Two Tier Justice And False Results Of Elections

The Supreme Court of the U.S. just dismissed a State of Texas lawsuit that contested validity of the 2020 election results in four battleground states. The said dismissal was not based on facts, evidence, and valid judicial reasoning but on procedural technicalities. The plaintiffs, according the the Supreme Court, did not show that they had a "standing" and that they actually suffered damages as a result of various violations of the Constitution. This latest event, profoundly disappointing to many of those believing in the rule of law in America, may be considered the final step in a proof that the political system that we currently have in the US is institutionally unable to properly deal with the organized election fraud that for decades now have almost always benefited the same party. But this systemic inability to acknowledge the reality manifests its selective weakness only in certain political directions and not in others.

When BLM and Antifa kept breaking the law by means of burning, looting, rioting, intimidating, and assaulting, they were given a summarily pass

Consider, for instance, the recent allegations of systemic racism in the US. When BLM and Antifa kept breaking the law by means of burning, looting, rioting, intimidating, and assaulting, they were given a summarily pass for their criminal acts because, ostensibly, they were bringing to public attention our Constitutional Republic's systemic inability to redress their grievances regarding alleged racism and discrimination. The voices of those demanding justice, were told, must be heard, and legal "technicalities" should not stand in a way to listening to their demands. But when various groups across America and several states filed a lawsuit after the lawsuit against rampart and widespread elections fraud, with multitudes of witnesses and mountains of evidence credibly supporting their allegations, their voices and the voices of hundreds of eye witnesses of the said fraud were not heard. Basically, what the courts collectively told us was that listening to those complaints and testimonies and then acting on them would be wrong because invalidating elections just because they were not honest or designed to facilitate cheating and fraud was not an option as it would "disenfranchise" those who cast their votes. As if the fact that there were, presumably, tens of millions of valid votes cast in the 2020 elections implied the necessity to deem all of them, including the unknown number of invalid and fraudulent votes, fair and valid. Ostensibly, the good of this nation requires turning our blind eye on the theft of election and pretending, without credible proof or evidence, that there was not enough fraud and cheating to impact their end results. What was particularly concerning, if not outright outrageous, in the said dismissals was that they were not based on diligent fact finding and examination of the existing evidence but on political reasons and legal technicalities, like that the mentioned-above unwillingness of the courts to "disenfranchise" the supposedly minority voters in districts that, as evidence and witnesses showed, were plagued with "irregularities" strongly suggesting widespread cheating and fraud, or that the parties bringing lawsuits did not prove they had standing to sue or that they suffered damages, despite the fact that the damage was huge and visible with a naked eye for anyone willing to see.

---

So, in the case of BLM, Antifa, and company, we were told that the truth, although it was not clear and often questionable, overrides the laws and rules of legal process

Somehow, the complaining minorities of today were not presumed as not having standing for their complaints about slavery that ended some 150 years ago in America, or that they actually suffered from it. So, in the case of BLM, Antifa, and company, we were told that the truth, although it was not clear and often questionable, overrides the laws and rules of legal process. But in the case of those complaining about stolen elections, we are being told that the laws and rules of legal process trump the truth, despite the fact that many of the pertinent election laws and rules were lacking Constitutional basis or that they facilitated election cheating and fraud. Now, I would like to see one good reason to believe that none of the above are results of a--successful so far--coup d'état that aims at toppling the dully-elected President and submitting those who elected him to the Marxist-style dictatorship of protected minorities, or rather to the rule of the clique of left-leaning Democrats who appointed themselves as the champions of the said minorities. True, our Constitutional Republic has its vulnerabilities, but aligning so many of them in a string of coincidences that enabled the theft of the Presidency right in from of our eyes must have required an orchestrated effort and collaboration of the future junta and its collaborators, and cannot be credibly explained just by common corruption, disloyalty, or stupidity. It would be irrational, or plain stupid, to accept the false results of the 2020 elections and move on to the future that the masterminds of the election fraud have waiting for us.