Against Denying the Texas, et al, Complaint
ContactAboutArticlesLinksToggle Color
Against Denying the Texas, et al, Complaint

Michael Kaarhus
02:10 Tuesday, Dec. 15, AD 2020 GMT

Here I find parallels between today’s Democratic Party and that of 1861, and use them to dissent against the U.S. Supreme Court’s Dec. 11, 2020 ruling that denied the complaint brought by Texas, sixteen other States, the U.S. President, 125 U.S. Congressmen and 26 State officials, against four States.

I wish to make clear from the outset that I want only blessings upon the Justices. This dissenting article is not to be construed as a rationale for violence against any of the Justices. I intend it as constructive.

The high court’s ruling stated simply:

The State of Texas’s motion for leave to file a bill of complaint is denied for lack of standing under Article III of the Constitution. Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections. (The Supreme Court)

Justices Alito and Thomas argued in favor of hearing the Texas, et al, complaint. Then they said that they “would not grant other relief...”:

In my view, we do not have discretion to deny the filing of a bill of complaint in a case that falls within our original jurisdiction. See Arizona v. California, 589 U. S. ___ (Feb. 24, 2020) (Thomas, J., dissenting). I would therefore grant the motion to file the bill of complaint but would not grant other relief, and I express no view on any other issue. (Justices Alito and Thomas)

Justices Alito and Thomas are correct that the case “falls within our original jurisdiction.” Article III, Sect. 2 of the Constitution says:

The judicial power shall extend to all cases in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority; ... to controversies between two or more States, between citizens of different States, between citizens of the same State claiming lands under grants of different States. (from Art. III, Sect. 2. My emphases)

The Texas, et al, complaint has standing under Article III. And it presents more than one, immense, “judicially cognizable interest”. For some reason which I do not understand, none of the Justices that wrote the ruling seem to recognize those interests. Maybe the “judicially cognizable interest” is so huge that the Justices are looking at only part of it, and saying, “This does not look like something we’ve seen before.” Here we shall see that, though you may have to board a helicopter and ascend to 10,000 feet to observe their entirety, the judicial interests are cognizable and familiar. Let’s revisit the start of this problem.

A common thread running through the 159 years from the start of the U.S. Civil War to the present day has been the opposition of the Democratic Party to the United States. I see that Party as synonymous with the Confederacy, except for one thing: the original Confederacy has long since gone away, but the party behind it has not. That party has brought certain marks of the Confederacy up to the present day: divisive, authoritarian lawlessness and criminal bellicosity, done with audacity, shrewdness and lame excuses, without conscience, and against the very notions national unity, domestic tranquility and prosperity.

Within three months after President Lincoln’s election in 1860, seven Southern States had seceded. This is another parallel: The Democrats of those days refused to accept the authority of a good, but non-Democrat President. So too, today’s Democratic Party has refused, since 2016, to accept the authority of a good, but non-Democrat President. They have, with shrewdness and audacity, and using every bit of federal power at their disposal, staged what Lee Smith at the Epoch Times called a “rolling coup” against President Trump. This ongoing, years-long coup has in some cases been done lawfully, in some cases not.

Here is another parallel: The only cases wherein the Democratic Party cares about doing things lawfully are those wherein they fear that they will get caught and convicted of doing things in their usual way: unlawfully. The Democratic Party did not police itself in 1861, and does not do so today. They do whatever unlawful things that they think they can get away with. And whether or not they start a cruel and murderous civil war, brother against brother, household against household, and countryman against countryman, to obtain political power, they do not care. No crime was too grave, no form of inhumanity or cruelty too abysmal for them in 1861, and the same can be said of that party today. The main difference is that it is, generally speaking, more difficult for them today to get away with such crimes as they committed 1861. Therefore, they resort to craftier methods.

From the previous parallel, it is obvious that We the People need to watch and police the Democratic Party. We need eyes on them at all times. We need authority to put criminals among them in the slammer. It does not surprise me that the same party has today managed to subvert hearts and minds to oppose police departments. In whose interests is it that police departments be done away?

The interests of criminals. And the Democratic Party is replete with them. Even their Presidential nominee is hip-deep in credible allegations of international extortion and paid cooperation with the PRC, furthering PRC interests, but not U.S. ones.

By 1861, the Confederacy had absconded with formerly Union military units, but had not yet obtained all the Union installations in the seven Confederate States. In April of 1861, President Lincoln tried to resupply Fort Sumter. General P.G.T. Beauregard laid siege to, and took it, officially starting the most fratricidal war in American history, and bringing four more States into the Confederacy, making a total of eleven.

As I said, The Democratic Party has become craftier today. They still want all the installations, and the U.S. Military. But today, they don’t take them all of a sudden, like they took Fort Sumter. People say that they have become Fabian. That, incidentally, is a misnomer.

Quintus Fabius Maximus Verrucosus, the third century, BC, Roman Consul, fought a protracted and defensive war against the House of Barca. Hannibal’s forces had destroyed the Roman Legions that attacked their defensive formation at Cannae. After that defeat, Fabius made a point of not attacking Hannibal, and thus not permitting him to again trap overly-eager Legions. The Romans gave Fabius the nickname, the delayer. The strategy of today’s Democratic Party, like that of 1861, is not defensive; it is offensive and aggressive. But today its offense is gradual and patient, unless, of course, it doesn’t have to be. Since it is offensive, it is not correctly called Fabian. In its ultimate goals, the Democratic Party is more Hannibalic than Fabian.

Like it did in 1861, today’s Democratic Party is waging war against the United States. Today, their tactics and methods are not as direct and are more patient: They take cities and governments, not forts, and they do it by election fraud, intimidation and propaganda, not straight-up assaults, at least not until 2020, when they again tried them.

What do you think all the riots are about? And the so-called autonomous zones? And armed Antifa roaming and intimidating populations at will? Why do you think George Soros is giving his chosen lawyers $megabucks to run for County DA’s? And once a city is firmly in Democratic hands (like Portland, Oregon, Detroit, Seattle, NYC and all the big California cities) what then? Are those Democrats then satisfied that they can tell President Trump to pound sand, when he offers to send federal troops to roll-up anarchists and Antifas? Does the Democratic Party then cease from its patient, but Hannibalic offense?

As the Apostle said, “By no means!” On the contrary, they greedily consolidate their gains and try to gain more, by increasingly audacious, calculated and offensive maneuvers, not necessarily involving troops, but always militant against national unity, against tranquility, and against prosperity. Next comes a Presidential election, and with it, election fraud, because, who controls most of the big cities?

The Democratic Party.

Who controls the DA’s offices in counties in which big cities reside?

Mostly the Democratic Party, specifically, George Soros.

So, who controls precincts where people vote, and County buildings where Democratic Party workers feed fraudulent ballots into counting machines at 0’dark:30 in the morning, after they have kicked out poll watchers?

The Democratic Party.

So, after they have committed massive elections fraud, who would win the Presidential election, against trillions-to-one odds, wherein almost all of the 0’dark:30 ballots were marked for the Democrat?

The Democratic Presidential candidate. If this election theft were allowed and not reversed, what then?

Then the Democratic Party would obtain, by different means, everything that its 1861 predecessors wanted: control of the U.S., replete with her Military and all its weapons and installations. Only the methods and means have changed. The Democratic Party is bent on making the cruelest four years of U.S. history repeat themselves indefinitely.

When Confederates under P.G.T. Beauregard took Fort Sumter in April of 1861, the U.S. Supreme Court did not rule, “Northern States have not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which the State of South Carolina solves what it sees as a problem. Your complaint is denied, Northern States.”

The United States saw the seizure of Fort Sumter for what it was: an act of war. The U.S. at that point went to war against South Carolina and the other Confederate States. Everyone knew it was war; there was no need to bring a complaint to the high court.

Today, it is not obvious to the generality of the population that the overall goal of the Democratic Party is not substantively different from its goal in 1861. Consequently, we need to bring complaints to the high court. But when we do, we find that the same fact is apparently lost on the Justices, as well. Okay. Let’s find it again.

The Confederacy lives on in spirit in the Democratic Party, which has always been its political home. Today’s renewed Confederacy does not identify itself as such; it is craftier than that, and asymmetric, compared to its predecessor. Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, New York, Oregon, Washington, California, Georgia and others, are parts of the renewed Confederacy, with Arizona and Nevada teetering on the edge of a canyon. But the intention of the renewed Confederacy is still the same: Take the United States of America by any means that it can get away with: illegal, legal, unlawful, lawful, bloody, unbloody, violent, non-violent, recklessly or patiently, conservatively or audaciously, fratricidally or not: here they come!

Contrary to the Supreme Court’s Dec. 11, 2020 ruling in Case #22O155, Texas, et al, have standing to bring complaints against Pennsylvania, et al, because those defendant States are parts of today’s renewed Confederacy, whose goal is the same as it was in 1861: take the U.S. by any means! When one defends the Constitution, one has standing; one has a case that the Republic—not just Texas—needs the Justices to hear and validate.

In case #22O155 Texas, et al, tried to prevent Pennsylvania, et al, from imposing their agendum—“Death to America, Death to the Constitiution”—over the entire Republic. Texas, et al, endeavored to defend the United States and the Constitution against a slow-burning, “rolling”, offensive and Hannibalic assault. This assault has, in a myopic view, been seen as a coup against President Trump, one that started in 2016. But in a bigger picture, the defendant States are parts of a renewed confederacy having the same intent as the old one: take the U.S. and make it their own, destroying the Constitution in the process. This intention started circa 1861, and never really ended, because the Democratic Party never really reformed itself, neither did anyone successfully reconstruct it.

Even if the high court is too close to the big picture to observe it in its entirety, it is neither too close nor too blind to observe the crimes emanating from it. Maybe the Justices see the Democratic Party’s theft of the 2020 election as a political statement against President Trump, and as such, an extreme and criminal form of speech. Maybe they see the riots, looting, arson and armed intimidation in the same way. Maybe the Justices think that such criminality is a fad that will fade away, like tail fins, or swallowing live goldfish.

[Caddy tail fins]

I maintain, however, that the Democratic Party has, for 159 years, been intent on waging, either patiently or impatiently, a “rolling” and Hannibalic war against the United States. That intent became apparent enough in 2020, so that even I, a rank amateur at history, could see it. To Democratic Party minds, it is not a fad; they are bent on pursuing it. And like their Confederate predecessors, they make neither compromises nor peace, unless forced to.

Historians say that the South seceded over the issue of slavery. I think that is not the whole story. But the Confederates definitely believed that slavery should be legal and that Americans should be free to legally own other humans as property. What kind of mentality believes that?

I submit that it is the mentality of today’s Democratic Party, which has not really reformed. Sure, they want us to believe that they are pious and venerable. They want us to believe that they are against slavery, and to that end they foment riots whenever a black person is, justifiably or not, killed or injured by a non-black person. But it is not difficult to discern the dark heart of a superiorist slave owner beating in the celom of today’s Democratic Party.

Consider, for instance, their superiorist attitude toward Republicans, and anyone else that peaceably opposes them. Consider how soft they are on black supremacy; blacks can do no wrong! Consider the Democratic Party’s praises of the Communist Chinese Party, and of other Communist regimes. You cannot be both pro-Communist and anti-slavery, because guess what?, Communists enslave people. They imprison and murder people by the millions to ensconce themselves in power, and expand their hegemony.

Civil War-era Confederates were not fighting just to maintain slavery. They were fighting an offensive war of aggression to take the United States for themselves. They were like Communists in that they were hegemonic.

That is another parallel: Regarding hegemony and aggression, today’s Democratic Party is no different than that of 1861; it loves the idea of pursuing hegemony through war; in that aspect, it is unreconstructed.

For instance, the Obama Administration by 2016 was waging war and fomenting rebellions across North Africa and the Eastern Med. They were proud of it; they bragged about it! Then they did the Kiev Spring. They love war. But if civil war is impracticable, which it has been for them since the Union defeated them in 1865, they become more crafty in their pursuit of hegemony. That is what we are seeing today, right here in the U.S.: The Democratic Party craftily using violent, destructive riots and election fraud and hacking, to obtain hegemony over the U.S.

And again, this is why the complaint that Texas, et al, filed with the high court has excellent standing: it was official, lawful, non-violent resistance to the Democratic Party’s in-your-face, ongoing, longstanding, supremacist, violent and criminal assault against the Constitution and the U.S. If such a complaint cannot be heard before the high court, where can it be heard? Anyone that cannot recognize this assault as judicially significant needs to fly up high enough so that they can observe it in its monstrous entirety. And regarding its associated crimes, one cannot help but ask, where is the Judicial Branch’s faithfulness to the Constitution and the law? It seems to be AWOL. The high court does not have leave to abandon either the Constitution or the law; on the contrary, it has an obligation to defend and validate them; their defense and validation are a “good fight”, as the Apostle put it (Cf. First Tim. 6:12).

The outcome of this “good fight” means life or death for the Constitution; Since 1865, it has never been more apparent.


ContactAboutArticlesLinksTopPrivacySitemapToggle Color
NTAS Advisory
Main Page