For the Sake of the Second Amendment, and State and Local Republicans, We Should Still Vote Republican

For the Sake of the Second Amendment,
and State and Local Republicans, We Should
Still Vote Republican

by Gene Kizer, Jr.

[PUBLISHER'S NOTE: Also included with this article is a brilliant piece entitled "Overcoming the Court's Abdication in Texas V. Pennsylvania" by conservative attorneys William J. Olson and Patrick M. McSweeney" dated December 24, 2020. It was first published in The Western Journal under title "TWJ Exclusive: New Legal Memo Brings Hope to Trump Supporters This Christmas". It is relevant to this article.]

The national Republican Party is as STUPID as you can get. Their poster child for stupidity is Sen. James M. Inhofe of Oklahoma.

Inhofe, who is chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, gave Elizabeth Warren a huge victory over millions of Republican voters in the South when he allowed her Section 377 into the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021, which requires that the names of century old U.S. Army bases in the South, such as Fort Benning and Fort Bragg, be changed.

Inhofe didn't need to do this. He has a Republican majority on the Senate Armed Services Committee, and President Trump is vehemently against it, but, again, Inhofe is an idiot.

Republicans desperately need voters to come out and vote in the Georgia Senate runoff in one week, which will determine who controls the U.S. Senate, yet Inhofe just spit in the faces of Republicans by guaranteeing that the two U.S. Army bases in Georgia — Legendary Fort Benning, Home of the Infantry, near Columbus, Georgia; and Fort Gordon, near Grovetown — will be forced to change their names, remove all monuments, change street and building names, and remove any mention of the Confederate ancestry of Georgians and other Southerners.

That ancestry means a great deal to tens of millions of Southerners who always vote Republican.

How are Republicans in Georgia supposed to get fired up to go vote in the runoff when Inhofe and the Republican Party has just spit in their faces and humiliated them?

Elizabeth Warren hates Republican voters. They are "Deplorables" to her and Hillary and the rest, ad nauseam.

To Warren's Massachusetts Puritan sensibilities, Republicans are all racist hayseeds for her to look down on, yet Inhofe just sided with her against President Trump and Republican voters.

The stupidity of the Republican Party knows no bounds.

Here's what President Trump said about Inhofe this past July:

Trump tweeted July 24th that he had spoken to Oklahoma Sen. Jim Inhofe, Republican chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, "who has informed me that he WILL NOT be changing the names of our great Military Bases and Forts, places from which we won two World Wars (and more!)."1

Inhofe LIED to President Trump and he lied to us when he said:

We're going to see to it that provision doesn't survive the bill. I'm not going to say how at this point.2

Elizabeth Warren is proud of her victory over Inhofe as she degrades him and millions of Republican voters who cherish their ancestors for fighting, sacrificing, bleeding and dying by the hundreds of thousands when the South was invaded.

That invasion occurred so that Elizabeth Warren's New England and the other Northern States could establish their economic control over the country. It had nothing to do with ending slavery.

It was about the same money and power that all wars are fought over as the North's War Aims Resolution clearly states. It was about preserving the Union, the source of Northern wealth and power, not ending slavery.

It was also about the Corwin Amendment for which Lincoln lobbied the states hard. It left blacks in slavery forever, even beyond the reach of Congress.

Of course, I don't even need to mention the six slave states that fought for the Union the entire war. If it was a war to end slavery, Lincoln would have started with his own slave states but he deliberately exempted them from the Emancipation Proclamation.

Elizabeth Warren gloats and rubs stinking manure into the faces of Inhofe and Republican voters:3


An intelligent person would know that ANYTHING from Elizabeth Warren would be revolting to the Republican base, but, then, there's Jim Inhofe, Elizabeth Warren and the Democrat Party's best friend. He is certainly no friend of President Trump or Republican voters.

What an insult to the patriotism and Southern blood spilled winning all of America's wars since the end of the War Between the States.

Around 44% of the United States Army today are Southerners, though the South is only 36% of the American population.4

President Trump has been the strongest supporter of Southern history, heritage and culture maybe in all of American history, and he has paid a price for it by the fraud and lies of the fake news media.

The Charlottesville violence shows how utterly corrupt the news media is because President Trump was perfect, and it is on video. Every word he said was perfect.

He said there were good people on both sides and he meant good people among the leftist protestors, and good people there to support the statue of Gen. Robert E. Lee.

Trump was crystal clear and it is irrefutable. There is no other way to interpret it.

The mainstream media in American in this day and age is the enemy of our country and democracy. They are abject liars, censors and suppressors of important news if it hurts the Democrat Party. Nobody should believe anything in the media without intense scrutiny.

The local news is sometimes accurate and non-biased but everything else is a horror designed to support the race-obsessed Democrat Party.

The associated press leads the way with its capitalization of the B in black, for black people, while leaving the w in white, for white people, lower case.

The associated press (which nobody should capitalize) is a propaganda organization that is in most newspapers across the country every day regurgitating the racist, woke identity politics of the Democrat Party.

We Should Still Vote Republican

As despicable as the Republican Party is (not counting President Trump, of course), we should still think clearly about the current situation and not shoot ourselves in the leg, though the temptation is mighty to lash out and punish national Republicans.

First, REPUBLICANS ARE GREAT ON THE STATE LEVEL and in state positions such as governor (with the exception of the cowardly Brian Kemp of Georgia, who is owned by Stacey Abrams).

There are Republican legislatures in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Georgia and Wisconsin, and they still may play a big role in delivering the election of 2020 to the legitimate winner, President Donald J. Trump. Republicans have a majority of the State Houses nationwide.

Republican state legislatures have written good legislation in many places in the country protecting Confederate and other important historical memorials, statues, monuments, street names, etc.

Think about Virginia when in the hands of a Republican legislature. There was glorious Monument Avenue and all the Confederate statues, and Gen. Lee in the Capitol.

Today, since Democrats have taken over, woke Richmond is a bloodbath of destruction and anarchy, a horror of hate that will never heal, a true American disgrace.

We can be proud of the good Republicans in state legislatures and state offices across the country and should enthusiastically support them, vote for them, and force ourselves to vote for the national party because of them and President Trump.

Another HUGE thing is the Second Amendment, the right to keep and bear arms, which national Republicans support. They get it right on this one and will strongly defend the Second Amendment, while Democrats will destroy it.

Democrats will continue attacking gun and ammunition manufacturers and everybody associated with firearms. Their frivolous law suits will bankrupt the industry and they will destroy the Second Amendment that way.

Can you imagine how horrible it would be if you could not own a gun with which to protect your wife and children, your loves ones?

What if you had to rely on the government to protect you as political as it is today? You could end up like Mark and Patricia McCloskey in St. Louis, prosecuted, instead of rescued by the government. We would live in an even greater tyranny than we have now.

People in Europe and other places don't have firearms with which to defend themselves, even though self-defense and the defense of one's home and loved ones is the most basic human right.

How can you do that without a firearm in this violent world we live in as leftists defund the police, do away with bail, and let millions of criminals (and good Democrat voters) out on the street?

A few years ago, there was a terrorist attack on, if I recall correctly, the London Bridge, in London, England. Some of the terrorists ended up hiding in a pub but the patrons could do nothing but throw beer bottles at them. Good British citizens were at the mercy of filthy murdering terrorists when in a sane country, the terrorists would be at the mercy of armed British citizens.

Republicans empower citizens and not criminals. Democrats make no distinction.

Republicans will strengthen the Second Amendment so that American citizens can defend themselves and their loves ones with lethal force if necessary. There is no question about Republican commitment to the Second Amendment, and that is huge.

Other good things that Republicans will defend are the unborn. Republican legislation nationally and in states, keeps evil Democrats like Ralph "blackface" Northam, governor of Virginia (but more like fuhrer than governor) from killing babies after they have been born, as he has advocated; or killing babies as they are being born, as the New York legislature approved.

The strong support for our military and capitalism are other good reasons to keep voting Republican despite their enormous shortcomings.

We just have to hold them more accountable with Southern history. We should raise money and lobby them and make it clear, we do NOT change Confederate names of anything in the South, EVER.

Those names represent honor and valor, and if you don't understand that, you are a politically correct, woke fool who is unworthy of arguing with. You must be defeated politically. Period.

Actually, the base names are a rare exception where we have to defend Southern history on a national level. Most Southern history is preserved in state legislatures where Republicans rule and are an outstanding party. They deserve strong support from us.

Right now, we should definitely vote for the two Senate candidates in Georgia's runoff, January 5th, Georgia's current senators Kelly Loeffler and David Perdue.

President Trump is holding a rally in Dalton, Georgia on Monday, January 4th, and he wants us to support Loeffler and Perdue, and we should.

It ain't over for President Trump, who is the legitimate winner of the 2020 election.

If he is able to prevent Democrat Party and media corruption from disenfranchising his 74 million American voters, then Trump might be able to get Elizabeth Warren's Section 377 taken out of the NDAA for 2021, or somehow change it.

The following outstanding article by William J. Olson and Patrick M. McSweeney first appeared in The Western Journal December 24, 2020. It may be found at: I accessed it 12-30-20.

Here is an Editor's Note from The Western Journal that precedes this excellent article:

The Western Journal is presenting this memorandum, written by two prominent conservative legal scholars, essentially verbatim, with only enough editing to format it for the Op-Ed section of our website. This is the second memo by Messrs. Olson and McSweeney to be published exclusively by The Western Journal, and it, like the first, outlines a possible legal strategy for the Trump campaign to follow in the coming weeks. Prior to its publication here, it was sent to President Trump. — Ed. note

Overcoming the Court’s Abdication
in Texas v. Pennsylvania

William J. Olson & Patrick M. McSweeney
December 24, 2020

In refusing to hear Texas v. Pennsylvania, the U.S. Supreme Court abdicated its constitutional duty to resolve a real and substantial controversy among states that was properly brought as an original action in that Court. As a result, the Court has come under intense criticism for having evaded the most important inter-state constitutional case brought to it in many decades, if not ever.

However, even in its Order dismissing the case, the Supreme Court identified how another challenge could be brought successfully — by a different plaintiff. This paper explains that legal strategy. But first we focus on the errors made by the Supreme Court — in the hopes that they will not be made again.

Texas v. Pennsylvania

The Supreme Court declined to hear the challenge brought by the State of Texas against four states which had refused to abide by Article II, § 1, cl. 2 — the Presidential Electors Clause, which establishes the conditions and requirements governing the election of the President of the United States. In adopting that provision, the Framers vested in each State legislature the exclusive authority to determine the manner of appointing Presidential electors. The Framers’ plan was shown to be exceedingly wise, because we have now learned that allowing other state and private actors to write the election rules led to massive election fraud in the four defendant states. Individuals can be bought, paid for and corrupted so much easier than state legislatures.

In refusing to hear the case, the sole reason given was that Texas lacked “standing.” In doing so, all nine justices committed a wrong against: (i) Texas and the 17 states that supported its suit; (ii) the United States; (iii) the President; and (iv) the People.

The Court’s Many Wrongs in Texas v. Pennsylvania.

As Alexander Hamilton explained in Federalist No. 78, courts have “neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment.” As such, in deciding cases courts have a duty to explain their decisions so the rest of us may know if they constitute arbitrary exercises of political power, or reasoned decisions of judicial power which the People can trust. In Texas v. Pennsylvania, all that the justices felt obligated to do was to state its — “lack of standing” — supported by a one sentence justification: “Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its election.” Resolving a case of this magnitude with one conclusory sentence is completely unacceptable.

The Supreme Court docket consists primarily of only those cases the High Court chooses to hear. However, just like when it agrees to decide a case, and in disputes where the original jurisdiction of the Court is invoked, it has a duty to decide cases properly brought to them. Two centuries ago, Chief Justice John Marshall construed the obligation of contracts clause in a decision where he wrote: “however irksome the task may be, this is a duty from which we dare not shrink.” Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 17 U.S. 518 (1819). Courts have a duty to resolve important cases even if they would prefer to avoid them. In Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803), Marshall described “the duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is” because “every right, when withheld, must have a remedy, and every injury its proper redress.” Abdication in a case of this sort is not a judicial option.

The Supreme Court’s reliance on standing as its excuse has had one positive result — provoking many to study the origins of that doctrine who may be surprised to learn that the word “standing” nowhere appears in the Constitution. There is compelling evidence to demonstrate it was birthed by big-government Justices during the FDR Administration to shield New Deal legislation, and to insulate the Administrative State from challenges by the People. Those who favored the Texas decision argue that standing is a conservative doctrine as it limits the power of the courts — but the true constitutionalist uses only tests grounded in its text. The true threshold constitutional test is whether a genuine and serious “controversy” exists between the States that could be resolved by a court.

The only reason given by the Supreme Court was: “Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its election.” In truth, Texas did make such a showing. When Pennsylvania violated the exclusive authority bestowed on state legislators in the Constitution’s Electors Clause, it opened the door to corruption and foreign intrigue to corrupt the electoral votes of Pennsylvania, and as Alexander Hamilton explained in Federalist 68, that is exactly why the Framers created the Electoral College. During the 2020 election cycle, changes to the election process in Pennsylvania were made by judges, state office holders and election officials which would never have been made by its state legislature.

If the process by which Presidential Electors are chosen is corrupted in a few key states, like Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan and Wisconsin by rigging the system in favor of one candidate, it becomes wholly irrelevant who the People of Texas support. That political reality presents a real “judicially cognizable interest” no matter what the Supreme Court decided. What happens in Pennsylvania does not stay in Pennsylvania, as electors from all States acting together select the President of the United States.

In the Federalist Papers, both James Madison and Alexander Hamilton recognized the need to combat “the spirit of faction” and the tendency of each State to yield to its immediate interest at the expense of national unity. They reasoned that the Constitution provided a solution to this centrifugal pressure while reserving a measure of sovereignty to each State. When differences arise between States that threaten to lead to disunion, the Republic can be held together, as Hamilton observed, either “by the agency of the Courts or by military force.” A constitutional remedy to enable the States to resolve their differences peacefully is the provision that permits any State to invoke the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to address and settle their differences.

In the vernacular, the Supreme Court blew it, threatening the bonds that hold the union together.

Round Two:  The United States Must Enter the Fray

Fortunately, that might have been only the first round in the fight to preserve the nation. A strategy exists to re-submit the Texas challenge under the Electors Clause to the Supreme Court in a way that even that Court could not dare refuse to consider. Just because Texas did not persuade the Justices that what happens in Pennsylvania hurts Texas does not mean that the United States of America could not persuade the justices that when Pennsylvania violates the U.S. Constitution, it harms the nation. Article III, § 2, cl. 2 confers original jurisdiction on the Supreme Court in any case suit brought by the United States against a state. Thus, the United States can and should file suit against Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan and Wisconsin. Like the Texas suit, that new suit would seek an order invalidating the appointment of the electors appointed by those four defendant States that refused to abide by the terms of the Presidential Electors Clause. That would leave it to the state legislatures in those four states to “appoint” electors — which is what the Constitution requires.

When those four States violated the Constitution by allowing electors who had not been appointed in the manner prescribed by the state legislature, the United States suffered an injury. Indeed, there could hardly have been a more significant injury to the nation than that which corrupted its Presidential election.

The United States has a vital interest and a responsibility to preserve the constitutional framework of the Republic, which was formed by a voluntary compact among the States. As with any contractual relationship of participants in an ongoing enterprise, no party is entitled to ignore or alter the essential terms of the contract by its unilateral action.

The President who has sworn to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution has the right and the duty to order the U.S. Department of Justice bring such an action in the Supreme Court — and should do so quickly.

Reasons for Great Hope at Christmas

In rejecting the invocation by the State of Texas of the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to resolve the dispute between Texas and four other States that refused to abide by the terms of the Presidential Electors Clause, for now, a majority of the Justices foreclosed the use of that constitutional safeguard by Texas to provide a peaceful means of resolving the controversy that has deeply divided States and the citizens of this Republic as at no time since the 1860s.

That consequence is too dangerous to be allowed to stand.

If the same case previously brought by Texas were now brought by the United States of America, there is every reason to believe that the Supreme Court would be compelled to understand it must hear it and decide it favorably.

Although outcomes are never certain, it is believed and hoped that a majority of the Supreme Court could never take the position that the United States has no business enforcing the process established in the Constitution by which we select the one government official who represents all the People — The President of the United States.


(from "For the Sake of the Second Amendment, and State and Local Republicans, We Should Still Vote Republican")

1 "President Trump, GOP ally vow Confederate base names won't change", July 24, 2020,, accessed 7-29-20.

2 Ibid.

3 Elizabeth Warren's tweets come from Dissident Mama, "You don't want us? We don't want you!", Friday, December 18, 2020., accessed 12-30-20.

4 Historian Phil Leigh, "Exploding the Lost Cause Myth,", accessed 12/16/20.

Our Confederate Ancestors: The Christmas Raid of Gen. John Hunt Morgan

Merry Christmas!
A Series on the Daring Exploits of Our Confederate Ancestors in the War Between the States.
The Christmas Raid of Gen. John Hunt Morgan

by Robert L. Thompson
(a Confederate cavalryman who rode with Morgan)

Original article entitled "Morgan's Raid into Kentucky" by Robert L. Thompson, 2904 Pine Street, St. Louis, in Confederate Veteran magazine, Vol. 13, No. 12, December, 1905. Gen. Morgan's Christmas Raid was a non-stop two-week cavalry raid by 4,000 Confederates launching from Tennessee into Kentucky and back, each man carrying only "Horse and gun with forty rounds of cartridges." It took place from December 22, 1862 to January 5, 1863.

"Thunderbolt of the Confederacy," Gen. John Hunt Morgan, born in Alabama in 1825, spent most of his life in Kentucky.
"Thunderbolt of the Confederacy," Gen. John Hunt Morgan, born in Alabama in 1825, spent most of his life in Kentucky.

LATE IN DECEMBER, 1862, Gen. John H. Morgan, with nine regiments of mounted troops and one company of scouts, made what was known as his Christmas raid through Kentucky. There were Breckinridge, Chenault, Cluke, Duke, Gano, Grigsby, Johnson, Smith, and Ward, all regimental commanders, and Capt. Tom Quirk of the scouts. During Gen. Morgan's invasion of Kentucky the battle of Murfreesboro, Tenn., was fought between Gens. Bragg and Rosecrans. It was said at the time that Gen. Morgan's purpose for entering Kentucky was to get in the rear of Gen. Rosecrans's army, cut his communication, and otherwise menace him and draw his attention while Gen. Bragg attended to him in the front. Gen. Morgan's part of the work was well performed.

John Hunt Morgan.
John Hunt Morgan.

I was a private in Company F, 9th (Breckinridge's) Regiment. We left Alexandria, Tenn., in the night. Early next morning we had crossed the State line and were in Tompkinsville, Ky. Another day and night's hard ride brought us to Glasgow, where early in the morning we encountered a foe, who struck back with such force that our chief ordered us to withdraw, and by a rapid flank movement we passed around him and proceeded straight to the Louisville and Nashville Railroad at Munfordville. There we found the enemy strongly posted in a stockade. We had with us a little battery of three or four funs that Gen. Morgan named the "Bull Pups." Our usual method of attack was to drive in the pickets or shoot them down or get shot down, as some of our gallant advance guard did at Glasgow, then dismount, surround the garrison, fire a few shots with small arms, throw in a few shells from the battery, when the enemy, finding it useless to hold out longer, would display a white flag, and the job was finished.

John & Martha "Mattie" Morgan. She gave birth to a daughter after he was killed in 1864, her name, Johnnie Hunt Morgan.
John & Martha "Mattie" Morgan. She gave birth to a daughter after he was killed in 1864, her name, Johnnie Hunt Morgan.

Our next step was to parole the prisoners, destroy their guns, and move on to the next. Accompanying Gen. Morgan there was a young man, George A. Ellsworth, a telegraph operator, who would now and then cut the wire, attach his instrument, and send misleading dispatches to the Federal authorities in Louisville or Nashville. I saw him one day seated on the roadside with his battery attached to a wire fingering the key, while Gen. Morgan and staff sat on their horses about him. They all seemed to be in a good humor, as though they were indulging in humorous messages.

Morgan's Raiders.

Early on the morning of December 27, our regiment attacked a body of Federals in Elizabethtown, Ky. They had taken refuge in the courthouse and other buildings in the town. The battery was brought forward in a dash and took position on a little hill south of the town. Our regiment followed the artillery double-quick, and formed along the base of the hill between the battery and town, so that the shells thrown into town passed over our heads. We dismounted and advanced in full view and range of the enemy. We had to cross a narrow bottom through which ran a creek that was full to its banks, caused by incessant rain of the night before. We plunged through the water waist deep---at the place I crossed---holding our guns above our heads, and entered the town.

Map with details of the Christmas Raid.

As I passed along a street I remember keeping close to the wall of a house that I might be shielded from bullets, when three Federal soldiers came out of the house with guns and approached me. I said: "Surrender." They put their guns down, and I ordered them to the rear. I then entered the house they came out of, and found it to be a hotel with breakfast on the table, but saw no landlord or guests. Other Confederates came in, and together we ate the breakfast, and during the whole time we were eating the little battery on the hill was being worked to its full capacity. When we had finished our breakfast and went out on the street again, we saw white handkerchiefs tied to ramrods hanging out of the courthouse windows. We then knew that the boys in blue had surrendered, and I was glad. A member of my company told my comrades that when I saw the three Federal soldiers coming toward me with their guns I had thrown my gun down and rushed on them with my fists, demanding their surrender, but that was a joke. However, I never did tell the boys how badly scared I was at the time, but I do not mind telling it now.

Morgan next to his horse, Black Bess.
Morgan next to his horse, Black Bess.

After the prisoners were paroled and their guns destroyed, together with some other government property in the town, we moved out a few miles north of town, stopped, and fed our horses. If I remember correctly, nearly all of Gen. Morgan's force was bunched there that morning. While we were feeding Gen. Wolford's Federal cavalry came up and attacked our rear guard. Our regiment was ordered to form and assist in holding the enemy in check, while the main part of our little army passed the Rolling Fork, a swift-running stream immediately in our front. We met with some loss that morning, quite a number being wounded. Among the officers there was Col. Duke, who received a wound on his head from a fragment of a shell. We crossed the Rolling Fork in safety, and then went forward at a swifter gait than before. Gen. Wolford followed us, but he never caught up any more.

Morgan's 2nd KY Cav Regmt earlier in 1862, before Christmas Raid.
Morgan's 2nd KY Cav Regmt earlier in 1862, before Christmas Raid.

It was then on to Bardstown, within forty miles of Louisville then to Springfield and Lebanon, then south to Burksville, where we recrossed the Cumberland River, thence back to Tennessee again. I had no personal knowledge of what any of the other regiments did on the trip; I remember only the part that mine took. That the others performed their part well is quite certain, as it is well known that there were no drones or sluggards who rode with Morgan.

Reward poster issued a year later.
Reward poster issued a year later.

With the exception of Gano's and Ward's regiments, quite all of Morgan's men were Kentuckians. Most of Gano's were Texans, and all of Ward's were Tennesseans. With but few exceptions, Morgan's troopers were young men, quite a number being boys under age. Gen. Morgan was only thirty-eight. My colonel was twenty-six, and there was not an officer in the regiment whose age exceeded thirty, except one, and he was not over forty. Capt. Tom Henry Hines, of Company E, who escaped prison with Gen. Morgan one year later, was but twenty-one. In Company H there was little John Kemper, aged thirteen, who rode a pony and carried a carbine. I was sixteen, and the youngest soldier in my company.

Mort Kunstler print of John Hunt Morgan's Ohio Raid, July 14, 1863.
Mort Kunstler print of John Hunt Morgan's Ohio Raid, July 14, 1863.

If I am not mistaken, Gen. Morgan's official report of the expedition stated that we had been fourteen days in the saddle, and I can well believe it true; for if we ever stopped for any purpose, except to fight or feed our horses, I have no recollection of the time or place. There was no wagon train followed us loaded with commissary stores and camp equipage, not even an ordnance wagon or an ambulance. Horse and gun with forty rounds of cartridges was what each man started with. I supposed we were expected, if we should run short of ammunition, to capture what we needed, which we did, and more than we had use for. How we were expected to obtain food for ourselves, I do not know. It seems that the soldiers' needs of sleep and food were not considered; only the horse he rode must be fed. If from any cause we halted, night or day, for a few minutes, we slept during the interval. Stops were seldom made. It might be that the guide had lost his way, when we would stop to establish the right direction, etc. At such times we would snatch a moment's sweetest sleep, either leaning over on our horses' necks or dropping down on the cold earth, holding the horse by the bridle. The loss of sleep is very likely the cause of my recollection of its seeming more like a dream than a reality, although the services rendered were quite real and earnest. The command was "Go forward" and "Close up" all the time, night and day, through rain, snow, and mud; no rest or sleep, but a constant prodding forward. I do not remember the results accomplished, the loss or gain or victor's spoils. I only remember the arduous service and that most of us escaped, being thankful now that it is all past and will never happen again and that I am still alive and able to tell the tale.

Morgan's grave, in Lexington Cemetery, Lexington, KY. He was surprised in Greeneville, TN and killed Sept. 4, 1864.
Morgan's grave, in Lexington Cemetery, Lexington, KY. He was surprised in Greeneville, TN and killed Sept. 4, 1864.

BETRAYAL: Republicans in the Senate Guarantee US Army Base Names in the South WILL Change

Republicans in the Senate Guarantee U.S. Army
Base Names in the South WILL Change

No More Fort Benning Thanks to Senate Republicans
No More Fort Bragg Because STUPID Republicans Aligned with Elizabeth Warren Against Their Own Voters

How Stupid Can You Be

Despite President Trump's Brilliant, Strong Leadership,
the National Republican Party Is Doomed
They Are WOKE But Soon Will Be Irrelevant
by Gene Kizer, Jr.


I have been voting Republican for 50 years, and proudly so. I have voted in every election since I was 18, local, state and national. I have only voted for one Democrat in my life, a Senate candidate 45 years ago, and I still regret it.

But, except for President Trump, many national Republican leaders are stupid, cowardly and weak.

The national Republican Party is 100% responsible for the imminent changing of the names of United States Army bases in the South that were named mostly for Confederate generals as a powerful gesture of reconciliation in the years following the War Between the States, after 750,000 had died and another million were wounded.

Below, is Section 377 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021, and when you read it, you will be OUTRAGED at Senate Republicans who control the Senate and did not have to do this, whatsoever, yet went out of their way to include a provision by Elizabeth Warren to rename the bases.

Senate Republicans are too stupid to understand that all the red states that give the Republican Party its national power, are in the South.

President Trump understands, which is why he has defended the Confederate battle flag and Confederate monuments over and over, as the symbols of honor, patriotism and tribute to war dead that they are. He adamantly opposes renaming our Southern bases.

Those bases are, in some cases, a century old and helped us mightily to win two World Wars and numerous other conflicts. They train some of our nation's most elite troops. I know some of those troops, personally, and love them all deeply.

There is a practical and smart reason, too, that Southern bases are named for Confederate soldiers: Confederate soldiers, fighting for constitutional government and the rights of their sovereign states when they were invaded, exhibited valor such as the world had never seen despite being outnumbered four to one and outgunned 100 to one. They are the ancestors of Southerners serving today who were inspired by them to serve in much higher numbers than their peers from other regions, as the following proves:1

The military valor of the South is unsurpassed in the history of the world, and that's why Confederate named bases need to stay Confederate. That is what President Trump knows.

The death statistics in the War Between the States are now between 650,000 and 850,000. These are the widely accepted statistics of historian J. David Hacker of Binghamton University.2

Drew Gilpin Faust in her excellent book, This Republic of Suffering, Death and the American Civil War, uses the earlier statistics of 620,000 total deaths compiled by William F. Fox, and she writes that those deaths were "approximately equal to the total American fatalities in the Revolution, the War of 1812, the Mexican War, the Spanish-American War, World War I, World War II, and the Korean War combined.3

If you use Hacker's statistics, you'd have to add Vietnam, both Gulf Wars, Afghanistan and the war on terror; in other words, deaths in the War Between the States were higher than all other American wars combined with plenty of room to spare.

Faust says the rate of death "in comparison with the size of the American population, was six times that of World War II. A similar rate, about 2 percent, in the United States today would mean six million fatalities.4

Confederate soldiers "died at a rate three times that of their Yankee counterparts; one in five white Southern men of military age did not survive the Civil War.5

Faust quotes James McPherson who writes that "the overall mortality rate for the South exceeded that of any country in World War I and that of all but the region between the Rhine and the Volga in World War II.6

To personalize some of those statistics, Confederate Col. George E. Purvis was quoted in Confederate Veteran magazine, March, 1897, from an article he had written about Union Gen. Henry Van Ness Boynton and the Chickamauga and Chattanooga National Military Park.

Gen. Boynton, with great respect for the courage of the Confederates he faced, wanted to make it a sacred memorial, not just to Union valor, but American valor.

Col. Purvis writes that Gen. Boynton and a friend had visited the Chickamauga battlefield on a quiet Sunday morning in the summer of 1888 and heard singing in a church nearby. The general's thoughts went from those sweet sounds to the hellish and "fearful horrors of that other Sunday, when the very demons of hell seemed abroad, armed and equipped for the annihilation of mankind" almost a quarter of a century earlier:7

They saw again the charging squadrons, like great waves of the sea, dashed and broken in pieces against lines and positions that would not yield to their assaults. They saw again Baird's, Johnson's, Palmer's, and Reynolds's immovable lines around the Kelley farm, and Wood on the spurs of Snodgrass Hill; Brannan, Grosvenor, Steedman, and Granger on the now famous Horseshoe; once more was brought back to their minds' eye, "the unequaled fighting of that thin and contracted line of heroes and the magnificent Confederate assaults," which swept in again and again ceaselessly as that stormy service of all the gods of battle was prolonged through those other Sunday hours.

Their eyes traveled over the ground again where Forrest's and Walker's men had dashed into the smoke of the Union musketry and the very flame of the Federal batteries, and saw their ranks melt as snowflakes dissolve and disappear in the heat of conflagration.

They stood on Baird's line, where Helms's Brigade went to pieces, but not until three men out of four - mark that, ye coming heroes! - not until three men out of every four were either wounded or dead, eclipsing the historic charge at Balaklava and the bloody losses in the great battles of modern times.

They saw Longstreet's men sweep over the difficult and almost inaccessible slopes of the Horseshoe, "dash wildly, and break there, like angry waves, and recede, only to sweep on again and again with almost the regularity of ocean surges, ever marking a higher tide."

They looked down again on those slopes, slippery with blood and strewn thick as leaves with all the horrible wreck of battle, over which and in spite of repeated failures these assaulting Confederate columns still formed and reformed, charging again and again with undaunted and undying courage.

Around 44% of the United States Army today are Southerners, though the South is only 36% of the American population.8

The patriotic South believes in America and our military, and they are enthusiastic to serve and die for it.

Of course, a liberal like Elizabeth Warren cares nothing about that but the DOD and United States Army should. President Trump does, but idiot Republican leaders like Sen. Jim Inhofe, are traitors to their own party and constituents.

This Southern military tradition goes back to America's founding, to the Revolutionary War, which was won in the South, and to the War of 1812 , also won in the South at the Battle of New Orleans while some traitorous New England States were collaborating with the British and committing treason with the Hartford Convention.

Unted States Army bases in the South, as I said, include Fort Benning, Georgia, Home of the Infantry;

United States Army, Fort Benning, Columbus, Georgia - Home of the Infantry.
United States Army, Fort Benning, Columbus, Georgia - Home of the Infantry.

and Fort Bragg, North Carolina, Home of The Airborne and Special Operations Forces.

United States Army, Fort Bragg, Fayetteville, North Carolina.
United States Army, Fort Bragg, Fayetteville, North Carolina.

Here is Section 377 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 2021. It is a good bill except for Elizabeth Warren and Jim Inhofe's horrible, idiotic requirement to rename the Army bases in the South.

Prepare to be OUTRAGED.


Sen. James M. Inhofe is from Oklahoma where there are no Army bases named for Confederate soldiers. He is SOLELY responsible for the base names being changed. Republicans hold the Senate, and Inhofe is chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

He added the base name change provision then shepherded it through the Senate with Mitch McConnell's help.

Inhofe did not have to do that, but when he did, he GUARANTEED the base name changes would be in the final bill because it was in the House bill. If you have something in both the House and the Senate version of the bill, it has to be left in and reconciled by House and Senate negotiators.

Inhofe knew this but went against President Trump then lied to the public about it. Here's what President Trump said about Inhofe this past July:

Trump tweeted July 24th that he had spoken to Oklahoma Sen. Jim Inhofe, Republican chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, "who has informed me that he WILL NOT be changing the names of our great Military Bases and Forts, places from which we won two World Wars (and more!)."9

Inhofe LIED to President Trump and he lied to us when he said:

We're going to see to it that provision doesn't survive the bill. I'm not going to say how at this point.10

Inhofe KNEW he was LYING. That's why he didn't say how. He knew there was no "how." It couldn't be done because HE, Inhofe, put the base name change in the bill, then shepherded the bill through the Senate with Mitch McConnell's help.

That kind of lying, backstabbing BETRAYAL is what we get from Republican leaders in Congress, and it was completely unnecessary. Inhofe could have left it out and preserved the base names forever.

Inhofe is worse than Nikki Haley in South Carolina when she was Republican governor and used the Mother Emanuel AME Church murders by Dylann Roof to promote her career. She had no problem with the square, historically accurate Army of Northern Virginia battle flag on the State House grounds commemorating the 40,000 out of 60,000 South Carolina Confederate soldiers who were killed or wounded in the War Between the States when South Carolina was invaded, until she realized she could use them to advance her career. Over 20,000 were killed.

Don't let a tragedy go to waste as Democrat Rahm Emanuel famously said and Nikki Haley was listening.

She had that war memorial removed in disgrace and started the entire chain of Confederate monument removals across the country and the hatred and division that that has caused, but she didn't care. She had important personal goals to achieve.

She knew the battle flag next to the Confederate monument memorialized war dead and widows, orphans and the enormous suffering of Reconstruction. That flag represented the blood of hungry, barefoot South Carolinians who fought and were maimed and died when the state was invaded.

It had NOTHING to do with Dylann Roof, but that didn't matter. Virtue signaling Haley drooled over the media attention she would get by bullying the legislature and removing the flag, and it worked. She got her name out there and advanced her career on the suffering of people, the least of whom had more character than her.

Thank you Sen. Jim Inhofe for helping Elizabeth Warren while spitting in the faces of Republican voters.

Stupid Republicans think Confederate history is what their Democrat colleagues and the fake news media say it is, but they don't believe either of them on any other issue and they shouldn't. The Democrat Party is corrupt to the core as we have see with the first coup d'etat that led to the Mueller investigation and Russia Hoax and before that, the FBI spying on Trump's campaign, and now, with this huge widespread election fraud that has stolen the election from President Trump and given it to the most corrupt, undeserving candidate in history.

If this stands, this is the beginning of the end of our country and everybody knows it.

The 55 to 60% of the country who are non-liberal, non-Democrats, can be beat around for a while but they will sure as hell not take this long term, and not much longer.

Already we live in a tyranny of cancel culture and the obliteration of our First Amendment free speech rights by the fake news media, Google, Facebook and Twitter. They censor us, cancel us, and suppress all the news they don't want us to hear, such as Joe Biden and Hunter Biden's deep corruption with the Chinese and Ukranians and others. Polls show that at least 10% of Biden voters would not have voted for him had the New York Post stories about Hunter Biden's laptop and all the Biden corruption around the world that it revealed, not been deliberately suppressed until after the election.

Thanks to the Democrat Party and weak, STUPID Republicans, our country is now nearly as bad as Communist China. Google, Facebook, Twitter, and their executives who are getting ready to join the Biden administration, have destroyed the United States Constitution and our republic. Free speech is gone. They rule with violence and law breaking in the streets, and Democrats will enshrine mail-in voting in law, and Republicans will never win another election.

Republicans won't win the Senate runoffs in Georgia in just over two weeks because STUPID Republicans have done NOTHING to correct the situation in Georgia that allowed Stacey Abrams and her ilk to steal the general election from President Trump in the first place.

Where is the GBI and FBI questioning the woman caught on camera scanning the same ballots over and over? She knows about the corruption and all the players involved.

Where is the GBI and FBI questioning of the person who lied and said a water main break is why they quit counting ballots the wee hours of November 4th? That person is the tip of a line that goes into an ocean of Georgia corruption.

The Georgia governor is a Republican (supposedly) and the Georgia legislature is overwhelmingly Republican. How about assert yourselves and take command and rectify the horrible deal made with Stacey Abrams that promoted widespread election fraud in Georgia and disenfranchised millions of legitimate Georgia voters.

If you don't, mark my words, Republican Senators Loeffler and Perdue have no chance of winning in two-and-a-half weeks.

Inhofe's bill will cause Arlington National Cemetery to be renamed because Arlington is controlled by the NDAA each year. Arlington National Cemetery is on Gen. Robert E. Lee's estate. If Arlington's name escapes Inhofe's bill, certainly any mention of Robert E. Lee at Arlington National Cemetery won't, yet the cemetery is on land once called Arlington House and owned by Mary Anna Custis Lee, great-granddaughter of Martha Washington and wife of Robert E. Lee.

I guess mentioning Martha Washington is OK but any mention of Robert E. Lee and Mary Anna Custis Lee will have to go.

Do you see how SICK all this is? Thank you Democrat Party hatred of America and war on American history, and thank you Jim Inhofe.

Instead of destroying the history and grand heritage of Republican voters, Republican leaders in Congress, when they had the power, should have broken up Google, Facebook  and Twitter.

We all saw the employee meetings of Google where some of them were crying and vowed never to let a Republican win again.

Republicans didn't take them seriously and now Google, Facebook and Twitter have destroyed the Republican Party, stolen a presidency of the United States, and are now more powerful than the United States Constitution.

Republicans have allowed our country to become an abject tyranny and there is no way out.

Before the next four years are over, Democrats will enshrine into law mail-in voting so they can cheat every time like they did this time. This will go nicely with packing the Supreme Court and bringing in new Democrat states. We will be a one party country the way California is a one party state.

What a disgusting thought that is but you can thank chickenshit Republicans for it, and they are getting ready to pay a price.

President Trump is so loved because he is the first Republican to really fight.

A national Republican leader who fights is so refreshing to the Republican electorate because it is so rare in a party with so many who want to be loved by liberals and are willing to dishonor themselves to get there. Think John McCain and Mitt Romney and other RINOs.

The Republican Party SHINED under President Trump with so many brilliant accomplishments but now comes Jim Inhofe to put a black stain on them and weaken the structure so that Republican have to think, why the hell should I vote Republican? They don't represent me. Inhofe represents Elizabeth Warren and people who hate me.

Of course, President Trump is such a fighter and has governed so brilliantly, that the rank and file would follow him across a desert of fire if necessary, barefoot, with no water and with burning glass on the sand for hundreds of miles.

We are with you President Trump.

State Republicans in Georgia, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin and other places better jump into action right now. They better do everything they can to root out election fraud and act according to the Constitution.

We must make sure that every single ballot cast in this election is legitimate, and none were scanned multiple times, no dead people voted, or illegal aliens.

Every time a fraudulent ballot was cast it disenfranchised a legitimate American voter.

We can not allow machines to flip votes from Trump to Biden. The corrupt Dominion machines in Georgia, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin must be forensically examined and confirmed to be OK, or not, and if not, as a ton of evidence suggests, then electors must be chosen by the legislatures in those states as the Constitution requires.

The Supreme Court better get some guts too and stop acting like a cowardly group of undignified clowns scared of their own shadows. They better learn from Justices Thomas and Alito and stop letting the country down. Texas's law suit was a good one and laid all the corruption out. Every state in the Union has been severely damaged by the election fraud in Georgia, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan, and the criminals must be held accountable.

This situation is a lot more serious than some are taking it. There is not going to be a shake hands with Biden and try harder next time.

Losing is OK but being cheated and robbed is NOT, and for the future of our country, can not and will not be tolerated under any circumstances.


1 Gene Kizer, Jr., "Republicans, There is No Downside to Defending Southern History," July 30, 2020,, accessed 12-17-20.

2 See Rachel Coker, "Historian revises estimate of Civil War dead," published September 21, 2011, Binghamton University Research News - Insights and Innovations from Binghamton University,, accessed July 7, 2014. Hacker's range is 650,000 to 850,000. He uses 750,000.

3 Drew Gilpin Faust, This Republic of Suffering, Death and the American Civil War (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2008), xi.

4 Ibid.

5 Ibid.

6 Faust, This Republic of Suffering, xii.

7 "American Valor at Chickamauga", Confederate Veteran, Vol. V, No. 3, March, 1897.

8 Historian Phil Leigh, "Exploding the Lost Cause Myth,", accessed 12/16/20.

9 "President Trump, GOP ally vow Confederate base names won't change", July 24, 2020,, accessed 7-29-20.

10 Ibid.

Don’t Mess with Texas! Texas Sues Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin at the Supreme Court

Don't Mess with Texas!
Texas Sues Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan
and Wisconsin at the Supreme Court

Texas Is Immediately Joined by 17 Other States.

by Gene Kizer, Jr.

The Law Suit Is Below and Is FASCINATING. It Lays Out Massive Election Fraud. President Trump Is Petitioning to Join the Suit too. Encourage YOUR State to Join in!

The outrageous election fraud of 2020 can not stand.

It must be litigated and criminals go to jail and, where applicable, be tried for treason and executed. The latter suits me best. Each execution would be an event to celebrate.

The illegalities of the 2020 election are bad enough but the suppression of legitimate news by Google, Facebook, Twitter and the "mainstream media" (I can't mention them without first wanting to throw up, then becoming enraged) also can not be tolerated.

We now know that the New York Post story about Hunter Biden's laptop and his allegedly corrupt influence peddling with China, Ukraine, and others, which was deliberately suppressed by Google, Facebook, Twitter, the NY Times, the Washington Post, NPR, NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN (what a joke), The Atlantic, and all the rest of it, would have swung over 10% of Biden voters away from him. That alone would have given President Trump the election.

That 10% of Biden voters have said they would not have voted for Biden if they had they known of the allegations against Hunter and Joe Biden including the interview with Tony Bobulinski, whom Tucker Carlson interviewed for almost an hour before the election.

Bobulinski was, for a while, Hunter Biden's business partner. Bobulinski gave times, dates, amounts of money, and provided devastating evidence against Hunter and Joe Biden.

Bobulinski is sincere, honorable and imminently believable. That's why our despicable corrupt media covered it up.

American citizens deserved to know this but tyrannical, immoral Google, Facebook, Twitter and the fraudulent mainstream media, denied over half of us.

This is unconscionable corruption.

There are anti-trust suits now against Google and Facebook, and I hope soon against Twitter too. All should be broken up.

They are all worse than the Communist governments around the world. They are worst than Russian oligarchs and South American dictators.

We can not allow them to trample our First Amendment rights. Who the hell elected them to anything! They are despised by over half the country.

They are all hard-left partisans who hate us Deplorables with our God, guns and patriotism.

If the Supreme Court throws out illegal votes in Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, or grants other relief to the plaintiffs such as ruling that the legislatures in those states should approve the electors -- WHICH IS UNQUESTIONABLY CONSTITUTIONAL -- then Trump wins because each of those four states has a Republican legislature meaning each has a Republican majority in both the House and Senate.

Right now the electoral count, which is a total fraud, is Trump 232, verses Biden, 306, but Georgia has 16 electoral votes, Pennsylvania, 20, Michigan, 16, and Wisconsin, 10. Together they total 62 electoral votes.

If you add those 62 to Trump's total -- because he did win those states -- after you read Texas's law suit, there will be no doubt in your mind -- and you remove those 62 from Biden, Trump wins 294 to 244. That is the legitimate count in the 2020 election.

Many people in the know believe this election is part of a "color revolution" which is used by the CIA and others against governments around the world at times. The corrupt election is stolen by massive fraud including with voting machines like the oft-mentioned Dominion Voting Systems with its ties to the Clinton Global Initiative and high up Democrat leaders and activists.

Dominion Voting Systems' machines were either pre-programmed with thousands of Biden votes already loaded before election day, and/or programmed to switch Trump votes to Biden after Trump reached a certain number, thus guaranteeing that Trump could not win.

In a color revolution, an election is stolen by fraud then there are massive demonstrations, violence and anarchy in the streets.

Of course, that is poised to happen here should Trump win back this election that has obviously been stolen.

When it does, President Trump should invoke the Insurrection Act and put down the threat with 100 times the force and violence being used by the criminals in the street. They should be arrested en mass and thrown in jail and the whole thing thoroughly investigated because this is treason that threatens our country's very existence.

It is not funny or OK any longer. The rule of law and legitimate government of the United States must prevail.

Here is Texas's brilliant law suit against Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin that is currently before the United States Supreme Court and has been joined by 17 other states who are protecting the votes of their citizens. Those votes have been nullified by the alleged corrupt, illegal Democrat Party machines in the biggest cities of Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

I want to warn you. This is some damn good reading.

Texas Law Suit Against Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin at SCOTUS, PAGE 1.
Texas Law Suit Against Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin at SCOTUS, PAGE 2.
Texas Law Suit Against Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin at SCOTUS, PAGE 3.
Texas Law Suit Against Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin at SCOTUS, PAGE 4.
Texas Law Suit Against Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin at SCOTUS, PAGE 5.
Texas Law Suit Against Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin at SCOTUS, PAGE 6.
Texas Law Suit Against Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin at SCOTUS, PAGE 7.

“[T]hat form of government which is best contrived to secure an impartial and exact execution of the law, is the best of republics.”
—John Adams


Our Country stands at an important crossroads. Either the Constitution matters and must be followed, even when some officials consider it inconvenient or out of date, or it is simply a piece of parchment on display at the National Archives. We ask the Court to choose the former.

Lawful elections are at the heart of our constitutional democracy. The public, and indeed the candidates themselves, have a compelling interest in ensuring that the selection of a President—any President—is legitimate. If that trust is lost, the American Experiment will founder. A dark cloud hangs over the 2020 Presidential election.

Here is what we know. Using the COVID-19 pandemic as a justification, government officials in the defendant states of Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin, and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (collectively, “Defendant States”), usurped their legislatures’ authority and unconstitutionally revised their state’s election statutes. They accomplished these statutory revisions through executive fiat or friendly lawsuits, thereby weakening ballot integrity. Finally, these same government officials flooded the Defendant States with millions of ballots to be sent through the mails, or placed in drop boxes, with little or no chain of custodyi and, at the same time, weakened the strongest security measures protecting the integrity of the vote—signature verification and witness requirements.

Presently, evidence of material illegality in the 2020 general elections held in Defendant States grows daily. And, to be sure, the two presidential candidates who have garnered the most votes have an interest in assuming the duties of the Office of President without a taint of impropriety threatening the perceived legitimacy of their election. However, 3 U.S.C. § 7 requires that presidential electors be appointed on December 14, 2020. That deadline, however, should not cement a potentially illegitimate election result in the middle of this storm—a storm that is of the Defendant States’ own making by virtue of their own unconstitutional actions.

This Court is the only forum that can delay the deadline for the appointment of presidential electors under U.S.C. §§ 5, 7. To safeguard public legitimacy at this unprecedented moment and restore public trust in the presidential election, this Court should extend the December 14, 2020 deadline for Defendant States’ certification of presidential electors to allow these investigations to be completed. Should one of the two leading candidates receive an absolute majority of the presidential electors’ votes to be cast on December 14, this would finalize the selection of our President. The only date that is mandated under the Constitution, however, is January 20, 2021. U.S. CONST. amend. XX.

Against that background, the State of Texas (“Plaintiff State”) brings this action against Defendant States based on the following allegations:


1.         Plaintiff State challenges Defendant States’ administration of the 2020 election under the Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2, and the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

2.         This case presents a question of law: Did Defendant States violate the Electors Clause (or, in the alternative, the Fourteenth Amendment) by taking—or allowing—non-legislative actions to change the election rules that would govern the appointment of presidential electors?

3.         Those unconstitutional changes opened the door to election irregularities in various forms. Plaintiff State alleges that each of the Defendant States flagrantly violated constitutional rules governing the appointment of presidential electors. In doing so, seeds of deep distrust have been sown across the country. In the spirit of Marbury v. Madison, this Court’s attention is profoundly needed to declare what the law is and to restore public trust in this election.

4.         As Justice Gorsuch observed recently, “Government is not free to disregard the [Constitution] in times of crisis. … Yet recently, during the COVID pandemic, certain States seem to have ignored these long-settled principles.” Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn, New York v. Cuomo, 592 U.S. ____ (2020) (Gorsuch, J., concurring). This case is no different.

5.         Each of Defendant States acted in a common pattern. State officials, sometimes through pending litigation (e.g., settling “friendly” suits) and sometimes unilaterally by executive fiat, announced new rules for the conduct of the 2020 election that were inconsistent with existing state statutes defining what constitutes a lawful vote.

6.         Defendant States also failed to segregate ballots in a manner that would permit accurate analysis to determine which ballots were cast in conformity with the legislatively set rules and which were not. This is especially true of the mail-in ballots in these States. By waiving, lowering, and otherwise failing to follow the state statutory requirements for signature validation and other processes for ballot security, the entire body of such ballots is now constitutionally suspect and may not be legitimately used to determine allocation of the Defendant States’ presidential electors.

7.         The rampant lawlessness arising out of Defendant States’ unconstitutional acts is described in a number of currently pending lawsuits in Defendant States or in public view including:

•         Dozens of witnesses testifying under oath about: the physical blocking and kicking out of Republican poll challengers; thousands of the same ballots run multiple times through tabulators; mysterious late night dumps of thousands of ballots at tabulation centers; illegally backdating thousands of ballots; signature verification procedures ignored; more than 173,000 ballots in the Wayne County, MI center that cannot be tied to a registered voter;ii

•         Videos of: poll workers erupting in cheers as poll challengers are removed from vote counting centers; poll watchers being blocked from entering vote counting centers—despite even having a court order to enter; suitcases full of ballots being pulled out from underneath tables after poll watchers were told to leave.

•         Facts for which no independently verified reasonable explanation yet exists: On October 1, 2020, in Pennsylvania a laptop and several USB drives, used to program Pennsylvania’s Dominion voting machines, were mysteriously stolen from a warehouse in Philadelphia. The laptop and the USB drives were the only items taken, and potentially could be used to alter vote tallies; In Michigan, which also employed the same Dominion voting system, on November 4, 2020, Michigan election officials have admitted that a purported “glitch” caused 6,000 votes for President Trump to be wrongly switched to Democrat Candidate Biden. A flash drive containing tens of thousands of votes was left unattended in the Milwaukee tabulations center in the early morning hours of Nov. 4, 2020, without anyone aware it was not in a proper chain of custody.

8.         Nor was this Court immune from the blatant disregard for the rule of law. Pennsylvania itself played fast and loose with its promise to this Court. In a classic bait and switch, Pennsylvania used guidance from its Secretary of State to argue that this Court should not expedite review because the State would segregate potentially unlawful ballots. A court of law would reasonably rely on such a representation. Remarkably, before the ink was dry on the Court’s 4- 4 decision, Pennsylvania changed that guidance, breaking the State’s promise to this Court. Compare Republican Party of Pa. v. Boockvar, No. 20-542, 2020 U.S. LEXIS 5188, at *5-6 (Oct. 28, 2020) (“we have been informed by the Pennsylvania Attorney General that the Secretary of the Commonwealth issued guidance today directing county boards of elections to segregate [late-arriving] ballots”) (Alito, J., concurring) with Republican Party v. Boockvar, No. 20A84, 2020 U.S. LEXIS 5345, at *1 (Nov. 6, 2020) (“this Court was not informed that the guidance issued on October 28, which had an important bearing on the question whether to order special treatment of the ballots in question, had been modified”) (Alito, J., Circuit Justice).

9.         Expert analysis using a commonly accepted statistical test further raises serious questions as to the integrity of this election.

10.       The probability of former Vice President Biden winning the popular vote in the four Defendant States—Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin—independently given President Trump’s early lead in those States as of 3 a.m. on November 4, 2020, is less than one in a quadrillion, or 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000. For former Vice President Biden to win these four States collectively, the odds of that event happening decrease to less than one in a quadrillion to the fourth power (i.e., 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,0004). See Decl. of Charles J. Cicchetti, Ph.D. (“Cicchetti Decl.”) at ¶¶ 14-21, 30-31. See App. 4a-7a, 9a.

11.       The same less than one in a quadrillion statistical improbability of Mr. Biden winning the popular vote in the four Defendant States—Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin— independently exists when Mr. Biden’s performance in each of those Defendant States is compared to former Secretary of State Hilary Clinton’s performance in the 2016 general election and President Trump’s performance in the 2016 and 2020 general elections. Again, the statistical improbability of Mr. Biden winning the popular vote in these four States collectively is 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,0005. Id. 10-13, 17-21, 30-31.

12.       Put simply, there is substantial reason to doubt the voting results in the Defendant States. . . .

The above is a VERY SMALL portion of this lengthy lawsuit.
Download a PDF of the ENTIRE LAWSUIT by clicking here and send it to everybody you can! It is 1.3 mg. Save it to your computer and email it to your list and post it on your website.
Here is the PDF on the Texas Attorney General's website. Copy and paste this:
Encourage your state, if it isn't one of the 17 already standing with Texas, to
This should be an overwhelming effort by those who love America and the rule of law because there is no tomorrow for our country if we lose.



i See

ii All exhibits cited in this Complaint are in the Appendix to the Plaintiff State’s forthcoming motion to expedite (“App. 1a151a”). See Complaint (Doc. No. 1), Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. v. Benson, 1:20-cv-1083 (W.D. Mich. Nov. 11, 2020) at ¶¶ 26-55 & Doc. Nos. 1-2, 1-4.

Join the Abbeville Institute the Premier Organization in America for the Study of that Glorious Place South of the Mason-Dixon Line.

Join the Abbeville Institute,
the Premier Organization in America for the Study of
that Glorious Place South of the Mason-Dixon Line.

by Gene Kizer, Jr.

If I was on Jeopardy! and Alex Trebek (God Bless him! Rest in peace, Alex!) asked me to name one personality from the Old South that is typical of the scholarly firepower and spirit of the Abbeville Institute, I would unhesitatingly state Alexander Hamilton Stephens, "Little Alec," as his friend Robert Toombs called him, and I would cite as proof his brilliant two volume set of over 1,200 pages, A Constitutional View of the Late War Between the States; Its Causes, Character, Conduct and Results. Presented in a Series of Colloquies at Liberty Hall.

Or perhaps Albert Taylor Bledsoe, or William Gilmore Simms, maybe Edgar Allan Poe or Joel Chandler Harris. If the question extended into the 20th century maybe Douglas Southall Freeman or Richard Weaver, maybe C. Vann Woodward, definitely Shelby Foote, William Faulkner and D. W. Griffith.

There are too many to list but the point is, you can find all of their spirits and SO many others from our rich Southern culture alive and well at the Abbeville Institute.

Join and support the Abbeville Institute!

Abbeville Institute newsletter, Fall, 2020, front cover.
Abbeville Institute newsletter, Fall, 2020, front cover.

America desperately needs the discourse and scholarship the Abbeville Institute is injecting into this pathetic "woke" twenty-first century we find ourselves in.

We are in an uncharted time in American history when as a country we desperately need the good sense and character of Southerners who are grounded, solid and proud of the fact that we founded this great nation and impressed our values on it from the beginning with Georgia Washington and Thomas Jefferson, to Robert E. Lee.

Just like before World War II, when the German American Bund and their Nazi and anti-Semitic propaganda was warmly welcomed in many Northern cities, penetrating the South was much more difficult. We know who we are and we like what we know.

At the Abbeville Institute, you might meet your future spouse, perhaps a like-minded individual in a lecture full of ladies and gentlemen enjoying and contributing in a fun learning atmosphere.

There are Podcasts, excellent Blog Articles daily by email (Thank you Dr. Brian McClanahan!), Seminars like this one I went to in 2018: Charleston, SC: Attacking Confederate Monuments and Its Meaning for America. It featured several distinguished speakers, then an open bar and dinner in the evening with keynote address by former Georgia Congressman, Ben Jones, whom you might know better as "Cooter" in the Dukes of Hazard! It was GREAT and there were hundreds of people (maybe over 1,000!) there at the Crowne Plaza Hotel in North Charleston. They have events like this all over the country. Check out their Past Events and Photo Gallery.

There are Audio Lectures and YouTube Videos.

They have done 17 week-long Summer Schools at beautiful Camp Saint Christopher on Seabrook Island, South Carolina where the food and atmosphere is excellent, and the days are long with relaxing evening discussions after the day's activities.

I don't want to leave out anything because there is also a Review of Books, the Clyde Wilson Library (great articles by, you guessed it, Clyde Wilson!), the Abbeville Institute Press, and Recommended Books, Music and More.

Their Purpose and Principles are stated in a video by founder, Don Livingston.

There is a Contact Form and Article Submission Information.

Please DONATE to this outstanding organization (I do NOT get a commission for this! This promo in my blog is a labor of love because I want to be effective for the truth of Southern history and this is one way to do it!).

To give you a taste of what to expect out of the Abbeville Institute, here is an article from their Fall, 2020 newsletter that came out recently. The emphasis is theirs. Article is entitled:

The Charleston City Council Signals Its Virtue to the Left
Tearing Down the Monument to South Carolina's
Greatest Statesman.

On June 24, in the middle of the night, the city's magnificent monument to John C. Calhoun was destroyed. You have to wonder why. Calhoun has been judged by many to be a model of statesmanship. A senate committee chaired by John F. Kennedy ranked him among the top five senators of all time. And he was the first American to work out an original political philosophy, his Disquisition on Government is in league with the work of great modern political philosophers such as Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, and Hume. Nineteenth century British philosophers, John Stuart Mill and Lord Acton admired it, and it is studied around the world today.

Why was the monument to this great statesman reduced to rubble? What was so horrible that even Clemson University removed his name from the Calhoun Honors College, which sits on the ground of his plantation and home and was given by the family to create the university?

The answer is that in a Senate speech given in 1837 Calhoun said, "slavery is a positive good." Historians have taken him to mean that slavery "abstractly considered" is a good thing and have presented Calhoun as a moral monster, against which a self-congratulatory American liberalism defines itself. There is no excuse for this because the senate stenographer records that Calhoun strongly, "denied having pronounced slavery in the abstract a good." All he said was that given "existing circumstances" in the United States, it was the best arrangement for the African population and the country. What were those circumstances? And what was the morally right thing to have done about slavery in antebellum America?

First, slavery was not a wrong peculiar to the South. Massachusetts, in 1641, was the first colony to legalize the slave trade. New England ran a slave trade with Africa for 170 years. As of 1860, the wealth of the Northeast was built on financing, servicing, shipping, and insuring slave produced staples. By some estimates the North received 40 cents of every dollar made by the planters. From the first, most federal revenue came from the South's vast export trade. In short, slavery was a national wrong. So, the morally right thing would have been a nationally funded program to emancipate slaves, compensate the planters, and integrate the African population into American society.

Yet during the entire antebellum era, no Northern leaders ever put forth a nationally funded plan of compensated emancipation and integration. Integration was especially out of the question. The constitution of Lincoln's Illinois prohibited any free blacks from entering the state. Every state in the Midwest and West either prohibited or severely restricted their entrance. The Republican Party platform of 1856 said, in part, that: "all unoccupied territories of the United States, and such as they may hereafter acquire, shall be reserved for the white Caucasian race, a thing that cannot be except by the exclusion of slavery." Lincoln agreed, saying the region should be kept free of "the troublesome presence of free Negroes."

Lincoln explained why no national plan of emancipation had been put forth. If slaves were freed without civil rights most would be thrown in to vagabondage and crime which would make them worse off. But neither could they be emancipated with civil rights because he said: "My own feelings will not admit of this," nor would those of the "great mass" of Americans. He concluded: "We cannot, then, make them equals." And he confessed: "If all earthly power were given to me, I should not know what to do, as to the existing institution." So, he kicked the can down the road.

Next to colonizing blacks abroad, Lincoln (and the North) favored segregation. "What I would most desire," he said, "is a separation of the white and black races." By this he meant continental segregation, keeping the North and West white and the South bi-racial. Slavery, he said, might last a "hundred years" if confined to the South. A virtually all white North and West was not a pipe dream. By 1860, it was nearly a fact. Blacks in New England were a mere 0.8 percent. In the rest of the North, 1.8 percent, and in the West, 1.1 percent. By contrast, blacks in the Upper South were around 20 percent. In the Deep South, 42 percent.

But many anti-slavery advocates were not content with confining blacks, slave and free, to the South. They urged policies that would gradually lead to the extinction of blacks. The Republican controlled House Committee on Emancipation Policy said in its 1862 report: "the highest interests of the white race, whether Anglo-Saxon, Celtic, or Scandinavian, requires that the whole country should be held and occupied by these races alone." The extinction would happen "naturally" because it was thought blacks were structurally inferior, and without the cradle to grave care of the plantation system, could not compete with whites in a free market in labor. They would die out or move to racially mixed Mexico or be willing to accept federally funded colonization.

Though it forms no part of our public history, what I shall call the "extinction thesis" was widely held in Northern society and at the highest level. Consider Theodore Parker. He was the very exemplar of radical abolitionism, a charismatic minister, and a supporter of John Brown's raid on Harper's Ferry. Yet he was so convinced of black inferiority that he declared: "When slavery is abolished the African population will decline in the United States and die out of the South as out of [New England (Abbeville italics)]." Horace Bushnell was an abolitionist and one of the North's distinguished theologians. It did not bother him that emancipation would mean the extinction of blacks: "since we must all die, why should it grieve us, that a stock thousands of years behind, in the scale of culture, should die with few and still fewer children to succeed, till finally the whole succession remains in the more cultivated race." Charles Francis Adams, grandson of John Quincy Adams, said that emancipation means "the inferior [blacks] will disappear . . . before the more vigorous race." And Reverend J. M. Sturtevant, president of Illinois College said that with emancipation, blacks would "melt away and disappear forever from the midst of us." The Yankee sage, Ralph Waldo Emerson agreed: "the black man" in America, he said, is "destined for museums like the Dodo."

Southerners were excoriated in Congress without mercy for perpetuating the "evil" of slavery. Calhoun challenged anti-slavery Northern senators that if they really believed slavery, as practice in the South, was an unmitigated evil, they were morally bound "to put it down." But that would mean paying their share in the cost of emancipation and in allowing free blacks to settle in their societies. It also meant losing the enormous profits gained from servicing the institution. None of that was acceptable. So, despite all the handwringing and vilification, slavery was to remain. In saying slavery was a positive good, Calhoun was being intentionally outrageous to jar the Yankee critic out of ideological posturing about slavery (which only inflamed passions, was morally corrupting, and produced no positive good for the slave or the country), into examining the actual practice of slavery to see what good it produced.

Calhoun was a man of the nineteenth century who believed in progress, and he viewed slavery as an evolving, progressive institution. The Africans had arrived a demoralized people, torn from their tribal roots and devoid of a European culture. Calhoun considered it a great achievement that (unlike in the North), blacks, slave and free, had become an integral part of Southern society through the plantation household. Masters and slaves attended the same church. Their lodgings were often in the same yard and sometimes the same house. Calhoun took pride in the fact that in the arts of "civilization": some had "nearly kept pace" with their masters. And he put no limit on what they might achieve or how the institution of slavery in the South might evolve.

He argued that as to physical well-being, slaves were arguably better off than Yankee factory workers who could be cast aside after years of service if they became ill or were otherwise not useful. Some corroboration for his argument can be found in Time on the Cross, a study of the economics of Southern slavery by Robert Fogel, a Nobel laureate in economics, and Stanley Engerman, an authority on slave economies. Historians, they say, have exaggerated both the cruelty of slavery and the abolitionist's belief in the inferiority of blacks. They show (as Calhoun argued) that slavery was an evolving institution. As international markets became more competitive, planters educated slaves in valuable production, engineering, and management skills that required initiative and more responsibility. These qualities, the authors say, could not be generated by force alone but required incentives in pecuniary gain as well as more liberty and respect.

By 1860, the institution for a great many slaves, had evolved into a condition of what the authors call "quasi-slavery" and "quasi-liberty," which intimated eventual emancipation. By 1860 nearly half the blacks of Maryland were free. When John Brown invaded Harpers Ferry to start a slave uprising, there were 1,251 free blacks and 88 slaves. The first man he killed was a free black man going about his work. As of 1860, free blacks in the South owned property worth $25,000,000 or $800,000,000 today.

If Calhoun's vision of slavery as a progressive, evolving institution is rejected, what alternatives did Northern anti-slavery advocates provide? They were the following. (1) The abolitionist's demand for "immediate and uncompensated" emancipation. This was pure fantasy and morally reprehensible because it failed to acknowledge the North's responsibility for the origin and continuation of slavery. (2) Colonization abroad was impractical because few blacks wanted to leave, and few Northerners wanted to pay. (3) The policy of continental segregation confined slavery to the South where it would eventually die out, leaving the nation virtually free of blacks. But given the great racial imbalance in the South, the "dying out" would be long drawn out and painful for the black man before he became what Emerson called the "Dodo" in a "museum."

All the Northern anti-slavery alternatives were fantasies, mere attempts to escape the presence of blacks. None confronted the true moral challenge, namely a national program of emancipation, compensation, and integration. But worse, there was not concern for the welfare of blacks as there was in Calhoun's vision. All were about the interests of white Northerners. And that disposition continue into and after the War. The Emancipation Proclamation was a mere military measure designed to cause a slave uprising to end the War. No provision was made before hand to care for those freed. When Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens asked Lincoln how he was to provide for the mass of slaves, he replied: "Root hot!" (from the saying "Root hog or die"). Recent studies show that tens of thousands died of starvation an disease, uprooted by the Emancipation Proclamation and from the care of the plantation.

After the War, the vast western territory could have provided farms to give the freedmen a fresh start, and there was a great demand for labor in postwar Northern industry. But both land and jobs were closed to the freedmen in favor of European immigrants. In contrast, the railroads were given more land than the territorial size of Germany!

Finally, Lincoln would not allow the South to secede and work out an eventual emancipation on its own terms. He invaded and conquered the region not to free slaves (as he repeatedly confessed) but to prevent secession in order to build a regime of economic nationalism controlled by the New York-Chicago industrial axis. The death toll for the invasion, if civilians and the humanitarian disaster of the Emancipation Proclamation are included, is around a million.

When Calhoun's vision of slavery as an evolving progressive institution is compared to the Northern anti-slavery alternative of continental segregation and the macabre Darwinian notion of gradual black extinction through emancipation to achieve an all-white America, the Yankee alternative appears morally reprehensible. In some respects, Calhoun's vision is morally superior. It is certainly not worse. In any case, Calhoun does not deserve the treatment meted out by historians who treat his limited, circumstantial defense of slavery as a reprehensible universalist attachment to bondage---something he explicitly disowned.

Antebellum America is a strange and complex place but not to the one-dimensional Woke mind of Charleston's mayor and city council. They made rubble of the monument to one of America's greatest statesmen and political thinkers because he endorsed "white supremacy," as if the Northern segregation and extinction policies of Lincoln, Bushnell, Parker, and Emerson did not. This impious act has impoverished the rich and complex cultural inheritance that should be passed on to the youth of South Carolina, black and white. Students will see no reason to read Calhoun and, consequently, will be bereft of the wisdom contained in his philosophical explanation of how tyranny arises in the American system and how it can be prevented.

Experience has shown that thoughtful black students, given the opportunity to gain a clear-eyed view of the continental segregation and extinction policy of Northern anti-slavery, often come to see Calhoun as an honorable and humane man seeking to do the best, given the constraints of his time, and are more inclined to take down a monument to Lincoln who talked about freedom abstractly but did nothing to ameliorate the condition of black people before or during the War.