Thursday, December 10, 2020

No Christian In the United States Is Going to Be Able to Just Ignore the Country To Serve God and His Kingdom

Well known Christian leaders today remind people that we're not on earth to sustain America, but to serve God and His kingdom.  It's true.  How does that thought change evangelistic efforts right now?  Does it stop parents in churches from thinking about how they will educate their children?  Does that mean ignore the deluge of sewage that comes through the media and the easy accessibility to it?  What if your people don't have a job because the economy is shot?  If the church budget shrinks, what does that do to mission support?  When you go to plan your week, how will you do church with the shut down or new regulations?  How is hospital visitation?  How does your church relate to the fast downward slide of Christianity?  How will your church relate to "wokeness"?

There are at least two countries right now.  One country thinks there was fraud in the election even if no one hacked the computer voting systems.  Ballot harvesting, a modern kind of stuffing the ballot box in the age of Covid-19, isn't "voting."  I'm not going to review all the other issues.  One country covers this.  The other doesn't.  One calls the election and titles someone president-elect and moves on.  The other says that counting only legal votes, he won in a landslide.  Both cannot be true.  One says the Biden family enriched themselves all over the world and are owned by the Chinese.  The other just ignores that.  One says Trump was a Russian agent and the other says the government spied on a political campaign.  These cannot both be true.

One side says they want the liberty to label someone a Sodomite and call that activity sin.  A high percentage of the other sides says they want that speech to be illegal and punished.  One side wants to treat transgenderism as legitimate, legal, protected, and promoted through affirmative action.  Let's put transgenders in positions of authority among other affirmative action.   That same side wants to keep killing babies.  The other side wants both of those last two eliminated.  I'm not going to keep going.  It would be a book length treatment to characterize the two countries.

To obey the Bible in this culture, a church must take a stand against what is happening not only in the culture, but also in other churches.  In this country, that also means attempting to do something about it.  This is part of being salt of the earth.  Salt in Matthew 5:13-16 is mainly a preservative.  That doesn't mean that the church stops being the church, but the church still must stand against sin.  It must not allow sin and false doctrine in the church, but it also much stand up against it in the culture.  If not, what's going to happen is that very soon, people are going to be in jail and starting a new prison ministry.

Any one of us can gladly and happily say that we would welcome a prison ministry and call on the Apostle Paul as an example.  The world was already deeply in that condition when Paul began.  Starting in the 16th century, the world began to change.  True Christians were still being persecuted and killed in Europe, but that was changing.  Then a boatload of Christians came to the new world and that impacted everywhere.  Wouldn't you say that they weren't ignoring the country to serve God and the kingdom?  The two went together.  That move that culminated on November 11, 1620, just over four hundred years ago, made a lot of difference to our world history in the proceeding exactly four centuries.  Would you agree that we're at the precipice of just throwing that away or at least allowing it to disappear?

The way to preserve freedom that would allow for continuation of biblical church activity is not by ignoring differences and learning to get along with them.  One of the two sides will not allow for that.  Getting along will mean subjugating biblical teaching and practice to their views.  Maybe you think it would be good for the church to go underground.  Pastors and other church leaders preparing their people for persecution and operating underground is not just ignoring the country to serve God and the kingdom.  We're already to a place where these forces cannot be ignored.   We're not there yet, but I'm writing here saying that we're close to that and we should try to postpone it at least. 

Both postponing the loss and then total loss of freedoms necessary for a church to function according to scripture can be done while participating in a wholesale obedience to biblical church life.  All the evangelism, discipleship, edification, building, worship, discipline, and growth can occur at the same time as attempting to defend freedom.  Capitulation should not be a strategy.  Biblical principle can be relied upon to do both.  If we're going to pray that we can live peaceable lives (1 Timothy 2:1-2), then we should do everything we can do to live those lives.  Faith without works is dead.

Priorities should be kept.  The church should still be the church.  It isn't the government.  The church, however, should not sit back and try to remain neutral and straddle both countries.  That's what I see John Piper, Tim Keller, Mark Dever, most of the Southern Baptist Convention, the Calvary Chapel type of churches, almost all of evangelicalism, and now much of fundamentalism doing.  Warnings come from pseudo-Christians that we won't be a good enough testimony to evangelize if we support one side in the culture war.  They long ago capitulated to the culture in numbers of ways and are attempting to write a theology into the Bible that fits with their compromise.  They think that is the best future, because a bridge will still exist to one of these two countries to bring them into the church.

Every time I write something about the subject matter of this post, I get attacked by multiple anonymous commenters ridiculing me and attacking me as misrepresenting Christianity.  This is the "love is love" crowd.  This is the Christianity of the leftist value sign.  They attempt to create an environment of fear that will scare someone from saying anything.   Virtually all of the Bible clashes with one of the two countries that exist.  Much of the Bible also clashes with most of the other country too, but the second one of these two would like to allow someone still to keep and preach all of the Bible.  Much of this side still thinks absolute truth should exist.  That's where we're at right now.

What can we do?  We must do all the normal things, like vote, speak out, write, even give money, and show support for the right side.  I don't know what else is going to be necessary.  Right now, when you are threatened by someone and insulted, you can't let that stop you from your support of the right side.  Some are using the "S" word, secession.  I don't know how that will occur.  It wouldn't be the secession of states likely, but the secession of counties.  You've seen the red map.

The red part and the blue part each has two very different views of the world.  Sure, the red people live in blue parts and blue people live in red parts.  That will likely continue.  However, the sides are so separate, I believe two countries are necessary now.  The two views and even two countries can't coexist.  I know one of them doesn't want to allow the other to exist, just look at Portland, Seattle, and Minneapolis.  I don't know how this split is going to take place, but true Christians should be prepared to know what they will do, depending on how it's going to occur.

Let me give you a thought experiment.  Let's say that Texas wins this lawsuit against the four swing states that didn't follow their own election law, violating the Constitution.  In other words, let's say that the Supreme Court turns the election to the legislatures of Georgia, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin, which happen to all four be Republican majority.  All four of them choose Trump electors.  Trump wins, because that's enough to give Trump 270 plus electors.  Do you think violence will result?  Should the Supreme Court ignore the Constitution because it knows that violence will occur?

The blue media is just calling the Texas lawsuit crazy.  Haven't you heard that argument before?  Anti-abortion just crazy.  Pro-boundary crazy.  Anti-transgender crazy.  If not crazy, then wacky conspiracy theorists, who are overturning an election and disenfranchising inner city voters.  This is a right wing coup, that kind of thing.  These are the Russion hoaxers speaking.  They say a girl can be a boy and vice versa.  That's the country they envision.  They defend a man wearing a poofy woman's gown as normal.

I think the Texas lawsuit is legitimate.  I believe they are right.  The left isn't saying they are not giving a good legal or Constitutional argument.  The left is just saying they are crazy.  If the Supreme Court is still too woke to vote according to the meaning or writing of the Constitution, its actual text, what does the red side do?  Do they just be super nice and let it go.  They know what happened.  Their side was too scared to vote according to the law.  What will this mean?   This seems like a precipice to me.

I don't mind being an evangelist in a blue region.  However, I don't want the country by necessity to become blue.  It shouldn't.  Churches can't and shouldn't ignore this.  They can tell their people the truth and that's not being a "bad testimony," something we're being told by woke evangelicals, because they think that will work.  When I'm out preaching the gospel, politics themselves do not enter in.  It doesn't relate to that.

We need to know that serving the kingdom or working at protecting liberty isn't binary.  Yes, that word, binary, is useful here.  We can keep these two thoughts in our brain at the same time, not disparate.  They are connected thoughts.  We can defend from scripture keeping this two ideas in our heads at the same time. When someone mocks us or attacks us, we don't have to capitulate to "be a good testimony."  That's just a strategy on their part.  They've studied us and think it will work.  They know how we tick.  Don't listen to it.  It's a lie.


Tenrin Grey said...

Praying for my brothers and sisters in Christ in the USA.

The USA has long been used by God to send missionaries and bring the gospel to all parts of the world. That's why Satan hates the USA, and tries to destroy it.

Hopefully more sound churches like yours will continue to hold the line there.

Kent Brandenburg said...

Thanks Tenrin. Where are you from? I appreciate your spirit. I know we disagree on Genesis 6, but it's not a separating issue for us.

Keep up the good work.

Anonymous said...

Haha, Trumpy tells you what to believe and you are fool enough to continue to believe. You are Kent, either too stupid to be a pastor or a pragmatist to the point of extreme hypocritism. Only a fool or a hypocrite would claim to be a pastor and continue to defend Trump and his enabler's lies.

Anonymous said...

What we have are people that know the truth but are not steeled against the accusations being relentlessly flung against them. What's really happened over the past number of years is that the religion of progressivism has undermined institutions and is dishonestly pursuing what might be terms a hostile takeover of another country. There have been a lot of accusations made is what has happened.

It actually represents a small segment of people. But the rest who are not used to such a hostile kind of ideological assault, one that spits on and accuses others while expecting to be treated with respect - are ready to follow suit in order to keep the illusion of agreement and plurality with all views, even subversive and seditious ones, like communism that work to undermine liberties and basic protections and guarantees that we have had for centuries. They would ignore that to keep the (illusion of) material prosperity. People also have perception issues (they believe that people in power, "experts" and so forth for some reason cannot be radically unhinged) which hopefully the past events have helped awaken them to regarding the fact there is a partisan media that will not report unfavorable news to its own agenda. Now all of a sudden they are allowed to talk about the Hunter laptop. Beforehand you were ghosted & blacklisted from the social platforms for even talking about it. It was a Russian conspiracy. They did not allow discussion of it at the presidential debates because it was supposedly a planted device, a Russian conspiracy. Now it stopped becoming one.

Everyone should be able to see what is going on clearly. They should have realized by now we are dealing with people who want to "tell a big lie often enough" to pass the credulity test. It's an insult to your intelligence to pretend you do not realize this by now. I think they do: but even if they realize that, they cannot win or turn back the face of it, without Christ. So, they should realize that and have the humility to admit their compromises are wrong. Otherwise, they face being swept away. If their own compromises haven't already done it themselves. But I know that God's people will continue to be protected while flood waters threaten others. A thousand shall fall at thy side, and ten thousand at thy right hand, but it shall not come nigh to thee. Simply existing is a true battle won, and finding the right way to be following commandments of Scripture is winning battles. The fact that the adversaries feel the need to control all speech is comforting simply because I know that my win condition, world-overcoming condition is far simpler than that; I don't need to do that, I can always stand for myself, and that time really is on the side of the truth holder.

The whole chess game we are presented with doesn't matter. It's just another way to prove the wrong side is wrong and does bad things before judgment is finally handed out. The Amalekite who thinks he has done something boastworthy will realize his mistake, that he has actually testified against himself completely. On the other side, being the true one who falls to treachery and betrayal is actually a badge of honor.

Kent Brandenburg said...

It's helpful when someone goes ahead and comes on to provide an example or illustration of what I'm talking about.

Kent Brandenburg said...

I published one negative, non-troll comment that actually spoke to the point of the article, so don't get excited anonymous. It's not usually going to make it. You'll have to be craftier.

I am going to comment on the comment though, that is, do I retract this whole post because the Supreme Court rejected a case brought by 19 states, 127 congressmen, the President, and many others? I read the case and at least the Wisconsin answer, skimming the Pennsylvania and Georgia arguments. I accept that the Supreme Court didn't think it was right to rule, unlike what would have happened with the left if it had decided to rule for Trump. There are arguments that don't have to be related to standing. The courts don't want to overturn an election, even if it was a fraud. That should be done by the legislative branch. I get a legal argument.

On its face, the constitutional argument that the legislative branch sets election rules, not the executive or judicial, like what happened in Georgia, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin, is a sound one. The rules don't get to be changed just because of the virus, except by the legislative branch. It is rife for fraud. There is proof fraud occurred, and most belief enough to overturn an election, but the case was not enough for the Supreme Court to overturn all those votes. The other arguments were enough to give them an out. They were not related to the legal argument at the core of this case.

It doesn't mean that fraud did not occur. I think it is easy to see it did and a lot of Americans believe it did, about 80 percent of Republicans and up to 30% of Democrats. Fraud occurred. It is provable. There is also the analytics data, that show the result impossible. The problem is solving this with the court. It's not the purview of the Supreme Court. I get that. But I'm still saying that the seeds of secession are just out there. There are two countries.

9.4% in a poll said that they would have voted differently if they had known about the Hunter Biden case, the one censored by most of the media in an unprecedented manner with the NY Post.

I think the point of my post was not the legal aspects of the case. I do think the Supreme Court knew that there would be violence if they took the case. They were thinking about the moderation to keep that from coming from the left. From the left. The other country. I want comments on the point of the post. Not getting a Supreme Court hearing is not proof there are not two countries.

Kent Brandenburg said...

Positive Anonymous Commenter,

You made good points. I agree with God's protection. I agree with ultimate protection. Eternal life.

Tenrin Grey said...

Thank you. I am ministering in Southeast Asia.

Blessings to you

Rob said...

You obviously have not been paying attention. Trump's own attorneys, when asked directly in court, if they are alleging fraud, have been quick to respond in the negative because they know rules of evidence apply and they could be sanctioned by the court if they make false claims. They have largely been arguing about procedural issues, not fraud. Despite that, they have lost over 50 lawsuits in front of both liberal and conservative judges. Do you have some evidence of fraud that Trump's own lawyers do not have? If so, please present it. It it chilling that you are arguing that it is the job of the legislative branch to overturn an election. Really? I think it is instructive that Republicans have given up on even the pretense of supporting democracy. I posted on this blog several years ago that I would not support Trump, even though I am a conservative, because he is corrupt, has autocratic tendencies, and would be bad for the Republican party. I think the last 4 years have borne that out. He is an impeached, one term president who has peddled paranoid conspiracy theories and has convinced 70% of the Republican party that American democracy is a sham. He imposes these ridiculous loyalty tests, like a two-bit mob boss, forcing Republicans to publicly hold these self destructive positions to avoid any angry tweet or to avoid getting "primaried." If the Republican party had any decency left, they would disavow Trump completely, take the hit from their delusional base and live to fight another day. I am not holding my breath.

Kent Brandenburg said...

Hello Rob,

So you think I haven't been paying attention? But you have and you're here to inform all of us, because you have been paying attention. I didn't make that insult, you did, so you now you've got to consider that it's you not paying attention. Actually, I do think you are paying attention, just to the wrong sources. You've been listening to the talking points from the left. I've read what they say too, and I've read almost verbatim all the thing that you are saying. For all of your reading this, and thinking I'm being too combative with Rob, who represents the other country or at least a part of the country deceived by the other country, know that I'm feeling actually very calm right this point.

One could go sentence by sentence through your comment and prove the falsity of each one. Not one of your statements are true. There is some truth in some of them, but also some untruth, which makes them not true. It's true that judges have not accepted cases of various types, the Trump legal team has withdrawn its own cases, but there are several active cases all across the country that are presenting evidence. You say there are none.

I'm going to give you one, which is more than what you say that I have. I'll just use the state of Nevada. The Democrat Party sent mail in ballots to every registered Democrat in Nevada, living or dead. By the way, the legislature of Nevada, which is Democrat, passed that law this Summer, which is why Nevada wasn't in the Texas lawsuit. They were following their laws, but laws that provided opportunity for a lot of fraud for which you don't seem to care, Rob. That's not democracy. There is proof that many dead people voted in Nevada and that evidence was presented before a judge. It would be easy to check how much of that occurred. There are specific names of people that we know voted, who were dead.

Right now there are several active cases across the country -- as of yesterday, at least 12. The media is trying very hard to publicize the accounts of judges dismissing suits. Yes, there is a strong instinct for judges not to involve themselves in elections. If they are conservative, it looks like judicial activism. If they are liberal, then it hurts their guy.

The point of my post was about two countries and what that means to Christians, how they should react. You dealt with a thought experiment I addressed in three paragraphs as if that was the point of my post. You didn't address the point of the post at all. I still let you comment, Rob, because you gave your name. I mainly want to address one sentence you wrote:

"It it (sic) chilling that you are arguing that it is the job of the legislative branch to overturn an election."

I've never written that. Article 2, Section 1, 3rd paragraph of the Constitution of the United States starts: "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct."

Four swing states violated that statement. Their executive or judicial branches changed laws passed by their legislature. They didn't follow their own rules and that affected who won the presidency. The Supreme Court wouldn't take that case, but it wasn't based upon the merit of the case. Two of the judges, Alito and Thomas, said it should be taken, and obviously 19 AG of states, 127 congressmen, and the president, who you say are all conspiratorial here.

You are saying, Rob, that election laws can be changed right before an election, not by the legislatures of states, which allows for ballot harvesting, which itself is fraud. Ballot harvesting occurred. Everyone knows that. This isn't democratic. It is autocratic, to put it in your terms, except provably autocratic, not just speculative.

Rob said...

Your comment won’t age well. Let’s just leave it at that. I’ll check back in on Jan 20. No one is arguing that there is no possibility of ANY fraud out of 150+ million cast, just not enough to change the outcome. ALL of the court cases that have received judgment have been tossed out but one in Philadelphia, and that was a minor procedural issue. You say there are 16 pending cases, however, unless they have new evidence that they are holding back for some reason, they will meet the same fate. You’re worried about laws that provide an “opportunity” for fraud, but I am more interested in actual fraud, and the evidence for that scant, which is why Trump’s lawyers are not even arguing that in court. Yes, the politicians you mentioned are all conspiratorial, or trying to stay in favor of their delusional base. It’s a sad time for our country, and not for the reasons you state.

Andrew said...

Hi Kent,

It's best not to side with the side of corruption and censorship. They stand for the idea that you can do or say anything to win. That's what we see them doing here, pretending to be Republicans.

Remember all of the delusional policies they want. Transgenderism. Pacifying mother earth through redistribution of wealth. This is who we are dealing with (remember: they seriously expect you to believe this stuff) - and it is telling that through all of the changes taking place through out, they want to focus on petty, little complaints. They are like the parrot that keeps repeating what the Party tells them to according to the television anchors they idolize as oracles of truth. It's because trash and mud slinging is all they have, that's all there is to it and there is really no point in spending time giving oxygen to this kind of discourse - at least that is in my humble opinion Pastor Brandenburg. These are people that cannot handle the issues, do not represent who they are or what they believe in good faith, and cannot even hold a simple conversation in good faith. Otherwise, they would already be agreeing with the obvious.

This is just a sad little echo chamber of conspiracy narratives. That's all it is is a set of narratives. It will amount to nothing in my view. Lord willing.

Kent Brandenburg said...

For everyone,

It's interesting how that people today would say that they don't like that President Trump becomes the center of attention. I write a post, he's barely mentioned in it, and the type of people who say that, then make him the center of attention.


This won't age well? I'm guessing it won't be read again in a month. What I would wonder is what is being written is true? If it is true, then it will age as well as it should. So on the very narrow point, which you still didn't address, did four states violate the constitution of the United States? Yes, they did. That isn't a crazy, wild-eyed conspiracy theory. It is true. Why did the Attorneys General and others wait until after the election? The election is when the damage was done to their states. When they saw that damage and why, because of violations of the constitution, they brought it to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court didn't take the case. That's what should bother people. Why? I listened to Alan Dershowitz. He said the case had merit. He said that the justices don't want to be seen as partisan. They don't want to be blamed for the outcome of an election. That really isn't for the Supreme Court to decide. They should judge it on whether there was a legal argument, which there was. There is little precedent for this, because this vote by mail is an outlier in the history of the U.S. A true conservative should care about a textual interpretation of the constitution, a strict construction.

Rob said...

The constitution does not dictate how states manage their elections, which is why the Supreme Court, with a 6-3 conservative majority, rejected the suit. The Justices are committed to the constitution and the rule of law, while the states Attorneys General you seem so enamored with, are politicians and do things for political reasons. If the four states did something unconstitutional, the court would have taken up the case. Your argument that the court is afraid to rule on a controversial matter is absurd. They do it all the time. I’m not going to argue about Alan Dershowitz other than it say that his view is in the extreme minority, and frankly, he doesn’t have much credibility. You’re probably right this column won’t be read again in a month as Republicans will have moved on to some other conspiracy by then and I’m sure you’ll be writing about that.

Anonymous said...

Let's just look at what happened in the four states that were part of the Texas suit.
Here we have:

1) Four states that determined the outcome of the entire race. PA, MI, WI, GA
2) Trump is ahead in all four of them by over 100k. Lead in PA is over 600,000.
3) Statistically, the odds of ALL the Biden votes he needs to win these states still hiding in the last few percentages of the race in ALL four states is something like one in four quadrillion.

4) Vote counting mysteriously stops in the middle of the night in all four states
5) Poll watchers, nonpartisan workers and media are all told to go home
6) Some counters for whatever reason stay behind in a handful of major cities
7) Somehow, all of the votes from this point, which were counted without observers, are something like 97% for Biden, but only in these four swing states
8) Media doesn't want us to talk about it, speech suppression is in place on social media

What happened here is obvious.

Meanwhile, the Republican incumbent wins 18 of the 19 counties that every former winning president always wins (apparently until now) throughout the country in a landslide except for one. The total overall turnout in total votes for his side increases drastically. Which every incumbent who has done so in the past has won re-election. Losing incumbents get fewer votes because they LOSE turnout. The incumbent primary support was above 90th percentile. It was 94%. No incumbent with turnout above 75% in the primary has ever lost. All 27/27 of the down-ticket "tossup" seats were won by the incumbent's side. His primary turnout was 94%.

All of this, all of it is overturned by the result in these four swing states. All norms were broken by this magical performance in just cities in just these four swing states. States that just so happened to be needed to win. Winning these four automatically would make it impossible for Trump to win no matter his performance anywhere else.

And these four states, specifically, the precincts where the questionable behavior occurred, also happen to be run by the party that benefits from the change in the vote. What a funny coincidence!

With winner-takes-all elections, that is all it would take to falsify the outcome of the entire election. Bad security in just a handful of key locations of the bad actors choice to pick from. The Georgia result in particular is incredibly difficult to believe in the face of it.

Now consider all of the other things the pro-Democrat side did to win. They held back news of the vaccine until 5 days after the election. They did not allow discussion of the Hunter investigation until after the election, people had accounts deleted that even talked about it. Now it's being reported openly. Before the election, you were accused of being a Russian agent for reporting it or talking about it. They even said this in the debate.

It is clear we are dealing with people who will DO or SAY anything to win. This includes willing to commit fraud, invalidate the entire election by effectively disenfranchising the entire people of the whole country, and pretend like nothing is wrong with that, as long as it benefits them, the elite minority.

If we were to suppose the voting were something like what it was before the vote counting stopped and the poll watchers were sent home, and that Biden never magically pulled out all the needed votes to win in the middle of the night from the remaining few percentage of votes, then Trump would win all four states in a huge landslide, just as everywhere else.

Anonymous said...

And now suppose all this did not happen. We would not have all the political consequences. Such as new states being created for Democrat senators, ramming through 18 or 19 new justices into the supreme court of the U.S., broad covid lockdowns and green deals designed to break the back of the middle class who voted against them, crippling the American economy by shooting it in the foot, and benefit the elites and China who do not have to follow the regulations. Making it more difficult to organize any resistance against them, just as the Communists did to their own economies.

And most of all... Democrats promoting and glorifying sin. Sin, such as lying and cheating. Interesting how that turned out, isn't it? Another sin they promote is killing children. I wonder what we can expect going forward with this result if it is unchanged?

Anonymous said...

And for those of you who think the virus or mail voting had something to do with this, why did it seem to HELP Trump in everywhere but those four states/cities in those states? Because he outperformed and Biden underperformed Hillary broadly outside of those four states.

Also, why did CNN do a report on SmartMatic in 2006 talking about how it was paid for by the Chavez regime, and now that news story is flagged when anyone posts it on social media? I thought we had the first amendment and these media platforms were a neutral forum and protected under article 230? Why is China meanwhile not censored on Twitter?

Anonymous said...

Sorry for making a fourth comment, but what if I had a family member who died fighting the Chinese in Korea? What would these people have to say about this:

I say it's a fraud. Some people who have gone corrupt, used a system developed by Maduro in this country to benefit themselves and sell out this country to the communist Chinese, who face less censorship from Silicon Valley than the average United States citizen who is living up to their word and doing their duty for the people of this country.

Kent Brandenburg said...


You write: "The constitution does not dictate how states manage their elections."

That is patently wrong. False. It dictates that the legislatures provide the means.

According to Article II, Section 1, Paragraph 3 of the Constitution the state legislature alone defines the method of appointment of the electors. Departing from the legislature as the means violates the constitution. What you are saying is that those four states could violate that prescription if they wanted and the Supreme Court cannot or should not intervene in that. They didn't, but that doesn't mean they were right.

In Georgia, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan, the legislatures chose statewide elections to choose the electors with certain rules and regulations. The other two branches ignored those perimeters in violation of the constitution. After this affected every other state, which kept its laws, whether someone liked them or not, almost 20 other states joined Texas, because of the damage it caused to their states. They followed the Constitution. These four did not.

In Bush v. Gore in his concurring opinion, William Renquist wrote:

But, with respect to a Presidential election, the court must be both
mindful of the legislature's role under Article II in choosing
the manner of appointing electors and deferential to those
bodies expressly empowered by the legislature to carry out
its constitutional mandate.

In order to determine whether a state court has infringed
upon the legislature's authority, we necessarily must examine the law of the State as it existed prior to the action of
the court.

Later he writes:

Acting pursuant to its constitutional grant of authority, the
Florida Legislature has created a detailed, if not perfectly
crafted, statutory scheme that provides for appointment of
Presidential electors by direct election.

Later still:

But as we indicated in our remand of the earlier case, in
a Presidential election the clearly expressed intent of the
legislature must prevail.

This isn't a conspiracy theory, and I'm happy to have someone judge constitutionality. Your insulting statements stand on their own. One characteristic of Trump is to insult those who insult him. This makes him unpopular with people such as yourself, who use the same exact means of accomplishing your goals.

Kent Brandenburg said...

Just as a matter of house cleaning, Margot Cleveland at The Federalist just wrote exactly what I did on the specific point of constitutional reasoning for the Supreme Court to hear the lawsuit:

I guess she's a cultic, mind-controlled, conspiracy theorist. Not.

Douglas Wilson writes about the Supreme Court decision and makes an interesting other take, that being, if the Pennsylvania Republican legislature attempted to one-up its judicial branch and choose its own electors, overturning its own election laws, and then California came to the Supreme Court, SCOTUS would need to vote 9-0 not to hear the case based on precedent. This means that SCOTUS in fact did send a message to Republican legislatures of states that they could go ahead and change the electors. They would not interfere.