Daily Archives: December 9, 2020
This will be, I think, the decisive week. The issue of the biggest vote heist ever seen in a Western Democracy has been going on for weeks now, and I still cannot get rid of the extremely unpleasant, sickening impression that this will not be solved in the most obvious and unavoidable of ways, but will depend on a huge political issue, namely: whether the Supreme Court has the guts to reestablish fairness at the cost of being perceived, by the corrupt media, as the ones who “gave victory to Trump”.
Why do I think that? Cynicism, perhaps, and I know that we *should* have five men and women of integrity in the Court. However, I also reflect on this: firstly, that four men and women (starting with the man we will call, for simplicity, Lolita Express Guy) most certainly do not have this integrity, which makes us only one vote away from the abyss. Secondly, that several lower courts (and the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania) have already refused to take on themselves the responsibility of recognising the blindingly obvious. Thirdly, that a lot of RINOs at all level of the Republican Party did not hesitate to be accomplices of this attempted steal, either because of their ideological desire to get rid of Trump or, alternatively, because they want to go back to the old world of political favours and legal enrichment: only look at the personal wealth of the Bidens, Pelosis, Clintons of this world; and do not think for a moment that this is a Democrat specialty, or that it does not happen, on a lower scale, in the lower echelons of power.
What is happening in the united States is something simply inconceivable in Western Europe. Everywhere, we have centralised voting procedures, which create a uniform system that can be easily verified. The idea of the massive breaking of the chain of custody, much less the open intimidation and control suppression, that we have observed in so many places is simply inconceivable.
Happily, since yesterday we have a new element thrown into the mix: the Texas lawsuit for the (obvious, and unquestionable) violation of the Constitution via non-legislative modification of electoral laws bypasses, as far as Trump’s victory is concerned, any consideration of voter fraud. If upheld (and no sanely thinking person can see how it could not, in a fair world) it would not address the astonishing scandals we have witnessed, but it would at least take care that the final outcome for the Presidential election has not been altered by them. It is an extremely elegant, blindingly obvious, very simple approach to the issue of who gets the electors in enough states to settle the matter for Trump. In a normal world, it would be a no-brainer.
I am tempted to say that I do not know what happens now, but I actually do know, and it is this: if five of the Supreme Court Justices have a shred of integrity in them this goes to Trump, big time. If the Court does not have five men and women of integrity, this election will be stolen, with potentially incalculable effects on the future direction of this, at this point, Clown Democratic Republic.
Let us pray it does not come to that. Still, should the worst happen, know that millions of good citizen will not stop fighting for a decent Country.
Alas, if the Supreme Court does not make the only possible decision, it is not at all improbable that, at some point, the people’s desire for fair elections will result in a lot of blood.