On May 13th the Wisconsin Supreme Court struck down the Bill Gates-advocated stay-at-home order, previously ordered by globalist quisling, Governor Tony Evers. After hearing oral arguments on May 5th, the court in its wisdom has made a tremendous ruling that will go far in its implications, perhaps even worldwide. This is one small step for Wisconsinites, but one giant step for all American people. In this analysis we will look at the broader implications for similar possibilities in other states, but also its connection to the upcoming election.
This ruling reaches even farther than Wisconsin, and also farther than the Coronavirus pandemic, because it establishes that the Wisconsin Supreme Court is not friendly towards Democrat Governor Tony Evers.
Democrats are pushing medical tyranny and lockdown as the basis for ultimately eliminating the 2020 election, by closing polls and using online voting. Because the U.S. system gives great authority to the state governors in determining the election rules and the handling and counting of ballots, causing a partisan control over outcomes, the presence of Evers otherwise threatens Trump’s legitimate chances in Wisconsin.
Democrats are pushing for online voting through apps that would be developed by the same Silicon Valley and Google-connected firms that allowed Pete Buttigieg and his SHADOW app to ‘steal’ the Iowa primary from populist Bernie Sanders.
The Iowa outcome showed a red-flag triggering divergence between the reported vote and the exit polling – indicating that there was either tremendous error or that Buttigieg’s team was able to steal the election from Sanders’ team.
In the proposed online voting system that Democrats are pushing for 2020, citizens would almost necessarily have to use a Google Chrome compatible app, given the near monopoly that Google has. This raises a separate but related issue of monopoly practices in the information age, something Bill Gates himself profited from immensely. Just as PC’s come bundled with Windows, many also come bundled with Google’s Chrome internet browser.
Electronic voting would represent a further step away from constitutional rule and the norms of a democratic republic.
Electronic voting has already proved a disaster, and while almost the same as online voting in that respect and for the same reasons, in-person voting still made possible the exit poll. Exit polls were able to give an indication whether the reported vote and the exit poll diverged, which is how election oversight could determine if there was an error or fraud. Online voting eliminates that possibility of detection, opening up the door for more blatantly stolen elections.
Recall that Wisconsin went to Trump in 2016, and in 2019 Democrat Evers was elected governor.
The court’s ruling gives a strong sign as to how they might view Evers attempts to nullify the 2020 presidential election in the state of Wisconsin.
Even this ruling alone shows that lockdown orders are unconstitutional, and therefore illegal.
The Associated Press, in a rare moment of honesty, accurately reported that the ruling;
“essentially reopens the state, lifting caps on the size of gatherings, allowing people to travel as they please and allowing shuttered businesses to reopen, including bars and restaurants,”
They could have just as easily written that the ruling ‘essentially jeopardizes children, first responders, and health-care workers and places public health in jeopardy’, not because this is true, but because the AP has historically written about similar matters in just that way.
The blatantly illegal, unconstitutional and tyrannical order was issued by Health Secretary Andrea Palm, and in this major reversal, the court found she had far exceeded her authority to do so.
In writing the majority opinion, Chief Justice Patience Roggensack put into the record that:
“Rule-making exists precisely to ensure that kind of controlling, subjective judgement asserted by one unelected official, Palm, is not imposed in Wisconsin,”
The decision however does allow schools to remain closed, but places these decisions in local governments which can create their own restrictions.
The AP reported that Evers reacted angrily in a conference call Wednesday night, saying the state has been doing well in the fight against the coronavirus. He predicted the court ruling will lead more counties to adopt their own restrictions, leading to a confusing patchwork of ordinances that will allow infection to spread.
But the narrow focus on a ‘fight’ against the coronavirus by an arbitrary numbers system has struck many as confusing the issue. The real issue is public health in general, and a critical component of this involves both being outdoors and being able to engage in the economy. For every 1% rise of unemployment in the U.S., 37,000 people die for indirect reasons resulting from that rise.
Governor Evers was elected by the efforts of organized labor and community groups who had, at the time, good cause to oppose the pro-corporate policies and anti-union policies of former Governor Walker. At issue, however, is that Wisconsinites have fared no better in his replacement. Working class supporters of Walker also had some strong justifications for supporting his anti-union policies.
For decades, labor unions have ceased being the fighting organizations of working people in the face of globalist elites, and instead have become career vehicles for demagogues who have a rotating-door relationship with DNC appointments and corrupt NGOs.
Evers then predictably betrayed the labor union rank-and-file who worked for his election, while labor union bureaucrats received kick-backs and comfy appointments in various the inflated state agencies.
Despite this fact, and yet predictably so, the Nurses union filed an amicus curiae brief to the Supreme Court against the petitioners. At first glance one might wrongly be led to believe that this is because nurses see there is a wide-scale pandemic, and are against a premature opening.
But in examining the fact that as of April 26th there was only 361 cases and almost 5,000 empty beds in Wisconsin, it appears that the union is using the veil of its connection to healthcare to back a partisan commitment supporting the DNC towards medical tyranny.
Imagining he still has credibility among working and middle-class Wisconsinites in the face of his unconstitutional Covid-19 response, Evers began to accuse the Supreme Court of fomenting “chaos”.
“Today, Republican legislators convinced four members of the state Supreme Court to throw the state into chaos,” Evers said. “They have provided no plan. There’s no question among anybody that people are going to get sick. Republicans own that chaos”, the AP reported.
“They have provided no plan. There’s no question among anybody that people are going to get sick. Republicans own that chaos.” He added, “In the meantime, we’re going to have 72 counties doing their own thing.”
“I can’t believe there’s a state in the nation with this type of chaos.”
The use of the term “chaos” appears to be part of a top-down DNC corporate talking point. It was used over the weekend of May 9th for the first time in a publicized way surrounding the present imposed health ‘crisis’ by Barack Obama, in a leaked call with supporters, which was the subject of its own scandal.
At the same time, Melinda Gates gave a series of interviews on corporate fake news media. In these interviews, more notable for her wearing of an upside-down cross, she also used the term “chaos” in describing the internal workings of the Trump administration’s policy and task force on the novel coronavirus.
Evers’ primary issue seems to be with local governance and community-based regulations. He prefers that Wisconsin be centrally run, as a microcosm that reflects his worldview of a single one-world government justified by the medical tyranny of a Covid-19 dictatorship.
Wisconsin’s Supreme Court ruling therefore represents a small victory that is much larger in scope than we might realize at present. It sets an example of how other state supreme courts might rule, especially if in the opinions of the Wisconsin ruling are references to broader constitutional issues outside of the narrower interpretations of laws and past rulings specific to Wisconsin.
This also has an internationalist perspective, showing both workers and small business owners alike what is possible with militant activism. Recall that for its part, neighboring Michigan was the site of militant action some weeks ago, where an armed pro-constitution group stormed the capitol building.
This underscores the importance of the 2nd Amendment in defending constitutional order. An important factor moving forward will require a more deep understanding between citizens of larger urban centers of mega-cities and those of smaller and medium towns and cities.
American politics is chiefly local, where broader national discussions on abstract ideology and federal policy mask the local reality of politics. Both Democrats and Republicans play a game at the federal level which has the effect of pitting Americans against each other based on an artificially created national discourse.
The outcome of the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruling shows the way forward, and in no small way was a sober response to the real mood of the moment for most Americans not under the DNC spell.
