IN SEARCH OF AN HONEST COURT

Alexander and Diogenes by Caspar de Crayer (c. 1650) By Gaspar de Crayer – Wallraf-Richartz Museum, Cologne, Public Domain, File:Caspar de Crayer Alexander and Diogenes.jpg – Wikimedia Commons

President Donald Trump is engaged in what could prove to be an exercise in futility, hunting for an honest court just as Diogenes once hunted for an honest man. Trump has been searching for an honest court to take his case, to honestly consider his case for election fraud. At this point, Trump has pinned his hopes on the challenge from Texas, 17 states back Texas, ask Supreme Court to hear election challenge – Washington Times.

Trump places hopes in longshot lawsuit seeking to overturn election results – MarketWatch

Has the state of Texas put together a good case for setting aside the election results in Georgia, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania? This is one of those occasions we each have to decide for ourselves. Since the so-called mainstream media has offered a torrent of ridicule, I will just point to some conservative publications and suggest you read what Texas has put together.

Also, here is the email I sent to my congressman. My senators are rabid Democrats.

Dear Congressman Rob Wittman

Thus far you have been quiet about the charges of unconstitutionally run elections and election fraud in a number of key swing states. Yet we all know that what went down in Georgia, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and several other states reeks to high heaven. Unfortunately, no court wants to take on the challenge posed by fraudulent election of Joe Biden, the first candidate to run a winning presidential campaign from his basement. No court wants to seriously consider the evidence and the unconstitutional nature of the elections run in key states. Why? Too many elected Republican are too risk adverse. Unlike President Donald Trump, they won’t fight.

If Biden wins the White House as the result of such blatant election fraud then the trend is clear. Our constitutional republic is collapsing, and no one will be safe. So, at this point not one of us has anything to lose. As Benjamin Franklin once said: either we hang together, or we will most assuredly hang separately.

Sir, we cannot allow the precedents set by this election to stand. We know how to run an honest election, but this one looks like Democrats used the 2005 Carter-Baker Report as a road map to cheat -> https://www.dailysignal.com/2020/11/20/7-ways-the-2005-carter-baker-report-could-have-averted-problems-with-2020-election/.

Democrats boldly proclaim “there is no evidence”. When Democrat did not follow the rules provided by our Constitution, why do need evidence? When Democrats refused to allow poll observers, when the rules require them to allow poll observers, why do we need evidence?

Because Democrats did not follow the rules that would have assured the integrity of the election, we have no reason to believe the results. As it is, there is plenty of evidence and abundant reason to be suspicious.

As an elected official you have an obligation to do your best to ensure the integrity of our election systems. That includes putting some steel in the spines of wavering members of the Supreme Court. Unless we all speak up, especially leaders like yourself, not enough good people will have the courage to resist then encroachment of tyranny.

December 10, 2020 email

Another thought. Why didn’t the Liberal Democrat news media tell us about this before the election?

BONUS! Who is Diogenes of Sinope | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (utm.edu), and what did he have to do with Alexander the Great? Plutarch | Biography, Works, & Facts | Britannica told this story.

Thereupon many statesmen and philosophers came to Alexander with their congratulations, and he expected that Diogenes of Sinope also, who was tarrying in Corinth, would do likewise. But since that philosopher took not the slightest notice of Alexander, and continued to enjoy his leisure in the suburb Craneion, Alexander went in person to see him; and he found him lying in the sun. Diogenes raised himself up a little when he saw so many people coming towards him, and fixed his eyes upon Alexander. And when that monarch addressed him with greetings, and asked if he wanted anything, “Yes,” said Diogenes, “stand a little out of my sun.”[7] It is said that Alexander was so struck by this, and admired so much the haughtiness and grandeur of the man who had nothing but scorn for him, that he said to his followers, who were laughing and jesting about the philosopher as they went away, “But truly, if I were not Alexander, I wish I were Diogenes.”

Diogenes and Alexander – Wikipedia

Diogenes is more famous for his search for an honest man. Diogenes never did find an honest man. Did Diogenes fail because he was cynic, or was he a cynic because he failed to find an honest man? The Bible says there has only been one honest, good man. So, perhaps Diogenes had cause for his cynicism. The Bible also has a few choice words about judges.

41 thoughts on “IN SEARCH OF AN HONEST COURT

    1. @tsalmon

      Thanks to people like you, none of us have any reason to trust the election results. That includes you. You may like the results, but you have no reason to believe they are real. The best you can do is act appalled that anyone would dare to question the results.

      The judicial rulings have just been dumb. Judges are not saints. They don’t want to take the heat, but they want the prestige.

      Here is a rare example of a court that finally observed the obvious, but they still did nothing.
      https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/republicans-say-thousands-in-wisconsin-may-have-circumvented-voter-id-requirement

      Click to access 20ap557-SC-order-3.31.20.pdf

      If you drastically flout, change or destroy the “process” so that your ideology always wins, you may think that you have made the system more righteous, but you have not. Why? Because you no longer have “due process” and, because the Constitution is mostly about process, you no longer have a Constitutional government – you eventually have a totalitarian state governed by a deterministic ideological manifesto by the pure political power of an oligarchy or a person. You think that you understand the Constitution because you have a simplistic ideological understanding of what you want it to be, but you don’t really understand what the Constitution is actually – a complex “process” that defines and binds numerous democratic institutions of our constitutional republic into predictable structural powers and protections from the role of the courts to the role of the press to the role of voting, all in constant state of incremental flux and evolutionary change to adapt to an ever changing technological, economic and cultural environment. That’s what I believe in. That’s what I swore an oath to defend. That’s what you simply refuse to understand.

      You write that, but you don’t believe it. If you are not voting for people who drastically flout, change or destroy the “process” so that YOUR ideology always wins, then it is impossible to drastically flout, change or destroy the “process” so that your ideology always wins.

      Look at what you voted for.

      • No voter ID.
      • No signature requirement for mail-in ballots.
      • Blasting out mail-in ballots to everyone on the voter rolls, never bothering to even check whether the voters on the list are still alive.
      • Ballot harvesting.
      • Keeping the minority party from monitoring the ballot count.
      • And so forth.

      But you care so much. So, it must be okay. Everyone else is so dumb, and you vote for CNN’s choices. So, it is okay. You accused me first, right? So, it must be okay.

      Slavery is when you can make decisions for other people that they should be making for themselves. That is what you are voting for.

      If someone thinks abortion and same sex marriage are wrong, you have no business forcing them and their children to support such things. You insist upon government educating other people’s children, unless they wealthy enough to send their children to private schools and still pay exorbitant taxes.

      You don’t have the wisdom to know when life starts, and it is stupidly unscientific to say people of the same sex are married. You also don’t have the wisdom to tell other people how to educate their children, whether they agree with you or not. Yet you vote for such nonsense, and you play games with words to justify yourself. You attack your opponent relentlessly. Because you cannot justify yourself, you attack. That just an abuse of language, not smart.

      Some things are good. Some things are evil. It is not nice to call what is good evil and what it evil good. It may take awhile, but doing evil hurts the person who does evil. So, we do no one any favors by pretending that doing evil does no harm. But when you vote for people who support abortion, same-sex marriage, transgendering children, government charity, voting by mail, secularizing education, and so forth that is what you do, and it is not okay just because you are clever and unrelenting on the attack.

      Like

      1. “You write that, but you don’t believe it. If you are not voting for people who drastically flout, change or destroy the ‘process’ so that YOUR ideology always wins, then it is impossible to drastically flout, change or destroy the ‘process’ so that your ideology always wins.”

        I’m sorry, Tom, but that argument is circular to the point that I’m getting dizzy. What specifically about court “due process” do you think makes it inevitable that Democrats have a predetermined win? It sounds like you are saying that you object to any “process”, even if that process guarantees you a fair hearing of the evidence (if you simply bring that evidence to that process) and even if that process affords you a juris prudential ruling based upon the court system’s determination of existing law, but instead you will only accept a result that allows you to come to court without evidence and even if that court ruling runs counter to law, due process Civil Procedure Rules, existing precedent and the clear language of the Constitution. You are sorely mistaken if you think that this is how our Constitution works.

        Read up on both the “due process” protections of the Constitution. Most of the Founders and Framers were lawyers. Why do you think it was included in the 5th Amendment of the original Bill of Rights? Why do you think that it is emphasized and repeated in the 14th Amendment? You claim to be a Natural Rights advocate – how do you think “due process” fits into your Natural Rights scheme, either as a Natural Right itself or as a guarantor of Natural Rights?

        “Look at what you voted for.
        No voter ID.
        No signature requirement for mail-in ballots.
        Blasting out mail-in ballots to everyone on the voter rolls, never bothering to even check whether the voters on the list are still alive.
        Ballot harvesting.
        Keeping the minority party from monitoring the ballot count.
        And so forth.”

        I voted for these things? Let me remind you again that at least two of the states being challenged are wholly Republican run and others are partly Republican run. Many of these voting criteria that you want were carried out in your challenged elections and each of your votingissues are debatable as free, fair and necessary, even among Republicans. Utah voted for Trump and it is a total mail-in state, but, conveniently, you are not challenging Utah’s presumably fraudulent Trump win.

        Again this argument is so dumb and so outrageously inconsistent that it leaves the head spinning in its capricious audacity.

        Like

        1. @tsalmon

          The Constitutional issues are not mysterious, and I am tired of arguing with you.

          You complain you are dizzy? Not to worry. Do you stand for anything? Or are you just constantly spinning? Then sit in an office chair and you will be fine.

          Do you have to stand against people who would thwart your hidden agenda? Well, you have a huge advantage. If you don’t know what you stand for no one else will either.

          Like

          1. Tom,

            It’s just as well. We are both just circling at this point. Perhaps you are not dizzy because you inner sense of balance has collapsed. 🥴

            Anyway, for me at least, all this is moot. I only hope that someday you will give up this political nihilism, and move on as well.

            “Do you have to stand against people who would thwart your hidden agenda? Well, you have a huge advantage. If you don’t know what you stand for no one else will either.”

            I have always been clear about what I stand for, you just don’t recognize it. You also don’t recognize that what you think you stand for is not real, whereas mine lives and breaths as a working reality every day all around us. It is so much a blessing hiding plain sight that you don’t appreciate it anymore.

            God bless you and Merry Christmas. I’ll call you soon and we’ll catch up on other things.

            Like

          2. @tsalmon

            Anyway, for me at least, all this is moot. I only hope that someday you will give up this political nihilism, and move on as well.

            Coming from a Democrat, that is funny. I still remember what happened after Trump won in 2016.

            But resist we much. We must and we will much about that be committed. — Al Sharpton

            The only person with the power to settle anything permanently is God.

            Merry Christmas and Happy New Year! May God bless you and yours.

            Like

  1. This evening SCOTUS voted 9-0, including all three Trump appointees, essentially dismissed the case due to lack of justiciable standing. Two justices, Alito and Thomas, would allow the complaint to be filed, but still would have found no standing if it were allowed to be filed.

    Like

    1. @tsalmon

      Yeah. I heard the news. Life goes on. Another lesson in trusting in the Lord, I suppose.

      We could say you have lost your standing with me. It would be just about as meaningful and appropriate. In your case, you have gone well beyond where I want to go.

      Is this your preference? Seems to be.

      Better to reign in Hell, than to serve in Heaven. ― John Milton, Paradise Lost

      You have most certainly won a Pyrrhic victory, but I doubt you understand that.

      Was taking complaints about unconstitutional election laws/regulations and the election fraud to the courts ever a good idea? No. We take our cases to court in desperation, not as a matter of preference.

      Even though you clearly don’t regard it as such, the situation is desperate. Even if we had no other clue than their willingness to set aside any regard for maintaining the integrity of the election, that would be enough reason to suspect Democrats stole the election. What is the point of an election if the results are not believable? We counted all the votes! Even the illegal votes?

      Whether you like it or not, you must trust me. I am a Democrat, and we know best.

      That is the utter silliness of what you are demanding.

      The Constitution is not a suicide pack. It was not intended to bind together people who would sell their freedom with those who regard their freedom as precious. You have your own notion of happiness? It differs from mine. Then pursue it at your own expense, and I will happily pursue my definition of happiness at my own expense. Instead, you vote for unscrupulous people who impose their will upon your opponents in the name of love. Ooohhhhhh,,… they care so much! And by extension so do you❤. How could anyone dare disagree with or criticize anything you stand for! You love, and your enemies are hateful.

      Unfortunately, the judges would not take the case. Why? I don’t read minds. At best the judges admitted that they did not have a solution. Admittedly, much of the citizenry of our nation is corrupt, and that is a problem for the churches, not the courts. Yet, because churches are made up of sinners, we still have policemen, courts and prisons.

      I don’t have a perfect solution. I hope yours works out for you, but there is no reason to believe it will.

      Like

      1. Tom,

        I knew that SCOTUS would not take up the case and I told you so. It was obvious to anyone who knew anything about the law that it was always frivolous.

        And yet the Republican attorney general of Texas (currently under investigation by the FBI and under indictment by Texas authorities), the Republican Attorney Generals of numerous other states, over a hundred Republican members of Congress, and the POTUS signed on to this mockery of the Rule of Law and lead you and other Republicans to believe it was worthwhile and solicited your money to prosecute it. And yet you believe I, your brother, a fellow Christian who loves you, am the one who is lying to you.

        Like

          1. You’re five years older than I am big brother. If I’d have ridiculed you when you were on high school, you’d have kicked my butt all over the place.😄

            Like

          2. @tsalmon

            Do I care if you ridicule me? Yeah! Of course, I do, but it really doesn’t matter so long a God doesn’t think poorly of me. So, that is not the ridicule I spoke of. You are belittling everyone who disagrees with you. So, you are not listening. Who listens to people they are busy making fun of?

            Do you have an open mind? No. Is that all bad? No. An open mind is not necessarily a good thing. Once we find a source unworthy of our attention, there is not much point in listening to it. Hence, I don’t take the so-called mainstream news media as seriously as I once did. The Bible tells us to renew our minds by dwelling upon truth and beauty, not the deceits of liars.

            So, what thoughts do you allow your mind to dwell upon? Are you actually focusing your thoughts upon what is beautiful and true? Have you tested the spirits of those you listen to?

            1 John 4:1-6 New American Standard Bible

            4 Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. 2 By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God; 3 and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God; this is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming, and now it is already in the world. 4 You are from God, little children, and have overcome them; because greater is He who is in you than he who is in the world. 5 They are from the world, therefore they speak as from the world, and the world listens to them. 6 We are from God. The one who knows God listens to us; the one who is not from God does not listen to us. By this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error.

            To some the Apostle of Love must have been arrogant fellow. However, it might be worth your trouble to figure out what John preached for and against. What were the spirits of his day? How much are those same spirits growing today? What, for example, was an “abortion” like in John’s day?

            Why do you spend so much time ridiculing others instead of advocating or defending your beliefs? That is what the people you listen to do. They cannot logically defend their own political positions. So, they create effigies of their opponents, teach us to hate those effigies, and verbally burn their opponents in effigy. Hence, the people who oppose your “news sources” learn to be afraid and for good reason.

            Like

          3. Tom,

            Defend my beliefs? I have on numerous occasions, but this is no longer a matter of “beliefs”, the essence of which we actually differ on unsubstantially. No, at this point, we are dealing with psychological differences over how we each view the basic institutional construction of our modern state. You see grievance and tyranny everywhere. I see blessings and privilege. You see fundamental ideological failure everywhere and I see a fragile fundamental institutional success.

            Your post above is about finding a fair court to arbitrate your alleged grievances against the validity of the election result. But you’ve had your day in court, several dozen times, often before Trump appointee judges and justices, and all these frivolous efforts have failed. Have you actually researched why? If I had a hired attorney who told me that I had a valid justiciable case and yet he lost for me over and over again in numerous courts, even before politically friendly judges, I would lose faith in my attorneys and fire them. I would think that I never had a case and that they were just lying to me for the sake of money and fame. However, does the fact that the Trump attorneys and their Republican cohorts and enablers keep failing over and over bother you? It appears not. Why? Defend YOUR beliefs?

            Does it bother you that every official who must investigate these claims of fraud and certify the election results, including Republicans and Trump appointees, have said, despite the fact that it happened in pandemic, that the election was fair and free of any fraud that would substantially effect the result? Why? Defend your beliefs?

            These election officials, especially the Republican ones, are defending the integrity of their elections at great political and personal risk? Why would they do that if it were not true? Defend your beliefs?

            Debunking conspiracy theories is like playing whac a mole or cutting the head off a hydra. As soon as I or MW knock one down, or cut one off, several more crop up, and that the big one, the supposed “smoking gun, was debunked is soon forgotten, nor does it seem to shake the confidence of you and others here in those who lie to you over and over and over. Why defend these cult like beliefs?

            This is the problem with negative confirmation bias – a thousand “at-a-boys” can be be wiped out by one small “oh shit”, or in this case, even the most ridiculous, rapidly debunked allegation of an “oh shit”. If you really, really, really want to believe you won, if you really, really, really want to believe your own propaganda that a Biden win means the end of capitalism and democracy and the beginning of some communist tyranny, then, at some point, you will not be convinced by any argument, will you? The other side are all brilliant diabolical demons and your poor side are all poor victims. Even though your own elections officials are telling you otherwise, even though you have had your days in (often friendly) courts over and over again only to have those courts tell you that these allegations lack substantial evidence, you refuse to be convinced, don’t you? Why? Defend your beliefs?

            You are a thought leader here Tom. At some point, you will have to decide to act like a leader. At some point you will need to decide if the game is more important than just winning. At some point, you will need to decide if the sloppy, rawkus, imperfect institutions of democracy are more important than one party and one version of one political ideology’s dominating the government.

            You call it “ridicule”. I call it satire. (Something that your namesake on this blog was famous for). When facts and evidence are less important than ideology, then that is what we are left to, isn’t it? As you know, it is very hard to ridicule the truly righteous. If your facts and evidence were truly righteous instead of preposterous and constantly being debunked and thrown out of court, then you would be ridiculing me for believing conspiracy theories and nonsense, now wouldn’t you? (Wasn’t ridicule one of your favorite ploys to debunk what you felt was Mueller’s Russia investigation hoax?). And you’d be right to resort to ridicule if the results were exactly the same, but for a Trump win, and it was I who kept pointing to easily debunked conspiracies to contest it (and perhaps I’d be just as annoyed as you are). 😉

            Like

          4. @tsalmon

            You did not defend your beliefs. You attacked mine, and you can’t see the difference. Let summarize what you wrote.
            1. Tom has psychological problems. He sees the cup half empty.
            2. Trump’s case is frivolous. Proof is the courts are not interested.
            3. Tom has not investigated anything. He should trust the people Trump’s team has accused. Trust the authorities who have weakened our election system to the point of absurdity?
            4. Trump peddles conspiracy theories. Russia! Russia! Russia! on the other hand, was just the truth. Not cult like at all.
            5. At some time Tom needs to give up and accept the mark of the beast.
            6. Anti-Trump news, all we have heard from the so-called mainstream news media for over four years, is righteous. Unlike Russia! Russia! Russia! Trump’s accusations are cultic nonsense ripe for satire. Tom should be ashamed for even considering the possibility Trump might be right. After all, Democrats like Joe Biden are honorable people who only want to sell the organs of aborted babies, not adult political prisoners like the Chinese Communists.

            Besides throwing Trump’s case out of court without a serious investigation, what belief did you defend?

            Like

          5. “You did not defend your beliefs.”

            I did not pretend to. You post is about your wish to challenge the results of the election. That is your belief and your burden of proof to provide, not mine. I’m happy with the election. The Election officials officials, including Republican Trump supporters, after investigating, found no credible evidence of election fraud. Trump’s DOJ found no credible evidence of fraud substantial enough to overturn the results. The Courts have not been presented with any evidence credible enough to even hear the cases.

            “You attacked mine, and you can’t see the difference.”

            I challenged your assumptions, yes. Perhaps it’s the lawyer in me that thinks this is how it works, but even as a scientist, when you present a theory and subject it to challenge, don’t you have the burden of defending it?

            “Let summarize what you wrote.
            1. Tom has psychological problems. He sees the cup half empty.”

            Not the way that I would put it. Someone can have a certain psychology without necessarily having a psychological problem just as one can have a certain taste for food without having a food problem. It only becomes a problem if it hurts their health and ability to function, and all such things are a matter of obsession and degree, don’t you think?

            “2. Trump’s case is frivolous. Proof is the courts are not interested.

            I assume you mean “truth is”, but yes, Trump’s claims are indeed frivolous and thus the Courts are indeed therefore not interested.

            “3. Tom has not investigated anything. He should trust the people Trump’s team has accused. Trust the authorities who have weakened our election system to the point of absurdity?”

            Have you investigated? Which authorities? Do elections become weaken ti the point of absurdity only when your side looses? How convenient?

            “4. Trump peddles conspiracy theories. Russia! Russia! Russia! on the other hand, was just the truth. Not cult like at all.”

            That a Russian military computer skunkworks interfered in our election is what Trump’s own DNI said. That Trump’s own Campaign Chairman provided privileged RNC polling data to a known Russian agent is a fact supported by confession evidence. I could go on, but it’s beside the point. Let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that “Russia, Russia, Russia” was a baseless conspiracy theory, a complete hoax – how does that prove that Biden stole the election? This is like a man saying that, because his wife’s accusation that he is cheating on her is unfounded, it proves that she is cheating on him. The two allegations stand or fall on their own merits – one neither proves nor disproves the other.

            “5. At some time Tom needs to give up and accept the mark of the beast.”

            “The mark of the beast”? Maybe you should start with a nice tattoo of a fish like our brother John?

            “6. Anti-Trump news, all we have heard from the so-called mainstream news media for over four years, is righteous.”

            This too is a non sequitur to a court case of election fraud, but let’s humor it for a moment because it is an assumption worth spending more time on. Let’s say you lived in a country where the leader had authoritarian tendencies (but unlike Trump, was actually competent). Let’s say that that leader constantly lied and condemned the press as biased for not going along with his lies. Let’s say that he called them the “enemy of the people” and condemned them as “fake news” for just reporting the truth and fact checking that leader’s constant lies and wild and hateful conspiracy theories. Would you be surprised if the free press fought back? Would you be surprised if a free press were openly biased against such a leader? Are you surprised that what is left of the free press is fighting back against the rulers in places like Hong Kong, Russia and the Philippines? Do you just happen to like the lies in Trump’s case as long as he panders to your ideological hatreds. There are people in Russia, China and the Philippines who like the lies of the authoritarian leaders there too, don’t you think?

            “Unlike Russia! Russia! Russia! Trump’s accusations are cultic nonsense ripe for satire.”

            Now you nailed it!

            “Tom should be ashamed for even considering the possibility Trump might be right.”

            You are responsible for your own shame, but we have kind of gotten beyond the point of shame with Trump worship here, haven’t we?

            “After all, Democrats like Joe Biden are honorable people who only want to sell the organs of aborted babies, not adult political prisoners like the Chinese Communists.”

            I object to the premise and form of the statement. But it is also irrelevant to whether there actually WAS/IS any evidence of any election fraud or conspiracy broad enough to sway the election, only to your psychological need for there to be fraud even if there isn’t. Put another way, even if you believe some nonsense that Joe Biden personally aborts babies and eats them for breakfast, it does not mean he stole the election – it just means that you desperately want to believe one thing because you strangely believe the other. Fortunately, such beliefs don’t hold much weight in court.

            “Besides throwing Trump’s case out of court without a serious investigation, what belief did you defend?”

            In the case of the most recent SCOTUS dismissal, I thought that the court would throw Trump’s claims out of court because the plaintiffs lacked standing and failed to bring a justiciable cause for which the Supremes had jurisdiction, I told you so and they did just that. That’s not my “belief” or an assertion requiring my or their “investigation” – that’s just basic constitutional law 101. (The more important question for you is why did your Republican leadership lie to you about something so summarily obvious to me and any first year law student?). As to all the other dozens of cases that the courts have thrown out to this point, the Trump plaintiffs have failed to bring any evidence or even an actionable cause for fraud or anything else. This is the basic Rules of Civil Procedure standard for dismissal. Courts don’t “investigate”. That’s not how it works bro. How many time do I have to say that before it sinks in?

            This is simply how our constitutional institutions work, how they have always worked. Institutional justice is not about right always winning or the process being perfect – institutional justice is about having a decent (albeit imperfect) and well know institutional “process” at all. This is why “due process” is mentioned in two Amendments of the Constitution (the 5th and the 14th). It connects and binds everything else together. It is its own field of Constitutional law that effects every single other area, including the democratic institution of voting in each state.

            The stability of rules predictability and process confidence is more important than perfect calls and perfect outcomes. Increment process change to address truly unjust outcomes (the American Revolution) is always preferable to the insecurity and chaos that follows from throwing out the whole process and starting over (the French Revolution).

            If you drastically flout, change or destroy the “process” so that your ideology always wins, you may think that you have made the system more righteous, but you have not. Why? Because you no longer have “due process” and, because the Constitution is mostly about process, you no longer have a Constitutional government – you eventually have a totalitarian state governed by a deterministic ideological manifesto by the pure political power of an oligarchy or a person. You think that you understand the Constitution because you have a simplistic ideological understanding of what you want it to be, but you don’t really understand what the Constitution is actually – a complex “process” that defines and binds numerous democratic institutions of our constitutional republic into predictable structural powers and protections from the role of the courts to the role of the press to the role of voting, all in constant state of incremental flux and evolutionary change to adapt to an ever changing technological, economic and cultural environment. That’s what I believe in. That’s what I swore an oath to defend. That’s what you simply refuse to understand.

            Like

  2. “The Constitution requires the Federal Government to guarantee every state a republican form of government. When states start holding unconstitutional and fraudulent elections, that affects all of us. That is why so many have signed on to the Texas lawsuit.”

    Nonsense. As usual my brother, you don’t know the law. Show me a case that supports the right of Texas to tell Georgia how to vote, even where Texas does not have, as now, virtually the same voting procedures that they are complaining about?

    The Founders and Framers made voting rights a matter of federal protection (not state to state protection) and only then allowed under violations of the post Civil War Amendments and the federal laws empowered by those Amendments. The states have no standing to bring this case and they have no factual claim of damages. The Founders would have been horrified by the very idea of New York telling Virginia how to vote for their electors. This isn’t even close to being constitutional, by any view of constitutional review, much less the originalism you claim to support.

    This is why the Supremes probably won’t even here it. But the fact that it will fail even under the limited government ideology you purport to believe will make no difference to you will it? Is this really about any principles any more Tom? Or is it just nursing an overwhelming rage and hatred?

    Like

    1. @tsalmon

      The states have no standing to bring this case and they have no factual claim of damages.

      If Democrats steal a federal election, especially a presidential election, citizens in the other states don’t suffer, and their Attorney Generals have no standing? I suppose you also think Republicans are not damaged because a Democrat is elected, but Democrats are damaged if a Republican is elected, especially Trump, so the end justifies the means.

      As I recall, YOU said the Constitution says whatever the Supreme Court says it says. What are you going to do if the court rules in favor of Texas?

      Me? I think I will just read the Constitution and try to understand what the Framers must have had in mind. Its easier to explain why I believe what I believe. I don’t have to constantly keep changing my story.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. “If Democrats steal a federal election, especially a presidential election, citizens in the other states don’t suffer, and their Attorney Generals have no standing?”

        Even assuming that those unsubstantiated allegations were true, the short answer is “no”. You of all people must know that every “perceived” wrong does not create a remedy at law, nor is the federal court, a court of “limited” jurisdiction, always the place to go when the POTUS is just a whiny big loser. Who are you and what have you done with my limited federal government, federalist brother?

        “I suppose you also think Republicans are not damaged because a Democrat is elected, but Democrats are damaged if a Republican is elected, especially Trump, so the end justifies the means.”

        No, again. But examine the point that you are making. If Trump had actually gotten elected, but through unproven allegations of widespread fraud or voter suppression in certain states where the Democrats either completely controlled or controlled the legislatures where the laws were written. and all Federal District Court and state court avenues failed because the Dems did not even allege fraud or they failed to provide the slightest proof, do you think that a Democrat controlled SCOTUS, disregarding the limits imposed by the Constitution and all legal precedent, should just ignore the will of the people and decide the election for Biden instead? Come on brother – you must smell at least a whiff of the giant pile of hypocrisy you are spreading around here?

        “YOU said the Constitution says whatever the Supreme Court says it says.”

        Yes, and that’s why SCOTUS probably won’t even hear the case, and if they do, it will be only to rule against Trump.

        I’m not naive brother. I know that the Court can be political. They were in Bush v Gore. But they need at least a fig leaf of law to cover up their politics. In Bush v Gore, ironically, the Republican Supremes said it was because the (Republican) Secretary of State in Florida had called an end to ballot counting, and they deferred to the states in such matters.

        “What are you going to do if the court rules in favor of Texas?
        Me? I think I will just read the Constitution and try to understand what the Framers must have had in mind. Its easier to explain why I believe what I believe. I don’t have to constantly keep changing my story.”

        Ah, but you are very obviously changing your story, and it’s sad that you don’t realize your ideological inconsistency, and/or even sadder if you just don’t care. Are you sure that you are not an angry space alien posing as Tom?

        Like

    1. Rudy,

      That it is futile will be proven when the Supremes refuse to consider an issue that is such a supremely political question, in other words, not a matter of law, but of naked political power. The reasons for this are not that complex, but they require a longer explanation than I have time for and likely you would not believe me anyway. For a full explanation, the responses from the states who have been sued, some of which come from Republican officials who are bewildered to have to defend a sham lawsuit supported by man they voted for.

      This is dangerous and seditious in the same way that the Confederate rebellion was dangerous and seditious. Similarly to Pre-Civil War Democrats. the Republican leadership out of pure political cynicism or because they are cowed by cowardice to stand up for what is morally right, are demagoguing their constituents on the law and failing to lead by example, but instead are falling in line like pathetic lemmings to lead their party over a cliff.

      For those of you here who know better and for all your Republican leaders who do know better, that this suit violates the law land the inherent federalism in the Constitution and just basic respect for the fundamental institutions of our Republic, shame on you.

      For those of you here who don’t get that, I am sorry for you because you are being very poorly led.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. @tsalmon

        Shooting the messenger as usual. Pathetic!

        No matter how much Democrats corrupt our election system using tolerance, convenience, public safety, and the utterly naïve belief that no one cheats as excuses, Democrats are supposed to be immune to criticism? We are supposed to make self righteous Democrats happy and ignore the unambiguous evidence because you do? We are supposed to accept the inevitable tyranny? And we supposed to accept insults, for daring to create strife by opposing election stealing, from the party that started the American Civil War? Well, Democrats may win, but in that case we will all lose anyway. So, I can only speak for myself, but I think I will continue to fight.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. Tom,

          “Pathetic” indeed good brother and sad too. What “evidence”? The pathetic excuses that our courts keep throwing out.

          “Fight” for what brother? What ideal? The law? Nope, not even close. Morality? Nonsense, this became an immoral corrupt scam long ago. You are fighting for nothing right now, nothing except for a con artist who wants to maintain his grift at all costs.

          This is not conservativism. This is not federalism. This is not even close to anything resembling what is Christian anymore.

          This is a pure tribal attempt at an illegal power grab, a bloodless attempt (for now) at an unconstitutional coup d’tat. It is the ultimate consequence of four years of Republican moral surrender to the ends justifying any means at all costs to any principles we all hold dear. (The sad part is that most Republicans know this and are going along as a matter of political survival, praying that the immoral dog that they are riding won’t actually catch the car it is chasing).

          This will fail in a Republican controlled Court because the Court knows that it will destroy the Rule of Law that empowers them and it will therefore destroy the country if it does not fail. It will fail, not because of your demonized Democrats, but because a few Republican leaders of good conscience stand up against it. And they will pay for that exercise of good conscience dearly – you yourself will flog and crucify them, won’t you?

          When it fails, will no one here learn anything from it? Like the losers of the Civil War learned nothing from their loss in the cause of slavery and instead nursed their sad grievances for another hundred years at the expense of so many wasted black lives, will you learn nothing? Will you, like them, continue to pick the scab of sick sense of lost privileges, will you learn nothing?

          Where is the wisdom? It is very sad, but maybe it is something that we need to go through. Maybe we must do this to be a warning for future generations. Maybe this is part of what we must go through to ultimately be purified in the light.

          Read the responses of Republican officials in Georgia. Read the holding of the courts, some appointed by Trump, who threw these cases out. None of us here are too old to learn. As long as we breath, it is not too late to let go of hatred and grievance and take up a righteous and loving path. 🙁

          Like

          1. @tsalmon

            I read you. You have provided no evidence you care about either the Constitution or the evidence of election fraud. Just endless ridicule and insults. Just endless examples that the cool kids have spoken.

            1. Did Democrats throw out every rule that they could that was designed to maintain election integrity? Was the 2005 Carter-Baker Report effectively used as a road map for cheating?

            2. In order to throw out rules designed to maintain election integrity, did Democrats violate Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution?

            3. Did numerous states suddenly stopped counting in the middle of the night, and after that Biden was winning?

            4. Were Republican poll observers allowed to do their jobs?

            5. Are there numerous witnesses of cheating and/or illegal conduct?

            6. Have the Big Media and Big Tech been so blatantly biased it would be stupid to trust them? Where is the evidence the big news media investigated anything related to election fraud? Supposedly, it did not exist. Now it is just significant enough.

            7. Do we have clear evidence Biden and other Democrats have accepted bribes from foreigners?

            8. Does tsalmon discuss issues or issue ridicule?

            9. And so forth.

            At this point the notion Democrats care about anything except grabbing for power is a joke. Yet you are still issuing ridicule. Pathetic!
            https://melwild.wordpress.com/2020/12/07/the-most-trusted-name-in-news/

            Liked by 1 person

          2. “I read you. You have provided no evidence you care about either the Constitution or the evidence of election fraud.”

            Why do I have the burden of proof here? I mean do I have the burden of proving that space aliens didn’t change the vote simply because someone said that they know someone who said they saw space space aliens do it? I’m not a space alien and even if I were, it would still be up to you to prove your case if you are the one bringing it. In Georgia, you even have a friendly Republican administration that hates illegal aliens, and yet they are the ones you are suing yourselves.

            Like

          3. “Just endless examples that the cool kids have spoken.”

            You really need to move beyond high school Tom. I mean, I’ll get over the, uhhh, insult(?) of being called a cool kid, but seriously bro, this is not healthy in the long run. Life has too many blessings to stay enraged about such things.

            Like

      2. TSalmon,

        Thanks for your reply. Frankly, you appear to have greater knowledge than I have about the legalities of the issue in regards to lagalities.
        .
        However, it just seems so simple in my mind to fix rather than start another Civil War for the next few years.
        The States that changed the election rules did it without following the law in a quick first-time mass use of millions of votes.

        Why not just set up minimum rules to be able to verify ballots. If they want to mail in votes than have the signatures
        checked on a machine setting that everyone agrees to use in conformity.

        If they don’t have machines to check signatures, then they are not capable of using mail in ballots.

        So simple, why make it so complicated with all kinds of law jargon or low opinions?

        In private manufacturing industry, all kinds of problems arose every day that were not anticipated and resulted in defective goods.
        So, when it happened, or something broke down, or an idea that seemed good turned out sour or bad, we just sat down together in a group and figured out how to fix the problem and then moved on.

        Sad.

        Thanks again,

        Regards and goodwill blogging.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. Rudy,

          I like your answer. So let’s break this down a little.

          Like when things change in business, we change to handle the new contingencies and emergencies. We are in a pandemic that is taking lives and overwhelming hospitals at an increasing rate. In at least a couple of cases of the states being sued here, the new voting laws were passed by Republican controlled legislatures and in the case of Georgia, not only passed by a Republican controlled legislature, but signed by a Republican Governor.

          As far as the procedures for voting, such as with signatures, what you say sounds logical, but it depends upon what your goal is and what trade offs you are willing to make. For example, I signed something when I registered, but people, myself included, don’t always sign everything the same way, and people’s signatures change over time. Unless you hired a battery of hand writing experts to ensure perfect authenticity, is your real purpose the technicality of a perfect match to disqualify voters based upon that technicality, or to have people sign so that the penalty for fraud is greater? Average people don’t just not shoplift because they don’t think they can get away with it, they don’t shoplift because they are good people who believe in the law and because they know that the risk is not worth the reward.

          Other questions about making voting easier are more difficult, depending upon your moral and political philosophy:

          1. How easy do we want to make it for poor people, even homeless people, to vote?

          2. Should a working person have to forego income or risk firing simply to exercise their right to vote?

          3. How much do more stringent rules and restrictions on polling places particularly disenfranchise minority communities?

          I could go on, but I am not the best person to go to. Go to the officials in charge of these elections and see what they have said. In particular, see what the Lieutenant Governor, the Secretary of State and the Chief election official of Georgia, all Republicans, have said. They have not exactly been quiet in defending their election.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. Tsalmon,

            Thanks again for your comments and point of view.
            I wrote a post today kind of what we have been discussing which I titled: Scotus Mumbo Jumbo, However?

            The post reveals my personal views in light
            of Scotus decision.

            If Interested

            https://rudymartinka.com/2020/12/12/scotus-mumbo-jumbo-however-king-solomon-blog/

            Regardless of our personal views about the election, there is going to be a lot of people who for the next four years are going to emulate the many of what was said about Trump after the 2016 election.

            He is not my President.

            However, he did accomplish most of his campaign promises and will in time be remembered for his accomplishments in spite of all the harassments he had to put up with during his term..

            Regards and goodwill blogging.

            Liked by 1 person

          2. TSalmon,

            After reading your reply again, frankly in my opinion, some of your logic needs a detailed reply since you brought up specifics in regards to the validity of the 2020 election.

            For example, you stated,

            “depends upon what your goal is”

            The goal is to elect a President in a fair election.

            To achieve the goal of fairness requires responsibility and rules of engagement to assure a fair election.

            For example, if the ballot signatures do not match, the voter of the rejected ballots were supposed to be notified and given a means to prove their identification and choice.

            Not just to accept anything “because ballots signatures may change over time.”

            You questioned

            1, How easy do we want to make it for poor people, even homeless people, to vote?

            If a person is homeless, is someone preventing him from voting in person or if he mails in a ballot, should he just state he is homeless and if his signature is not accepted, should the government provide a means of notification by some bulletin boards for homeless people in our sad times.

            2. . Should a working person have to forego income or risk firing simply to exercise their right to vote?

            No. all he or she had to do is request an absentee vote.

            3. . How much do more stringent rules and restrictions on polling places particularly disenfranchise minority communities?

            The same stringency as if they want to cash a check in a bank, if you want your money or goods, you provide identification, same as if you want your vote to count.

            You stated, you could go on but what would your goal be other than to state in effect that a vote does not have to be considered the same value compared to cashing a check.

            Or it doesn’t seem to matter if government leadership has to be responsible to verify an election. Or in other words, a vote is of lesser value than cashing a check.

            Sad in my opinion.

            Regards and goodwill blogging

            Liked by 1 person

          3. @Rudy
            @tsalmon

            The primary purpose of an election is to select the candidate who best represents the will of the people, not to give absolutely everyone a chance to vote. Therefore, whenever we relax the rules for election integrity and increase the chances for fraud, we sacrifice the purpose for having the election in the first place.

            So, are there any good reasons for voting by mail, for example? Because mail-in ballots lack a secure chain of custody, mot many. If you are going to be out of the state serving our nation in the military, that is usually considered a valid reason. Yet, even that causes trouble. Because military personnel tend to vote Republican, Republicans have accused Democrats of monkeying with the rules and trying to keep those ballots from being counted.

            Frankly, because simple systems with obvious security checks tend to work best, almost all voting should be done in person, and people should be required to show a photo ID. Any exceptions should be frowned upon and require us to jump through hurdles. Otherwise, we will have the problem we have now. We will be calling each other cheaters.

            You say I don’t care about the homeless, the poor, the minorities and the endless suffering mobs Liberal Democrats claim to support and actually abuse? That’s a straw man. For the sake of our country, to ensure we have leaders who at least represent the will of the majority, we need elections we trust, and nobody in his right mind trusts the so-called caring monster Liberal Democrats have made of our election system. Blasting out mail-in ballots to everyone is not caring; it is trick played upon those more interested in virtue signaling than honest government.

            Liked by 1 person

          4. Tom,

            Agreed and your use of “strawman” is a perfect use to describe the arguments being presented which is perpetrating the 2020 vote travesty in our Nation..

            “having the impression of refuting an argument, whereas the proper idea of argument under discussion was not addressed or properly refuted.”

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

            Regards and goodwill blogging.

            Liked by 1 person

          5. Rudy,

            Sorry, I just saw this. Let me say what think that I know and admit what I don’t know and is just my opinion:

            “After reading your reply again, frankly in my opinion, some of your logic needs a detailed reply since you brought up specifics in regards to the validity of the 2020 election.
            For example, you stated,
            ‘depends upon what your goal is’
            The goal is to elect a President in a fair election.”

            I happen to believe that is what happened. Numerous officials in charge of these elections, including Republican officials and Trump appointees, believe that this is what happened. The courts where allegations that the election was not fair were arbitrated and they have dismissed almost all of those cases.

            “To achieve the goal of fairness requires responsibility and rules of engagement to assure a fair election.
            For example, if the ballot signatures do not match, the voter of the rejected ballots were supposed to be notified and given a means to prove their identification and choice.
            Not just to accept anything ‘because ballots signatures may change over time.”

            Again, rather than just relying on the opinion of Right Wing punditry, I would encourage you to research this yourself to see if this happened to your satisfaction, and if not to your satisfaction, then why? As I said, in Georgia in particular, the actual officials in charge have explained this thoroughly. Don’t believe me. Go look up what they said yourself.

            “You questioned
            1, How easy do we want to make it for poor people, even homeless people, to vote?
            If a person is homeless, is someone preventing him from voting in person or if he mails in a ballot, should he just state he is homeless and if his signature is not accepted, should the government provide a means of notification by some bulletin boards for homeless people in our sad times.”

            My point here is generalized, not specific, meaning “in general” do you want to make it easy for poor people, in particular, to vote. For example, it is hard for a homeless person to get a valid ID because they have no address. This is just a fact. And, I don’t know about you, but around my neighborhood, I am seeing more more people who are homeless or living in their cars. Should this disqualify them from voting?

            “2. . Should a working person have to forego income or risk firing simply to exercise their right to vote?
            No. all he or she had to do is request an absentee vote.”

            Again I’m asking this in a generalized way, however, Rudy, your answer is honest and interesting in its honesty. Making “mail in” absentee ballots too easy is one of the exact things Republicans (like Tom and Trump) oppose, and it is those ballots they have sought to exclude. The question that you may need answered here is whether or not the “reward” of making it easier for working people to vote (by mail in voting, same day registration, early and weekend voting, etc.) is worth the alledged greater risk of fraud. Everything that I have read says that, even in the most liberal voting systems, fraud is exceedingly rare, but I am no expert and don’t claim to be. There is a simple common sense rational economic argument though: the minuscule economic “benefit” derived from casting an illegal vote is not worth the “cost” in prison time and fines of getting caught. The minuscule numbers, especially in a national election, just don’t add up to anything significant enough to make voting harder than it has to be. If you buy my logic Rudy and the arguments of voting rights advocates, that making it easier for poor and working people to vote doesn’t account for significant fraud, then the next question you may want to ask yourself has moral and democratic ramifications – why do Republicans not want poor and hard working people to vote? Is it because of actual substantial risk of fraud or because poor people tend to vote Democratic?

            “3. How much do more stringent rules and restrictions on polling places particularly disenfranchise minority communities?
            The same stringency as if they want to cash a check in a bank, if you want your money or goods, you provide identification, same as if you want your vote to count.
            You stated, you could go on but what would your goal be other than to state in effect that a vote does not have to be considered the same value compared to cashing a check.
            Or it doesn’t seem to matter if government leadership has to be responsible to verify an election. Or in other words, a vote is of lesser value than cashing a check.”

            I think that you are confused about the point that I was making. I was talking about the problem of having fewer (or no) convenient polling places, particularly in poor and minority neighborhoods, so that people have to line up, sometimes for hours, just to exercise their right to vote. This happens often enough so that it is hard to say that it is just a bug rather than a feature in the system and that feature in the opinion of many is promoting voter suppression. However, like voter fraud allegations, voter suppression complaints should be proved with admissible evidence and expert testimony, rather than rumor and innuendo, don’t you think Rudy?

            Liked by 1 person

  3. This case is an exercise in grifting for Trump, a massive example of profiles in cowardice for the Republican Party leadership who know that it is fallacious and also unprincipled. Just on its face, any political party who claims to believe in federalism knows that it is outrageous for one state or a group of states to try to control the elections of another state (especially when many of those states have exactly the same election procedures that they are complaining about). This is indeed futile, but it is also seditious and dangerous.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. @tsalmon

      When people don’t have the moral courage to appropriately distinguish between the sexes, they are probably not in a good position to complain about the moral courage of others.

      The Constitution requires the Federal Government to guarantee every state a republican form of government. When states start holding unconstitutional and fraudulent elections, that affects all of us. That is why so many have signed on to the Texas lawsuit.

      You still complaining “no evidence”? Yeah! Sure!

      Where is the evidence Democrats care about anything except getting their own way? If a politician will not advocate and support even the most basic rules of election integrity, he needs to be fired. If a citizen will not advocate and support even the most basic rules of election integrity, he cannot be trusted.

      Like

Comments are closed.

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑

Eternity

Isaiah 43:13

Not For Itching Ears

Calling the Church Back to The Cross

saania2806.wordpress.com/

Philosophy is all about being curious, asking basic questions. And it can be fun!

Talk With Bette

Thoughts, ideas, opinions or information.

RANDOM PONTIFICATIONS

Pontificated Opinion

Artaxes' brainbench

Truth in an age of deception

WTFAI

Wandering Towards Faith Am I

In My Father's House

"...that where I am you may be also." Jn.14:3

Faithful Steward Ministries and FSM Women's Outreach

Christian Outreach Ministry to those Incarcerated, with Addictions and our Military

Jesus Quotes and God Thoughts

“God’s wisdom is something mysterious that goes deep into the interior of his purposes.” ~Apostle Paul

The Lions Den

"Blending the colorful issues of life with the unapologetic truth of scripture, while adding some gracious ferocity.”

cookiecrumbstoliveby

Life through the eyes of "cookie"

Rudy u Martinka

What the world needs now in addition to love is wisdom. We are the masters of our own disasters.

Theo-Logis

Supplying the Light of Love

The Recovering Legalist

Living a Life of Grace

Write Side of the Road

writing my way through motherhood

Freedom Through Empowerment

Taking ownership of your life brings power to make needed changes. True freedom begins with reliance on God to guide this process and provide what you need.

John Branyan

the funny thing about the truth

Victory Girls Blog

Welcome to Conservative commentary and Christian prayers from Gainesville, Virginia. That's OUTSIDE the Beltway.

D. Patrick Collins

liberating christian thought

Conservative Government

Welcome to Conservative commentary and Christian prayers from Gainesville, Virginia. That's OUTSIDE the Beltway.

The Night Wind

Welcome to Conservative commentary and Christian prayers from Gainesville, Virginia. That's OUTSIDE the Beltway.

In Saner Thought

"It is the duty of every man, as far as his ability extends, to detect and expose delusion and error"..Thomas Paine

christeeleisonblog.wordpress.com/

“The harvest is abundant but the laborers are few" Luke 10:2

All Along the Watchtower

A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you ... John 13:34

Always On Watch: Semper Vigilans

Welcome to Conservative commentary and Christian prayers from Gainesville, Virginia. That's OUTSIDE the Beltway.

drawordpresscomblog.wordpress.com/

"Let Us Live Lives Extraordinarily"

praythroughhistory

Heal the past. Free the present. Bless the future.

Lillie-Put

The place where you can find out what Lillie thinks

He Hath Said

is the source of all wisdom, and the fountain of all comfort; let it dwell in you richly, as a well of living water, springing up unto everlasting life

quotes and notes and opinions

from a Biblical perspective

partneringwitheagles

WHENEVER ANY FORM OF GOVERNMENT BECOMES DESTRUCTIVE OF THESE ENDS (LIFE,LIBERTY,AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS) IT IS THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO ALTER OR ABOLISH IT, AND TO INSTITUTE A NEW GOVERNMENT...

nebraskaenergyobserver

The view from the Anglosphere

bluebird of bitterness

The opinions expressed are those of the author. You go get your own opinions.

Pacific Paratrooper

This WordPress.com site is Pacific War era information

THE RIVER WALK

Daily Thoughts and Meditations as we journey together with our Lord.

atimetoshare.me

My Walk, His Way - daily inspiration

Kingdom Pastor

Living Freely In God's Kingdom

%d bloggers like this: