been the junior member of
the entire Starr team, but when Miguel Rodriguez, the man that Starr had chosen
to lead the Foster investigation was overcome by conscience at pursuing what he
had concluded was a big-time cover-up and resigned, it was Kavanaugh that Starr
chose to replace him.
Now let’s look again at that Supreme Court
vote breakdown. I don’t know of any
similar Deep State connections of Neil Gorsuch or of Amy Coney Barrett, but
it’s easy to see that if Trump’s three appointees had agreed with Clarence
Thomas and Samuel Alito, then the Court would not have played Pontius Pilate
and washed its hands of all the skulduggery that went on in the election, and
there is a very good chance that Donald Trump would now be embarking upon the
second term of his presidency. Here we
quote from that American Thinker summary article:
There is no
remedy to correct the Nov 3rd election because ballots that did not
adhere to election law cannot be identified as separate from those that did.
An accurate count of legal ballots that were cast cannot be made.
Therefore, as directed in the Constitution, it falls to the legislature of
each state to choose electors as has been done in the past. Failing that,
each state may determine not to submit any presidential electors.
The existing control of the four states’ legislatures
by the Republicans would have been more than enough to put Trump over the top
had the legislatures chosen the electors.
Media “Wisdom”
Would it have been the correct thing for
the Court to do? Well, let’s look at
what CNN had to say, before the decision was rendered, in an article headlined,
“Why this Texas
‘election fraud’ lawsuit is a total and complete joke.”
Sounds serious! Except, it's not.
Here's why: Texas has zero legal standing to
challenge how other states conduct their elections. Elections -- including ones
for federal offices -- are solely the purview of individual states. States set
the hour that their polling places will be open. They decide whether or not a
voter is required to show a form of legal identification in order to cast the
ballot. They decide on what dates their primaries will be held. And yes, they
get to decide -- as many states did in the face of the Covid-19 pandemic --
whether or not to expand mail-in balloting.
Now just think about that a minute. In contradiction to the clear argument made
by the state of Texas and those submitting the amicus brief, CNN is telling us
in very confident terms that those states could have had just as fraudulent
elections as they jolly well chose and the rest of us can just stuff it, and
we’re not even being serious if we think the Supreme Court ought to have any
say in the matter. To be sure, they
paint the motives of the patently illegal actions of the executive branches of
the four states in the best possible light, but that is not the nub of the case
that they make.
It’s all about standing and, yes,
politics. CNN continues:
Put plainly: There is NO way
the Supreme Court is going to get involved in this sort of lawsuit. As Andrew
C. McCarthy, writing in the conservative National Review,
put it:
"The justices are not going to have the slightest interest
in entertaining a sprawling lawsuit brought by an unaffected third-party state
— one that, if Texas got its way, would forevermore thrust the Supreme Court
into the thick of electoral politics."
No, they are not. After all,
the court dismissed -- in a single sentence! --
an attempt earlier this week by Pennsylvania Republicans to block the
certification of the 2020 results in the Keystone State (where President-elect
Joe Biden won by more than 81,000 votes).
The Supreme Court -- led by
Chief Justice John Roberts -- has zero interest in dabbling in electoral
politics. And this suit, brought by [Texas Attorney General Ken] Paxton, would
force the court to do a lot more than dabble. If Paxton and Trump get what they
want, it would effectively overturn the vote in four swing states -- swinging
not just those states but the presidency from Biden to Trump.
Take a serious look at that
key quote from McCarthy’s article, though.
For him to simply assert that the rest of the country is “unaffected” if
the election is stolen in four states, facilitated by illegal changes in their
voting procedures, clearly does not make it so.
Writing for The Federalist, Margot Cleveland, in an article
entitled “The Supreme
Court’s Rejection of the Texas Lawsuit Failed the Constitution,”
cited a statement by Citizens United that sums the question up:
When one state allows the Manner in which
Presidential Electors be chosen to be determined by anyone other than the state
legislature, that state acts in breach of the presuppositions on which the
Union is based. Each state is not isolated from the rest—rather, all states are
interdependent. Our nation’s operational principle is E pluribus unum. Each state has a duty
to other states to abide by this and other reciprocal obligations built into
Constitution. While defendant states may view this suit as an infringement of
its sovereignty, it is not, as the defendant states surrendered their
sovereignty when they agreed to abide by Article II, § 1. Each state depends on
other states to adhere to minimum constitutional standards in areas where it ceded
its sovereignty to the union—and if those standards are not met, then the
responsibility to enforce those standards falls to this Court.
“It is hard to believe the justices put the
constitutional question above their desire to avoid appearing to meddle in the
2020 election,” Ms. Cleveland concludes, and that is really the heart of the
matter.
Notice another heavily loaded word that McCarthy
has gratuitously thrown into his sentence, that is “forevermore.” What he is suggesting is that the Supreme
Court should never involve itself in electoral politics, no matter how great
the call for it might be on a legal and political basis. It is hardly an exaggeration to say that, on
account of the Court’s dereliction of its duty, we are now looking at a situation
where forevermore, a substantial percentage of the population will have
no confidence in the voting system, the cornerstone of any democracy. If there was ever a time for the Supreme
Court to thrust itself into the thick of electoral politics, this surely was
it.
Deep State Hacks
Andrew McCarthy, we might add, could well have
more Deep State mire on him than Brett Kavanaugh. As Assistant United States Attorney for the
Southern District of New York, he led the 1995 prosecution of the blind Sheikh
Omar Abdel-Rahman and 11 others for the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. If you think everything was on the up-and-up
about that, you need to read “Who Bombed the World Trade Center? – 1993” and “Did the FBI Bomb the World Trade Center in
1993?” Not only the FBI, we find, but also Israel’s
Mossad seems to have been up to its eyeballs in the outrage.
The lead U. S. Attorney Office of the Southern
District of New York from 1976 to 1980, for the record, was Yale graduate,
Robert Fiske, who, as Attorney General Janet Reno’s chosen special prosecutor,
performed the first cover-up of the Vince Foster murder before Kenneth Starr
finished the job as independent counsel.
We might also add that Andrew McCarthy’s
employer, the National Review, founded by Yale and CIA man William F.
Buckley, Jr., is the favorite “conservative” publication that corrupt
mainstream organs like CNN like to invoke.
In the foreword to The Murder of Vince Foster: America’s
Would-Be Dreyfus Affair, we note that the short, well-policed Wikipedia
page for Christopher Ruddy’s critical Simon and
Schuster-published book, The Strange Death of Vincent Foster, manages to
quote from not just one but from two National Review attackers of Ruddy’s work. The National
Review is just about as Deep State as it gets.
Rigged Elections
Unfortunately, rigged elections have long been a
feature of American life. This time, it
was just a lot more massive and in-your-face, as though its
obvious nature was intentional, designed to produce the maximum degree of
outrage.
In an article in which he alludes to Patrick
Buchanan’s 1996 campaign for the Republican nomination for president, Mike King states, “That campaign, (against Bob Dole) started
out well, but crashed after relentless media attacks took their toll on ‘Pitchfork
Pat’.” It was not the media attacks that
did it, but outright vote fraud, particularly in the Arizona primary. I still remember it well. Buchanan was on a roll after winning the
South Carolina primary. Illegal
immigration from Mexico was one of his big issues, and a frontline state like
Arizona seemed to be an easy state for him to win. The Republican Party appeared to be well on
its way to having a candidate that its adherents could vote for rather
than just voting against his Democratic opponent.
They’re difficult sites to find if you use the
Google search engine, but you can read about the theft in Truth in Media, Gary North’s Specific Answers, and, in greatest detail, “A House without Doors: Vote Fraud in
America,” by
James J. Condit, Jr. Buchanan never made
an issue of the theft, and by quietly folding his tent, he has managed to stay
comfortably very near the center of the Washington establishment as a
“respectable” conservative commentator.
I previously wrote about what looked like obvious
vote rigging to the benefit of Hillary Clinton on Super Tuesday in 2008, when
she was running against the obviously much more popular freshman Senator from
Illinois, Barack Obama. The article is
entitled “Grand Theft Primary.” It’s
really very difficult to believe that such an abrasive and unlikable person as
Hillary Clinton, without any discernible political skills, has ever been
honestly elected to anything. The best
line that President Trump delivered in his “Stop the Steal” speech on January 6
was that the saddest person around these days, in light of the big election
theft that had taken place, had to be Hillary Clinton. “’Why didn’t they do that for me?’ she must
be wondering,” said Trump.
Actually, that’s something that a lot of us are
wondering about. She certainly
campaigned as though she thought the fix was in. Joe Biden’s campaign was similar, and, as he
has aged, he has become almost as disingenuous as Hillary, and he might well
outdo her in demonstrable crookedness and decrepitude. How is it that Trump was permitted to beat Hillary,
but not Biden?
I didn’t title this article, “Kavanaugh Stabbed
Trump in the Back” precisely because I’m not sure about the answer to that
question. To what degree is Trump a
party to the big trick that is being played on the American public? Certainly, he is not the complete swamp-draining
political outsider that he has convinced a lot of people that he is, as we show
in some detail in “Who Is Donald Trump?” I commend to your attention in particular the
section entitled, “Donald Trump and Christopher Ruddy.” When Trump chose Brett Kavanaugh for the
Supreme Court, he had to have known exactly what he was getting. Ruddy, who exposes Kavanaugh’s Deep State
corruption quite well in the book to which we have referred, actually
recommended Kavanaugh for the job to his Palm Beach neighbor, Trump, so complete
has his apparent transformation been. A further twist in the sad story that is
being played out before our eyes is that the Trump followers who have deserted
Fox News in droves because of Fox’s complicity in the vote theft are turning to
Ruddy’s Newsmax network, thinking they might get an
honest alternative there.
One thing that everyone should have learned from
the experience of the 2020 presidential election is that, with our electronic
voting system, no candidate should be considered to be legitimately
chosen. Vote rigging is entirely too
easy, and it has been going on for a long time, as we learn from James and
Kenneth Collier’s 1992 book, Votescam: The Stealing of America. “If fair and free elections are ever going to
reign in America again,” concluded the investigator Condit, “citizens in every
county of the country must organize and demand easily read paper ballots,
hand-counted by neighbors in each precinct in full public view, with the
results posted at each polling place before the ballots leave the precinct.”
What Might Have Been
For the Supreme Court to have waded into the sea of corruption
that the 2020 vote theft represented would have been a radical action, indeed,
for that timid body. A lot of criminal
activity by important, powerful people would likely have been exposed. One of the best things about the Texas
lawsuit, from a purely practical viewpoint, is that it gave the Court an
opportunity to overturn the election on very narrow, but solid, legal
grounds. They could have done it, even
with little time and no inclination to expose the full extent of the
fraud. The Court was being asked to
answer the question, “Did the states in question illegally change their voting
systems for the 2020 presidential election?”
The obvious answer is “yes.”
You can well imagine, though, what the reaction would have been
had the Court decided to follow the law, with Trump’s three appointees going
with the majority. Businesses were
boarded up in our nation’s capital on the eve of the election for a
reason. It was for fear of the reaction
to a Trump election victory. Imagine the
massive violence we would have seen should it have appeared that Trump had been
able to overturn the election through what looked like a pure political power
play. You can be absolutely certain that
that is how the press and the Democrats would have painted it, and all those
people who are now making such a huge fuss about the really piddling violence
that took place on January 6 at the Capitol building would have energetically
egged the rioters on.
Seeing what the Left was capable of throughout most of 2020, with
the virtual encouragement of the opinion-molding community and the Democratic
Party, such thoughts had to be in the backs of the minds of Kavanaugh and his
fellow justices. So, we might conclude
that Joe Biden was chosen to be the President of the United States in 2020 not
just through election fraud but through the unstated, but real, threat of
violence.
David Martin
January 29, 2021
To comment, go to Heresy Central.
Home Page
Columns Column 5 Archive Contact