Amici,
As noted in my earlier posting, I had written to my Congressman
(Steve Stivers) and Senator (Rob Portman) about supporting a careful
count in the Senate and challenging electoral votes. As of now, today, both have actually written me back in a polite
"boilerplate" responses about although we're all disappointed, we have to
accept the vote and move on, etc.; i.e. Senator Portman's office wrote:
The presidential election was contentious and hard fought. Roughly half of America was bound to be disappointed with the outcome. My hope is that all of us, as Americans, regardless of who we supported in the campaign, will be willing to accept the result because a thorough process was followed and the final vote count was clear.
As I wrote the other day, this
highlighted bit is a lie. I've been lied to by my senatorial representative.
Outright.
In my face (not "to my face, ahem, because it was an email). That, or
Portman is an utter idiot. The only "thorough" process was the theft!
And the final vote was ANYTHING but clear! Portman is, alas, either a
fool or a tool. He must be primaried. (I'll try a polite response when
I'm not so angry. Always be polite with this people, especially in these
post Reichstag Fire days.)
Yet at least his office did
write me back. However, they also included this paragraph:
I also want to commend and congratulate Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose, the county boards of elections, and the more than 50,000 Ohio poll workers for conducting a safe, secure, and transparent election in Ohio. It was not easy in the midst of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and I am grateful for their efforts.
This
is important, actually. Praising Ohio's handling of the vote. Florida
handled it well, too, as did a number of states. We have to work on
this, promoting it within Ohio (I saw a headline where they just purged
some 97,775 inactive voters from the rolls) and BE VERY CAREFUL because the
Democrats will be trying to force national election laws through that
turn the whole nation into Philadelphia.
My Congressman, Steve Stivers, wrote me back via email as well. He wrote:
On January 6 and 7 , members of the House and Senate had gathered to count the electoral college votes, and some of my colleagues raised objections to certain states elections process and therefore the legitimacy of their electoral votes. I swore an oath to uphold our Constitution, not a President or a party, and that means I could not support efforts to overstep the parameters set by the 12th Amendment. I did not vote to object to any of the states' elector slates as I do not believe it is within Congress's authority to overturn results that have been independently certified by the states.
There may have been irregularities in the 2020 election. However, Republican and Democratic officials across the country - including President Trump's own Attorney General, William Barr - have certified that irregularities did not occur on a scale that would affect the outcome of the presidential election. It is damaging that so many have been unable to accept that fact, and as we saw, dangerous to our most American democratic innovation - the peaceful transition of power. Clearly, work needs to be done to assure everyone that our electoral process is secure and transparent, and that alterations to our elections system adhere to each state's laws and regulations.
Classic
boilerplate. I'm beyond angry. We're supposed to accept his because of
BILL BARR? " It is damaging that so many have been unable to accept the
fact that...dangerous to our most American democratic innovation – the
peaceful transition of power?
I
call God Himself as my witness! WHAT was peaceful about the endless BLM
and Antifa riots ALL SUMMER and into the Autumn? What was righteous about Baby-face "Suckerberg" spending millions upon millions setting up ballot drop boxes throughout Democrat-control areas? What was peaceful
about thugs keeping Republican observers out of vote-counting rooms?
What was legal about starting up vote counting the next day (against
the laws as written by legislatures), very early in the a.m. and pulling
boxes of ballots out from under tables (as recorded on video) and
trucked in from other states (as per sworn affidavits)?
It's all so hopeless...
It was the next sentence, however, that floored me. These people are either utter tools or fools:
"I
have no doubt that the 117th Congress will conduct hearings and
possibly consider legislation regarding the integrity of our elections."
What
in the name of all Hell from Satan himself down to the smallest imp would cause ANYONE to think the Pelosi-Schumer
controlled Congress will do ANYTHING righteous about elections? If I
could have spontaneously combusted, I would have.
A War of Position
As I wrote the last time, what
we're facing is a "war of position" (as opposed to a "war of
movement"). We have to fight in trenches, inch by inch. It is a grueling
kind of fight. World War I come again. But that's what we've gotten
ourselves into because the Communists have been fighting a "war of
position" for over 70 years as they've moved through the institutions.
It's grim. But there it is.
I highly recommend listening to an Eric Mextaxas (at Rumble.com, finally) interview with John Zmirak. If I could transcribe large portions, I would. Zmirak points out that we are being turned into Hindu-style Untouchables. Working-class people appreciated Trump because although he imself is a billionaire, he identified with and supported the American Middle Class.
Here's an excerpt:
(Zmirak at 27:50) That score cuts across political lines. The REAL cultural divide in America is not ideological; it's a caste system. Some of us are...when Hillary Clinton used the word "Deplorables", what she really meant was Untouchables. The elites in America have formed a kind of Hindu-style caste system where there are some people who are of polite society, and they have certain ways and certain beliefs that don't even need to be discussed. "We don't even need to talk about that" (in a voice indicating elites). That can't talk about it because they have an incoherent world view where on the one hand they accept Darwinian competition and evolution and Natural Selection, as the only source of life on this planet. But on the other hand, they also want to parrot the rhetoric of the Civil Rights movement and Martin Luther King, which is entirely founded on Christianity.
So they have an utterly incoherent worldview that makes much less sense than Hinduism. Much less sense. Hinduism is rocket science compared to what the people of Dalton School or Yale now believe. But what is important is that they're status markers. "Oh, you're the kind of person who orders from Abercrombie and Fitch, and who goes to elite prep schools, and who lives in one of ten zip codes in America, where you don't even need a gun. We're all for gun control because live in safe neighborhoods. Doesn't everybody?"
The Left, AND elements of the Right, the Never Trump Right, the Neo-Cons in their time: these people ALL agree on who the right sort of person is. And who the wrong sort of person is. People who followed Donald Trump were like rebellious Untouchables, or Dalits, the Oppressed People of India, as they call themselves. Traditionally they could get only the most disgusting jobs: collecting corpses, dealing with animal wastes, always cleaning out public toilets. THAT is what they have in mind for us. And in order to put a veneer of morality over this and pretend that it is anything other than one tribe ruling another – the way the Spartan ruled their Helots – they use racism, they invoke racism. But they don't point to real racism. They don't point to real bigotry. The point to a Marxist definition racism, whereby any person who is white who benefits in any way about a thing that happens, even it it wasn't intended to be racially discriminatory. But Blacks and Asians and Muslims can murder people, but it's not racism because they're not in the dominant group. That is a Marxist definition of racism, which is unfortunately our Supreme Court wrote into law when the used the term "Disparate Impact" Any policy that has a disparate impact on people in different races,is judged to be racist, regardless of what the intent was. (30:51)
The entire interview is excellent.
An Préachán
