This is where the line gets crossed—from disagreement into gatekeeping. If reading the Constitution plainly becomes grounds for exclusion, then the issue isn’t the reader—it’s the system rejecting the text. You don’t have to agree with every interpretation to recognize that debate is part of the process. What’s happening here is different: it’s an attempt to declare certain arguments off-limits entirely. That’s not strength—it’s insecurity. Because confident systems engage, they don’t silence. And once you start deciding who’s “allowed” to hold certain views, you’re not defending institutions—you’re narrowing them. That’s a path that doesn’t end well.
Justice Clarence Thomas’ recent speech laid out in a most clear and stark manner how leftist Progressivism is wholly incompatible with the Declaration of Independence and our Constitution. That is the battle we are waging in this country today: whether we want to continue to adhere to the Constitutional Republic as framed by our founders, and maintain our inalienable rights and freedoms contained therein, or not.
The Left -worldwide - detests our Constitution, Declaration and most especially our Bill of Rights with the heat of thousand suns as these documents stand in direct opposition to their desired ends: instituting authoritarianism, if not absolute totalitarianism.
Our own Republican Congress appears to be aiding and abetting them in this pursuit, as they have shown nothing but detestable contempt for their own constituents, and most acutely over the last year and a half since Trump was re-elected President.
Justice Thomas warned we are perilously close to losing this country in the form in which it was intended.
I truly fear for the trajectory we appear to be on in what could well be our last, best days.
I'm NOT a bot and I concur with the sort of divide 'Suzie' outlined. 'Leftist' perspective, agenda, and methods is a real movement - worldwide! Well, at least the West. Non-free parts of the world, of course don't ALLOW such. Whatever Left's idea of 'America' should be, it does not correlate with Constitutional principles, though they are more than happy to be loud in the free space. What might have been merely liberal decades ago, has morphed into Progressivism; now the new 'democratic' socialists (see NYC, etc...) are seeking to dominate. There is a directional history in this ideological application playing-out. Control; more and more, then absolute.
My opinion here , this is why Democrats have spent 50+ years changing the American school system . If you cannot read the Constitution then you cannot interpret it properly ! Excellent analysis of how the election + electors work . Just remember our original documents are written in cursive writing !
This is the best explanation of why the election was not valid I've read in the six years since the election. The plain reading of the Constitution is clear. We are not a country of laws created by exigency or whims of the elected politicians or the unelected bureaucrat. The bounds were set and only a legislative process may change an election. Thank you!
What a perfect analogy. One so simple even a Democrat could understand it, if they wanted to.
In 2012, I filed a lawsuit against Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted in an effort to keep Barack Obama off our ballot because he was using a stolen Connecticut Social Security number. It included an 18-page Complaint and 83 pages of supporting documents.
ORC 111.24 says the OH Sec. of State was required to investigate if someone brought to his attention that fraud was involved. Husted refused. No one showed up for the hearing, and the lawsuit was dismissed three days later. The four-page Dismissal included this: "Plaintiff somehow equates use of an improper social security number as a disqualifying event..."
Thank-you for clearly delineating the issues leading to the controversy of the 2020 election. Most people appear to not know why many question the legitimacy of the election - and the procedures under which it was conducted.
Excellent as always. I’m sick of the Dems, RINOs, deep state, Uniparty whatever, twisting the words of Our Constitution for their benefit only. Even Supreme Court Justices seem to disregard what our founders wrote. They were brilliant men. I can’t make the same claim of the caliber of the men and women today.
Well written. Thank you! Another example as to how little meaning the Constitution has for democrats. Under Article 2 Biden was certified. Something Warsh explained. But, Alas, trying to communicate with chimpanzees can be difficult at times. And yes, this isn't the first time democrat chimps have attempted to vilify those believing in the Constitution.
I watched the witch hunt in its entirety yesterday. Asking whether he believed Trump won 2020 was not just irrelevant, but unconstitutional. Watching USAID FRAUD QUEEN Elizabeth Picahontas Warren yap made me nauseated. A stark reminder as to how much of an epic fail our Congress and DOJ has been. The only question that woman should be asking is if her fellow inmates can pass the soap!
No fed chair to date has ever been required to divulge specifically what their investments were. Just the amount and that they offload it within 90 days of assuming the chair. Liz knows this. They all do. Should they have to? I'd say the Constitution says no. Clarence Thomas very recently spoke on this very subject.
As presented, taking the Constitutional text literally, could this mean that in addition to state judiciary and executive officers being unable to supersede state election laws governing Federal elections, a governor is unable to veto state laws governing Federal elections?
This is where the line gets crossed—from disagreement into gatekeeping. If reading the Constitution plainly becomes grounds for exclusion, then the issue isn’t the reader—it’s the system rejecting the text. You don’t have to agree with every interpretation to recognize that debate is part of the process. What’s happening here is different: it’s an attempt to declare certain arguments off-limits entirely. That’s not strength—it’s insecurity. Because confident systems engage, they don’t silence. And once you start deciding who’s “allowed” to hold certain views, you’re not defending institutions—you’re narrowing them. That’s a path that doesn’t end well.
Justice Clarence Thomas’ recent speech laid out in a most clear and stark manner how leftist Progressivism is wholly incompatible with the Declaration of Independence and our Constitution. That is the battle we are waging in this country today: whether we want to continue to adhere to the Constitutional Republic as framed by our founders, and maintain our inalienable rights and freedoms contained therein, or not.
The Left -worldwide - detests our Constitution, Declaration and most especially our Bill of Rights with the heat of thousand suns as these documents stand in direct opposition to their desired ends: instituting authoritarianism, if not absolute totalitarianism.
Our own Republican Congress appears to be aiding and abetting them in this pursuit, as they have shown nothing but detestable contempt for their own constituents, and most acutely over the last year and a half since Trump was re-elected President.
Justice Thomas warned we are perilously close to losing this country in the form in which it was intended.
I truly fear for the trajectory we appear to be on in what could well be our last, best days.
Not with a bang, but a whimper...
Bot
I'm NOT a bot and I concur with the sort of divide 'Suzie' outlined. 'Leftist' perspective, agenda, and methods is a real movement - worldwide! Well, at least the West. Non-free parts of the world, of course don't ALLOW such. Whatever Left's idea of 'America' should be, it does not correlate with Constitutional principles, though they are more than happy to be loud in the free space. What might have been merely liberal decades ago, has morphed into Progressivism; now the new 'democratic' socialists (see NYC, etc...) are seeking to dominate. There is a directional history in this ideological application playing-out. Control; more and more, then absolute.
Censorship of "forbidden" arguments.
My opinion here , this is why Democrats have spent 50+ years changing the American school system . If you cannot read the Constitution then you cannot interpret it properly ! Excellent analysis of how the election + electors work . Just remember our original documents are written in cursive writing !
If you cannot read cursive, you cannot read the founding documents.
Wake up. We are in a soft civil war and the Constitution affords zero protection from those who will stop at nothing to seize and wield power.
Bravo and THANK YOU! May your argument be proclaimed more widely. May more leaders have real understanding of Constitutional principles.
Amen
https://foreignlocal.substack.com/p/how-joe-barely-won-the-presidency?r=2vnoe2&utm_medium=ios
Great article. I restacked as a reminder to all what the Dems did and got away with.
This is the best explanation of why the election was not valid I've read in the six years since the election. The plain reading of the Constitution is clear. We are not a country of laws created by exigency or whims of the elected politicians or the unelected bureaucrat. The bounds were set and only a legislative process may change an election. Thank you!
Outstanding once again!👏👏👏👏👏
Well done. Thank you!
What a perfect analogy. One so simple even a Democrat could understand it, if they wanted to.
In 2012, I filed a lawsuit against Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted in an effort to keep Barack Obama off our ballot because he was using a stolen Connecticut Social Security number. It included an 18-page Complaint and 83 pages of supporting documents.
ORC 111.24 says the OH Sec. of State was required to investigate if someone brought to his attention that fraud was involved. Husted refused. No one showed up for the hearing, and the lawsuit was dismissed three days later. The four-page Dismissal included this: "Plaintiff somehow equates use of an improper social security number as a disqualifying event..."
Thank you for doing this.
Beautiful! So well put I remain in awe. Thank you. And that doesn’t even fully address the actual cheating in computers and fake ballots. Oh my!
Thank-you for clearly delineating the issues leading to the controversy of the 2020 election. Most people appear to not know why many question the legitimacy of the election - and the procedures under which it was conducted.
Excellent as always. I’m sick of the Dems, RINOs, deep state, Uniparty whatever, twisting the words of Our Constitution for their benefit only. Even Supreme Court Justices seem to disregard what our founders wrote. They were brilliant men. I can’t make the same claim of the caliber of the men and women today.
Well written. Thank you! Another example as to how little meaning the Constitution has for democrats. Under Article 2 Biden was certified. Something Warsh explained. But, Alas, trying to communicate with chimpanzees can be difficult at times. And yes, this isn't the first time democrat chimps have attempted to vilify those believing in the Constitution.
I watched the witch hunt in its entirety yesterday. Asking whether he believed Trump won 2020 was not just irrelevant, but unconstitutional. Watching USAID FRAUD QUEEN Elizabeth Picahontas Warren yap made me nauseated. A stark reminder as to how much of an epic fail our Congress and DOJ has been. The only question that woman should be asking is if her fellow inmates can pass the soap!
No fed chair to date has ever been required to divulge specifically what their investments were. Just the amount and that they offload it within 90 days of assuming the chair. Liz knows this. They all do. Should they have to? I'd say the Constitution says no. Clarence Thomas very recently spoke on this very subject.
As presented, taking the Constitutional text literally, could this mean that in addition to state judiciary and executive officers being unable to supersede state election laws governing Federal elections, a governor is unable to veto state laws governing Federal elections?