GOP Rep-Elect Dedicates Her Term To Pro-Life Cause: “My mom chose life.”

GOP Rep-Elect Dedicates Her Term To Pro-Life Cause: “My mom chose life.”

One of the many pro-life women elected to Congress this November recently shared that her inspiration to fight for the unborn comes from her mother’s own choice against abortion when pregnancy threatened her life.

Kat Cammack was born to Ginny, a single mother who had previously suffered a stroke when pregnant with Kat’s older sister at the age of 27.

Six years later, when Ginny found herself pregnant again, doctors warned her that she may not live through another pregnancy, and encouraged her to undergo an abortion.

Even Cammack’s grandmother encouraged Ginny to seek out an abortion and save herself.

Despite the pressure from medical professionals and family, however, Ginny decided to give birth to her daughter.

“My mom chose life,” Cammack told Fox News, “which was very difficult for my familiy.”

“For her to make that choice against the advice of her doctors and against the urging of her own family, that’s pretty powerful,” said Cammack. “So for me, that’s why I am personally pro-life.”

At 32 years old, Kat Cammack is the youngest GOP congresswoman to be elected to the House of Representatives this election cycle.

Cammack will represent Florida’s 3rd Congressional District, succeeding her boss Republican Ted Yoho.

Cammack ran as a constitutional conservative on the platform that she would defend gun rights, law enforcement, and pro-life policies. She intends to share her mother’s story on the floor of the House during her term in office.

“We’ll classify bacteria on Mars as life but we won’t classify a heartbeat in the womb as life,” the Representative-elect explained. “Or if you look at the DOJ, if a pregnant woman is murdered, it’s a double homicide. But if the woman chooses to terminate that pregnancy, it’s not. It’s very hypocritical from the government standpoint. As a federal representative coming in, I want to address that hypocrisy in our government.”

Cammack is one of 13 new pro-life women elected to Congress during November’s elections, along with the re-elections of 11 other pro-life women. Cammack has called the women “powerhouses in their own right.”

Cammack enjoyed endorsements from pro-life groups such as the National Right to Life PAC and the Susan B. Anthony List. She also received the endorsement of President Donald Trump.

Cammack will assume office on January 3rd.

A Biden Administration Could Raise Your Taxes Thanks to Senate RINOs

A Biden Administration Could Raise Your Taxes Thanks to Senate RINOs

Taxes are supposed to help the government function.  Our Constitution has what is referred to as the General Welfare clause, and if anyone knew the reasoning behind this mention in the Preamble, they would understand that taxation in our federal system is out of control and is not functioning the way our Founding Fathers intended.

At one point during the Constitutional Convention, the old statesman, Benjamin Franklin, proposed a tax for the general government (federal) for “a power to provide for cutting canals where deemed necessary.”  The reasoning for this was sound enough. Canals in those days were used to move merchandise off of ships that sailed to port and to distribute them throughout each city, town, or otherwise.

Luckily for us, Roger Sherman objected, saying, “The expence [sic] in such cases will fall on the U. States, and the benefit accrue to the places where the canals may be cut.”

In other words, Sherman argued that the entire people of the United States would have to pay a tax that only the people who benefitted from it would be those who used the canals.  This sparked a firestorm of debates in the Convention and later among the delegates of the States during the ratification.  The end result was to adopt the idea that any bill that comes to be Constitutionally voted upon that needed funding, the prerequisite would be that in order to create the tax to fund the program, everyone who has to pay the tax must also reap a benefit from the program they are paying taxes to fund.   Do you feel you’re getting your money’s worth today?  Do you think the DC swamp is adhering to the General Welfare principles?  Heck, most progressive politicians today believe the General Welfare clause give them license to tax the hell out of us to provide welfare benefits to those in need.

Wall Street has been jumping for joy over the election results, believing that the since the dreaded blue wave fizzled into a blue puddle, it meant that Democrats would not propose huge tax increases that the Biden campaign promised to bring them, with everything going back to the miserable days before Donald Trump.  While the GOP has so far retained control of the US Senate, the two runoff races in Georgia aside, most believe the GOP will retain control.

While control of the Senate will not be decided until the January 5 runoff elections in Georgia, most onlookers believe that it’s not likely that the two Democratic challengers will win and tip control of the Senate to the Democrats.  Well, maybe those folks have too much faith believing that Democrats haver a morality that will preclude them from cheating the way they did so massively in the general election.  We’ll see.

If the Republicans continue to control the Senate, the chances of tax increases by, God forbid, a Biden administration, would be very unlikely.

The problem we now face are even if the Republican maintain control of the Senate with just 2 votes to give them the majority, this would make some RINOs very important to the cause of freedom and liberty.  I’m talking about Mitt Romney and Susan Collins.  If just those two turncoats vote with Democrats to increase taxes on the proverbial rich, and we all know that really means everyone, then it goes to a 50-50 tie and ties under a Biden administration would go to a Vice President Kamala Harris whose senate voting record makes her the most radical progressive ever to hold a seat in that chamber, more so than even Bernie Sanders.

A Biden administration could be anticipated to move rapidly to suggest a major fiscal stimulus package deal and to use budget reconciliation to expedite its passage through the House and Senate.  Budget reconciliation is a budget process method that would enable the Biden plan to avoid a Republican filibuster, limit debate in the Senate to a mere twenty hours, and pass the Senate with only 51 votes.

Biden is a slime ball, and though he doesn’t have the cognitive ability to do much of anything complicated these days, as if he ever did, the people who would really be running things will be clever enough to reshape an ugly tax hike package to be acceptable enough for at least two Republican senators.  Think about it.  A stimulus package could ask for trillion of dollars to spend on coronavirus relief for small businesses and people who are unemployed.  They would bail out failing cities and states run into the ground by progressive policies and you, the taxpayer, would be on the hook to pay for it all.  Rather than take the Trump approach which is the strengthen the private sector by getting the government off the people’s backs and allowing ordinary people to do extraordinary things, a Biden administration would create policies to make as many Americans dependent on the federal government as possible.

They would add things like child tax credits and child and dependent care tax credits, and other various tax credits that may seem like a windfall for some people, but the strings attached to that spending would be enormous.

A Biden administration would crush the achievements of President Trump and America would quickly no longer be great.  A Biden tax plan could be pushed through with the age-old class warfare attack of only raising taxes on corporations and the rich, thus sending the message that you don’t want to start a business and/or get rich, because you’re evil and you shall be punished.  It’s maddening.  They could also raise the top rates for the corporate tax and go back to the days of Bill Clinton for individual taxes to say 39%.  Do you want to pay 39% of your hard-earned money to a Biden administration?

Wait until they start to mention a wealth tax where they will tax money you earned that has already been taxed and is sitting in an account somewhere accruing interest.  That’s outright theft, but a Romney and Collins could bring that to you.  It wouldn’t hurt them, because like the days of old Democrat politics, they would probably be exempt from the same laws that would harm everyone else.  That’s how the game used to be played before Trump came along and reset the playing field to be more fair.

Speaking of unfairness, a Biden administration would go back to allowing progressive states like California, Illinois and New York, with very high tax rates to pay for all the progressive government handout programs, to let their rich progressive friends write off their high state taxes on their federal returns, thus forcing the middle and lower classes in other states to subsidize them by paying their share of taxes for them, something the Trump administration did away with.  So much for the rich paying their fair share.

It could also include provisions Biden called for during the campaign, such as a new corporate minimum tax and the repeal of tax provisions used by real estate investors.

In short, the kinds of tax structure changes the Biden campaign talked about would again make it impossible for many corporations to function inside the United States and would have them leave the country and go to places like China, who have Joe Biden in their back pocket.  We are just coming out of the forced lockdowns and tax increases now would slow investment, killing job creation and we would experience another economic malaise like what we went through with 8 years of Obama-Biden.

Think about it.  If Republicans can hold onto the Senate majority, and curb the traitors to freedom and liberty within it, the economic catastrophe that awaits us could be avoided.  Donate whatever you can to the David Perdue and Kelly Loeffler campaigns to help them beat the cheat that we know the Democrats are right now preparing.  Donate like your future depends on it, because it really does.

Trump Lawyers Say State Legislatures are Last Guardians of the Republic with their Absolute Power-So Take it Back

Trump Lawyers Say State Legislatures are Last Guardians of the Republic with their Absolute Power-So Take it Back

The purpose of the hearings with testimonies in front of state legislatures is to get a number of them to reclaim their Constitutional powers to set the electors and the timing of the certification of elections, according to attorney Jena Ellis, who has numerous times given statements at Voter Integrity hearings,to encourage state legislative bodies to have special sessions and take back their power.

Ellis said that reporters and citizens should be familiar with the case she cited, and how legislative bodies should take back their power and investigate the evidence of fraud from their own states, and also other states before they allow their states to certify the election results.

FIND AND CONTACT YOUR STATE REPS AND TELL THEM THIS

“Federalist papers say that the state bodies closest to the people should protect the elections,” said attorney Rudy Giuliani told the Michigan state House of Representatives.

“This is your duty to watch over elections, “Jena Ellis said. ‘These are citizens who are bringing concerns to you, this is your mandated duty.”

“Supreme Court made clear more than a century ago there is “no doubt of the right of the [state] legislature to resume the power [of choosing electors] at any time, for it can neither be taken away nor abdicated.” McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1, 35 (1892),” Attorney Robert Barnes posted on Twitter about the matter.

There are two significant cases related to the Electoral College not including the 2000 Bush v. Gore decision, which was more about the process of counting presidential ballots in Florida than the legitimate function of the Electoral College.

In particular, a scathing dissent by a legendary Justice from the early 1950s, Robert H. Jackson, contains the most words about the Electoral College’s legitimacy in a court opinion. But as a whole, the constitutional propriety of the Electoral College hasn’t been debated as an issue at the Court.

In 1892, Chief Justice Melville Fuller wrote on behalf of the Court in McPherson v. Blacker. The case came to the Court as a dispute between the Michigan legislature and Congress about which body named the date that the Electoral College met in Michigan.

Fuller’s per-curium opinion, which he only signed for the majority, ruled for Congress, and it contained some background information about how the Court viewed the Electoral College. McPherson v. Blacker also found that states determined how electors were apportioned within each state and how they were chosen – a point later reaffirmed in Bush v. Gore.

United States Supreme Court

MCPHERSON v. BLACKER(1892)

No. 50

Argued: Decided: October 17, 1892

Statement by Mr. Chief Justice FULLER: [146 U.S. 1, 2]   William McPherson, Jr., Jay A. Hubbell, J. Henry Carstens, Charles E. Hiscock, Otto Ihling, Philip T. Colgrove, Conrad G. Swensburg, Henry A. Haigh, James H. White, Fred. Slocum, Justus S. Stearns, John Millen, Julius T. Hannah, and J. H. Comstock filed their petition and affidavits in the supreme court of the state of Michigan on May 2, 1892, as nominees for presidential electors, against Robert R. Blacker, secretary of state of Michigan, praying that the court declare the act of the legislature, approved May 1, 1891, (Act No. 50, Pub. Acts Mich. 1891,) entitled ‘An act to provide for the election of electors of president and vice president of the United States, and to repeal all other acts and parts of acts in confiict herewith,’ void and of no effect, and that a writ of mandamus be directed to be issued to the said secretary of state, commanding him to cause to be delivered to the sheriff of each county in the state, between the 1st of July and the 1st of September, 1892, ‘a notice in writing that at the next general election in this state, to be held on Tuesday, the 8th day of November, 1892, there will be chosen (among other officers to be named in said notice) as many electors of president and vice president of the United States as this state may be entitled to elect senators and representatives in the congress.’

The statute of Michigan (1 How. Ann. St. Mich. 147, c. 9, p. 133) provided: ‘The secretary of the state shall, between the 1st day of July and the 1st day of September preceding a general election, direct and cause to be delivered to the sheriff of each county in this state a notice in writing that, at the next general election, there will be chosen as many of the following officers as are to be elected at such general election, viz.: A governor, lieutenant governor, secretary of state, state treasurer, auditor general, attorney general, superintendent of public instruction, commissioner of state land office, members of the state board of education, electors of president and vice president of the United States, and a representative in congress for the district to which each of such counties shall belong.’

A rule to show cause having been issued, the respondent, as [146 U.S. 1, 3]   secretary of state, answered the petition, and denied that he had refused to give the notice thus required, but he said ‘that it has always been the custom in the office of the secretary of state, in giving notices under said section 147, to state in the notice the number of electors that should be printed on the ticket in each voting precinct in each county in this state, and following such custom with reference to such notice, it is the intention of this respondent in giving notice under section 147 to state in said notice that there will be elected one presidential elector at large and one district presidential elector and two alternate presidential electors, one for the elector at large and one for the district presidential elector, in each voting precinct, so that the election may be held under and in accordance with the provisions of Act No. 50 of the Public Acts of the state of Michigan of 1891.’

By an amended answer the respondent claimed the same benefit as if he had demurred.

Relators relied in their petition upon various grounds as invalidating Act No. 50 of the Public Acts of Michigan of 1891, and, among them, that the act was void because in conflict with clause 2 of section 1 of article 2 of the constitution of the United States, and with the fourteenth amendment to that instrument, and also in some of its provisions in conflict with the act of congress of February 3, 1887, entitled ‘An act to fix the day for the meeting of the electors of president and vice president, and to provide for and regulate the counting of the votes for president and vice president, and the decision of questions arising thereon.’ The supreme court of Michigan unanimously held that none of the objections urged against the validity of the act were tenable; that it did not conflict with clause 2, 1, art. 2, of the constitution, or with the fourteenth amendment thereof; and that the law was only inoperative so far as in conflict with the law of congress in a matter in reference to which congress had the right to legislate. The opinion of the court will be found reported, in advance of the official series, in 52 N. W. Rep. 469.

Judgment was given, June 17, 1892, denying the writ of [146 U.S. 1, 4]   mandamus, whereupon a writ of error was allowed to this court.

The October term, 1892, commenced on Monday, October 10th, and on Tuesday, October 11th, the first day upon which the application could be made, a motion to advance the case was submitted by counsel, granted at once in view of the exigency disclosed upon the face of the papers, and the cause heard that day. The attention of the court having been called to other provisions of the election laws of Michigan than those supposed to be immediately involved, (Act No. 190, Pub. Acts Mich. 1891, pp. 258, 263,) the chief justice, on Monday, October 17th, announced the conclusions of the court, and directed the entry of judgment affirming the judgment of the supreme court of Michigan, and ordering the mandate to issue at once, it being stated that this was done because immediate action under the state statutes was apparently required and might be affected by delay, but it was added that the court would thereafter file an opinion stating fully the grounds of the decision.

Act No. 50 of the Public Acts of 1891 of Michigan is as follow

Section 211 of Howell’s Annotated Statutes of Michigan (volume 1, c. 9, p. 145) reads:

Section 240 of Howell’s Statutes, in force prior to May 1, 1891, provided: ‘At the general election next preceding the choice of president and vice president of the United States, there shall be elected by general ticket as many electors of president and vice president as this state may be entitled to elect of senators and representatives in congress.’

The following are sections of article 8 of the constitution of Michigan:

Reference was also made in argument to the act of congress of February 3, 1887, to fix the day for the meeting of the electors of president and vice president, and to provide for and regulate and counting of the votes. 24 St. p. 373.

Henry M. Duffield, W. H. H. Miller, and Fred A. Baker, for plaintiff in error.

[146 U.S. 1, 19]   Otto Kirchner, A. A. Ellis, and John W. Champlin, for defendant in error.

[146 U.S. 1, 22]  

Mr. Chief Justice FULLER, after stating the facts in the foregoing language, delivered the opinion of the court. [146 U.S. 1, 23]   The supreme court of Michigan held, in effect, that if the act in question were invalid, the proper remedy had been sought. In other words, if the court had been of opinion that the act was void, the writ of mandamus would have been awarded.

And having ruled all objections to the validity of the act urged as arising under the state constitution and laws adversely to the plaintiffs in error, the court was compelled to, and did, consider and dispose of the contention that the act was invalid because repugnant to the constitution and laws of the United States.

We are not authorized to revise the conclusions of the state court on these matters of local law, and, those conclusions being accepted, it follows that the decision of the federal questions is to be regarded as necessary to the determination of the cause. De Saussure v. Gaillard, 127 U.S. 216 , 8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1053.

Inasmuch as, under section 709 of the Revised Statutes of the United States, we have jurisdiction by writ of error to re-examine and reverse or affirm the final judgment in any suit in the highest court of a state in which a decision could be had, where the validity of a statute of the state is drawn in question on the ground that it is repugnant to the constitution and laws of the United States, and the decision is in favor of its validity, we perceive no reason for holding that this writ was improvidently brought.

It is argued that the subject-matter of the controversy is not of judicial cognizance, because it is said that all questions connected with the election of a presidential elector are political in their nature; that the court has no power finally to dispose of them; and that its deeision would be subject to review by political officers and agencies, as the state board of canvassers, the legislature in joint convention, and the governor, or, finally, the congress.

But the judicial power of the United States extends to all cases in law or equity arising under the constitution and laws of the United States, and this is a case so arising, since the validity of the state law was drawn in question as repugnant to such constitution and laws, and its validity was sustained. [146 U.S. 1, 24]   Boyd v. State, 143 U.S. 135 , 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 375. And it matters not that the judgment to be reviewed may be rendered in a proceeding for mandamus. Hartman v. Greenhow, 102 U.S. 672 .

As we concur with the state court, its judgment has been affirmed; if we had not, its judgment would have been reversed. In either event, the questions submitted are finally and definitely disposed of by the judgment which we pronounce, and that judgment is carried into effect by the transmission of our mandate to the state court.

The question of the validity of this act, as presented to us by this record, is a judicial question, and we cannot decline the exercise of our jurisdiction upon the inadmissible suggestion that action might be taken by political agencies in disregard of the judgment of the highest tribunal of the state, as revised by our own.

On behalf of plaintiffs in error it is contended that the act is void because in conflict with (1) clause 2, 1, art. 2, of the constitution of the United States; (2) the fourteenth and fifteenth amendments to the constitution; and (3) the act of congress, of February 3, 1887.

The second clause of section 1 of article 2 of the constitution is in these words: ‘Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of senators and representatives to which the state may be entitled in the congress; but no senator or representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector.’

The manner of the appointment of electors directed by the act of Michigan is the election of an elector and an alternate elector in each of the twelve congressional districts into which the state of Michigan is divided, and of an elector and an alternate elector at large in each of two districts defined by the act. It is insisted that it was not competent for the legislature to direct this manner of appointment, because the state is to appoint as a body politic and corporate, and so must act as a unit, and cannot delegate the authority to subdivisions created for the purpose; and it is argued that the appoint- [146 U.S. 1, 25]   ment of electors by districts is not an appointment by the state, because all its citizens otherwise qualified are not permitted to vote for all the presidential electors.

If the legislature possesses plenary authority to direct the manner of appointment, and might itself exercise the appointing power by joint ballot or concurrence of the two houses, or according to such mode as designated, it is difficult to perceive why, if the legislature prescribes as a method of appointment choice by vote, it must necessarily be by general ticket, and not by districts. In other words, the act of appointment is none the less the act of the state in its entirety because ar- [146 U.S. 1, 26]   rived at by districts, for the act is the act of political agencies duly authorized to speak for the state, and the combined result is the expression of the voice of the state, a result reached by direction of the legislature, to whom the whole subject is committed.

By the first paragraph of section 2, art. 1, it is provided: ‘The house of representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several states, and the electors in each state shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislature;’ and by the third paragraph, ‘when vacancies happen in the representation from any state, the executive authority thereof shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies.’ Section 4 reads: ‘The times, places, and manner of holding elections for senators and representatives shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof; but the congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing senators.’

Although it is thus declared that the people of the several states shall choose the members of congress, (language which induced the state of New York to insert a salvo as to the power to divide into districts, in its resolutions of ratification,) the state legislatures, prior to 1842, in prescribing the times, places, and manner of holding elections for representatives, had usually apportioned the state into districts, and assigned to each a representative; and by act of congress of June 25, 1842 , (carried forward as section 23 of the Revised Statutes,) it was provided that, where a state was entitled to more than one representative, the election should be by districts. It has never been doubted that representatives in congress thus chosen represented the entire people of the state acting in their sovereign capacity.

By original clause 3, 1, art. 2, and by the twelfth amendment, which superseded that clause in case of a failure in the election of president by the people the house of representatives is to choose the president; and ‘the vote shall be taken by states, the representation from [146 U.S. 1, 27]   each state having one vote.’ The state acts as a unit, and its vote is given as a unit, but that vote is arrived at through the votes of its representatives in congress elected by districts.

The state also acts individually through its electoral college, although, by reason of the power of its legislature over the manner of appointment, the vote of its electors may be divided.

The constitution does not provide that the appointment of electors shall be by popular vote, nor that the electors shall be voted for upon a general ticket, nor that the majority of those who exercise the elective franchise can alone choose the electors. It recognizes that the people act through their representatives in the legislature, and leaves it to the legislature exclusively to define the method of effecting the object.

The framers of the constitution employed words in their natural sense; and, where they are plain and clear, resort to collateral aids to interpretation is unnecessary, and cannot be indulged in to narrow or enlarge the text; but where there is ambiguity or doubt, or where two views may well be entertained, contemporaneous and subsequent practical construction is entitled to the greatest weight. Certainly, plaintiffs in error cannot reasonably assert that the clause of the constitution under consideration so plainly sustains their position as to entitle them to object that contemporaneous history and practical construction are not to be allowed their legitimate force, and, conceding that their argument inspires a doubt sufficient to justify resort to the aids of interpretation thus afforded, we are of opinion that such doubt is thereby resolved against them, the contemporaneous practical exposition of the constitution being too strong and obstinate to be shaken or controlled. Stuart v. Laird, 1 Cranch, 299, 309.

It has been said that the word ‘appoint’ is not the most appropriate word to describe the result of a popular election. Perhaps not; but it is sufficiently comprehensive to cover that mode, and was manifestly used as conveying the broadest power of determination. It was used in article 5 of the articles of confederation, which provided that ‘delegates shall be annually appointed in such manner as the legislature [146 U.S. 1, 28]   of each state shall direct;’ and in the resolution of congress of February 21, 1787, which declared it expedient that ‘a convention of delegates who shall have been appointed by the several states’ should be held. The appointment of delegates was, in fact, made by the legislatures directly, but that involved no denial of authority to direct some other mode. The constitutional convention, by resolution of September 17, 1787, expressed the opinion that the congress should fix a day ‘on which electors should be appointed by the states which shall have ratified the same,’ etc., and that, ‘after such publication, the electors should be appointed, and the senators and representatives elected.’

The journal of the convention discloses that propositions that the president should be elected by ‘the citizens of the United States,’ or by the ‘people,’ or ‘by electors to be chosen by the people of the several states,’ instead of by the congress, were voted down, (Jour. Conv. 286, 288; 1 Elliot, Deb. 208, 262,) as was the proposition that the president should be ‘chosen by electors appointed for that purpose by the legislatures of the states,’ though at one time adopted, (Jour. Con v. 190; 1 Elliot, Deb. 208, 211, 217;) and a motion to postpone the consideration of the choice ‘by the national legislature,’ in order to take up a resolution providing for electors to be elected by the qualified voters in districts, was negatived in committee of the whole, (Jour. Conv. 92; 1 Elliot, Deb. 156.) Gerry proposed that the choice should be made by the state executives; Hamilton, that the election be by electors chosen by electors chosen by the people; James Wilson and Gouverneur Morris were strongly in favor of popular vote; Ellsworth and Luther Martin preferred the choice by electors elected by the legislatures; and Roger Sherman, appointment by congress. The final result seems to have reconciled contrariety of views by leaving it to the state legislatures to appoint directly by joint ballot or concurrent separate action, or through popular election by districts or by general ticket, or as otherwise might be directed.

Therefore, on reference to contemporaneous and subsequent action under the clause, we should expect to find, as we do, [146 U.S. 1, 29]   that various modes of choosing the electors were pursued, as, by the legislature itself on joint ballot; by the legislature through a concurrent vote of the two houses; by vote of the people for a general ticket; by vote of the people in districts; by choice partly by the people voting indistricts and partly by the people voting in districts and partly by the candidates voted for by the people in districts; and in other ways, as, notably, by North Carolina in 1792, and Tennessee in 1796 and 1800. No question was raised as to the power of the state to appoint in any mode its legislature saw fit to adopt, and none that a single method, applicable without exception, must be pursued in the absence of an amendment to the constitution. The district system was largely considered the most equitable, and Madison wrote that it was that system which was contemplated by the framers of the constitution, although it was soon seen that its adoption by some states might place them at a disadvantage by a division of their strength, and that a uniform rule was preferable.

At the first presidential election, the appointment of electors was made by the legislatures of Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, New Jersey, and South Carolina. Pennsylvania, by act of October 4, 1788, (Acts Pa. 1787-88, p. 513,) provided for the election of electors on a general ticket. Virginia, by act of November 17, 1788, was divided into 12 separate districts, and an elector elected in each district, while for the election of congressmen the state was divided into 10 other districts. Laws Va. Oct. Sess. 1788, pp. 1, 2. In Massachusetts, the general court, by resolve of November 17, 1788, divided the state into districts for the election of representatives in congress, and provided for their election, December 18, 1788, and that at the same time the qualified inhabitants of each district should give their votes for two persons as candidates for an elector of president and vice president of the United States, and, from the two persons in each district having the greatest number of votes, the two houses of the general court by joint ballot should elect one as elector, and in the same way should elect two electors at large. Mass. Resolves 1788, p. 53. In Maryland, [146 U.S. 1, 30]   under elected on general ticket, five being residents elected on general ticker, five being residents of the Western Shore, and three of the Eastern Shore. Laws Md. 1788, c. 10. In New Hampshire an act was passed November 12, 1788, (Laws N. H. 1789, p. 169,) providing for the election of five electors by majority popular vote, and in case of no choice that the legislature should appoint out of so many of the candidates as equaled double the number of electors elected. There being no choice, the appointment was made by the legislature. The senate would not agree to a joint ballot, and the house was compelled, that the vote of the state might not be lost, to concur in the electors chosen by the senate. The state of New York lost its vote through a similar contest. The assembly was willing to elect by joint ballot of the two branches or to divide the electors with the senate, but the senate would assent to nothing short of a complete negative upon the action of the assembly, and the time for election passed without an appointment. North Carolina and Rhode Island had not then ratified the constitution.

Fifteen states participated in the second presidential election, in nine of which electors were chosen by the legislatures. Maryland, Laws Md. 1790, c. 16; Laws 1791, c. 62,) New Hampshire, (Laws N. H. 1792, pp. 398, 401,) and Pennsylvania, (Laws Pa. 1792, p. 240,) elected their electors on a general ticket, and Virginia by districts, (Laws Va. 1792, p. 87.) In Massachusetts the general court, by resolution of June 30, 1792, divided the state into four districts, in each of two of which five electors were elected, and in each of the other two three electors. Mass. Resolves, June, 1792, p. 25. Under the apportionment of April 13, 1792, North Carolina was entitled to ten members of the house of representatives. The legislature was not in session, and did not meet until November 15th, while under the act of congress of March 1, 1792, (1 St. p. 239,) the electors were to assemble on December 5th. The legislature passed an act dividing the state into four districts, and directing the members of the legislature residing in each district to meet on the 25th of November, and choose three electors. 2 Ired. N. C. [146 U.S. 1, 31]   Laws, 1715-1800, c. 15 of 1792. At the same session an act was passed dividing the state into districts for the election of electors in 1796, and every four years thereafter. Id. c. 16.

Sixteen states took part in the third presidential election, Tennessee having been admitted June 1, 1796. In nine states the electors were appointed by the legislatures, and in Pennsylvania and New Hampshire by popular vote for a general ticket. Virginia, North Carolina, and Maryland elected by districts. The Maryland law of December 24, 1795, was entitled ‘An act to alter the mode of electing electors,’ and provided for dividing the state into ten districts, each of which districts should ‘elect and appoint one person, being a resident of the said district, as an elector.’ Laws Md. 1795, c. 73. Massachusetts adhered to the district system, electing one elector in each congressional district by a majority vote. It was provided that, if no one had a majority, the legislature should make the appointment on joint ballot, and the legislature also appointed two electors at large in the same manner. Mass. Resolves, June, 1796, p. 12. In Tennessee an act was passed August 8, 1796, which provided for the election of three electors, ‘one in the district of Washington, one in the district of Hamilton, and one in the district of Mero,’ and, ‘that the said electors may be elected with as little trouble to the citizens as possible,’ certain persons of the counties of Washington, Sullivan, Green, and Hawkins were named in the act and and appointed electors to elect an elector for the district of Washington; certain other persons of the counties of Knox, Jefferson, Sevier, and Blount were by name appointed to elect an elector for the district of Hamilton; and certain others of the counties of Davidson, Sumner, and Tennessee to elect an elector for the district of Mero. Laws Tenn. 1794, 1803, p. 209; Acts 2d Sess. 1st Gen. Assem. Tenn. c. 4. Electors were chosen by the persons thus designated.

In the fourth presidential election, Virginia, under the advice of Mr. Jefferson, adopted the general ticket, at least ‘until some uniform mode of choosing a president and vice president of the United States shall be prescribed by an amend- [146 U.S. 1, 32]   ment to the constitution.’ Laws Va. 1799-1800, p. 3. Massachusetts passed a resolution providing that the electors of that state should be appointed by joint ballot of the senate and house. Mass. Resolves, June, 1800, p. 13. Pennsylvania appointed by the legislature, and, upon a contest between the senate and house, the latter was forced to yield to the senate in agreeing to an arrangement which resulted in dividing the vote of the electors. 26 Niles’ Reg. 17. Six states, however, chose electors by popular vote, Rhode Island supplying the place of Pennsylvania, which had theretofore followed that course. Tennessee, by act October 26, 1799, designated persons by name to choose its three electors, as under the act of 1796. Laws Tenn, 1794-1803, p. 211; Acts 2d Sess. 2d Gen. Assem, Tenn. c. 46.

Without pursuing the subject further, it is sufficient to observe that, while most of the states adopted the general ticket system, the district method obtained in Kentucky until 1824; in Tennessee and Maryland until 1832; in Indiana in 1824 and 1828; in Illinois in 1820 and 1824; and in Maine in 1820, 1824, and 1828. Massachusetts used the general ticket system in 1804, (Mass. Resolves, June, 1804, p. 19;) chose electors by joint ballot of the legislature in 1808 and in 1816, (Mass. Resolves 1808, pp. 205, 207, 209; Mass. Resolves 1816, p. 233;) used the district system again in 1812 and 1820, (Mass. Resolves 1812, p. 94; Mass. Resolves 1820, p. 245;) and returned to the general ticket system in 1824, (Mass. Resolves 1824, p. 40.) In New York the electors were elected in 1828 by districts, the district electors choosing the electors at large. Rev. St. N. Y. 1827, tit. 6, p. 24. The appointment of electors by the legislature, instead of by popular vote, was made use of by North Carolina, Vermont, and New Jersey in 1812.

In 1824 the electors were chosen by popular vote, by districts, and by general ticket, in all the states excepting Delaware, Georgia, Louisiana, New York, South Carolina, and Vermont, where they were still chosen by the legislature. After 1832 electors were chosen by general ticket in all the states excepting South Carolina, where the legislature chose them up to and including 1860. Journals 1860, Senate, pp. 12, 13; House, 11, [146 U.S. 1, 33]   15, 17. And this was the mode adopted by Florida in 1868, (Laws 1868, p. 166,) and by Colorado in 1876, as prescribed by section 19 of the schedule to the constitution of the state, which was admitted into the Union, August 1, 1876, (Gen. Laws Colo. 1877, pp. 79, 990.)1

Mr. Justice Story, in considering the subject in his Commentaries on the Constitution, and writing nearly 50 years after the adoption of that instrument, after stating that ‘in some states the legislatures have directly chosen the electors by themselves; in others, they have been chosen by the people by a general ticket throughout the whole state; and in others, by the people by electoral districts, fixed by the legislature, a certain number of electors being apportioned to each district,’-adds: ‘No question has ever arisen as to the constitutionality of either mode, except that by a direct choice by the legislature. But this, though often doubted by able and ingenious minds, (3 Elliot, Deb. 100, 101,) has been firmly established in practice ever since the adoption of the constitution, and does not now seem to admit of controversy, even if a suitable tribunal existed to adjudicate upon it.’ And he remarks that ‘it has been thought desirable by many statesmen to have the constitution amended so as to provide for a uniform mode of choice by the people.’ Story, Const. (1st Ed .) 1466.

Such an amendment was urged at the time of the adoption of the twelfth amendument, the suggestion being that all electors should be chosen by popular vote, the states to be divided for that purpose into districts. It was brought up again in congress in December, 1813, but the resolution for submitting the amendment failed to be carried. The amendment was renewed in the house of representatives in Decem- [146 U.S. 1, 34]   ber, 1816, and a provision for the division of the states into single districts for the choice of electors received a majority vote, but not two thirds. Like amendments were offered in the senate by Messrs. Sanford of New York, Dickerson of New Jersey, and Macon of North Carolina. December 11, 1823, Senator Benton introduced an amendment providing that each legislature should divide its state into electoral districts, and that the voters of each district ‘should vote, in their own proper persons,’ for president and vice president, but it was not acted upon. December 16 and December 24, 1823, amendments were introduced in the senate by Messrs. Dickerson, of New Jersey, and Van Buren, of New York, requiring the choice of electors to be by districts; but these and others failed of adoption, although there was favorable action in that direction by the senate in 1818, 1819, and 1822. December 22, 1823, an amendment was introduced in the house by Mr. McDuffie, of South Carolina, providing that electors should be chosen by districts assigned by the legislatures, but action was not taken. The subject was again brought forward in 1835, 1844, and subsequently, but need not be further dwelt upon, except that it may be added that, on the 28th of May, 1874, a report was made by Senator Morton, chairman of the senate committee on privileges and elections, recommending an amendment dividing the states into electoral districts, and that the majority of the popular vote of each district should give the candidate one presidential vote, but this also failed to obtain action. In this report it was said: ‘The appointment of these electors is thus placed absolutely and wholly with the legislatures of the several states. They may be chosen by the legislature, or the legislature may provide that they shall be elected by the people of the state at large, or in districts, as are members of congress, which was the case formerly in many states; and it is not doubt competent for the legislature to authorize the governor, or the [146 U.S. 1, 35]   supreme court of the state, or any other agent of its will, to appoint these electors. This power is conferred upon the legislatures of the states by the constitution of the United States, and cannot be taken from them or modified by their state constitutions any more than can their power to elect senators of the United States. Whatever provisions may be made by statute, or by the state constitution, to choose electors by the people, there is no doubt of the right of the legislature to resume the power at any time, for it can neither be taken away nor abdicated.’ Senate Rep. 1st Sess. 43d Cong. No. 395.

From this review, in which we have been assisted by the laborious research of counsel, and which might have been greatly expanded, it is seen that from the formation of the government until now the practical construction of the clause has conceded plenary power to the state legislatures in the matter of the appointment of electors.

Even in the heated controversy of 1876-77 the electoral vote of Colorado cast by electors chosen by the legislature passed unchallenged, and our attention has not been drawn to any previous attempt to submit to the courts the determination of the constitutionality of state action.

In short, the appointment and mode of appointment of electors belong exclusively to the states under the constitution of the United States. They are, as remarked by Mr. Justice Gray in Re Green, 134 U.S. 377, 379 , 10 S. Sup. Ct. Rep. 586, ‘no more officers or agents of the United States than are the members of the state legislatures when acting as electors of federal senators, or the people of the states when acting as the electors of representatives in congress.’ Congress is empowered to determine the time of choosing the electors and the day on which they are to give their votes, which is required to be the same day throughout the United States; but otherwise the power and jurisdiction of the state is exclusive, with the exception of the provisions as to the number of electors and the ineligibility of certain persons, so framed that congressional and federal influence might be excluded.

The question before us is not one of policy. but of power; and, [146 U.S. 1, 36]   while public opinion had gradually brought all the states as matter of fact to the pursuit of a uniform system of popular election by general ticket, that fact does not tend to weaken the force of contemporaneous and long-continued previous practice when and as different views of expediency prevailed. The prescription of the written law cannot be overthrown because the states have laterally exercised, in a particular way, a power which they might have exercised in some other way. The construction to which we have referred has prevailed too long and been too uniform to justify us in interpreting the language of the constitution as conveying any other meaning than that heretofore ascribed, and it must be treated as decisive.

It is argued that the district mode of choosing electors, while not obnoxious to constitutional objection, if the operation of the electoral system had conformed to its original object and purpose, had become so in view of the practical working of that system. Doubtless it was supposed that the electors would exercise a reasonable independence and fair judgment in the selection of the chief executive, but experience soon demonstrated that, whether chosen by the legislatures or by popular suffrage on general ticket or in districts, they were so chosen simply to register the will of the appointing power in respect of a particular candidate. In relation, then, to the independence of the electors, the original expectation may be said to have been frustrated. Miller, Const. Law, 149; Rawle, Const. 55; Story, Const. 1473; Federalist, No. 68. But we can perceive no reason for holding that the power confided to the states by the constitution has ceased to exist because the operation of the system has not fully realized the hopes of those by whom it was created. Still less can we recognize the doctrine that because the constitution has been found in the march of time sufficiently comprehensive to be applicable to conditions not within the minds of its framers, and not arising in their time, it may therefore be wrenched from the subjects expressly embraced within it, and amended by judicial decision without action by the designated organs in the mode by which alone amendments can be made. [146 U.S. 1, 37]   Nor are we able to discover any conflict between this act and the fourteenth and fifteenth amendments to the constitution. The fourteenth amendment provides:

The first section of the fifteenth amendment reads: ‘The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.’

In the Slaughterhouse Cases, 16 Wall. 36, this court held that the first clause of the fourteenth amendment was primarily intended to confer citizenship on the negro race; and, secondly, to give definitions of citizenship of the United States, and citizenship of the states; and it recognized the distinction between citizenship of a state and citizenship of the United States by those definitions; that the privileges and immunities of citizens of the states embrace generally those fundamental civil rights for the security and establishment of which organ- [146 U.S. 1, 38]   ized society was instituted, and which remain, with certain exceptions mentioned in the federal constitution, under the care of the state governments; while the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States are those which arise out of the nature and essential character of the national government, the provisions of its constitution, or its laws and treaties made in pursuance thereof; and that it is the latter which are placed under the protection of congress by the second clause of the fourteenth amendment.

We decided in Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, that the right of suffrage was not necessarily one of the privileges or immunities of citizenship before the adoption of the fourteenth amendment, and that that amendment does not add to these privileges and immunities, but simply furnishes an additional guaranty for the protection of such as the citizen already has; that, at the time of the adoption of that amendment, suffrage was not coextensive with the citizenship of the state, nor was it at the time of the adoption of the constitution; and that neither the constitution nor the fourteenth amendment made all citizens voters.

The fifteenth amendment exempted citizens of the United States from discrimination in the exercise of the elective franchise on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. The right to vote in the states comes from the states, but the right of exemption from the prohibited discrimination comes from the United States. The first has not been granted or secured by the constitution of the United States, but the last has been. U. S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 ; U. S. v. Reese, Id. 214.

If, because it happened, at the time of the adoption of the fourteenth amendment, that those who exercised the elective franchise in the state of Michigan were entitled to vote for all the presidential electors, this right was rendered permanent by that amendment, then the second clause of article 2 has been so amended that the states can no longer appoint in such manner as the legislatures thereof may direct; and yet no such result is indicated by the language used, nor are the amendments necessarily inconsistent with that clause. The first [146 U.S. 1, 39]   section of the fourteenth amendment does not refer to the exercise of the elective franchise, though the second provides that if the right to vote is denied or abridged to any male inhabitant of the state having attained majority, and being a citizen of the United States, then the basis of representation to which each state is entitled in the congress shall be proportionately reduced. Whenever presidential electors are appointed by popular election, then the right to vote cannot be denied or abridged without invoking the penalty; and so of the right to vote for representatives in congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof. The right to vote intended to be protected refers to the right to vote as established by the laws and constitution of the state. There is no color for the contention that under the amendments every male inhabitant of the state, being a citizen of the United States, has from the time of his majority a right to vote for presidential electors.

The object of the fourteenth amendment in respect of citizenship was to preserve equality of rights and to prevent discrimination as between citizens, but not to radically change the whole theory of the relations of the state and federal governments to each other, and of both governments to the people. In re Kemmler, 136 U.S. 436 , 10 Sup. Ct. Rep. 930.

The inhibition that no state shall deprive any person within its jurisdiction of the equal protection of the laws was designed to prevent any person or class of persons from being singled out as a special subject for discriminating and hostile legislation. Milling Co. v. Pennsylvania, 125 U.S. 181 , 188, Sup. Ct. Rep. 737.

In Hayes v. Missouri, 120 U.S. 68, 71 , 7 S. Sup. Ct. Rep. 350, Mr. Justice Field, speaking for the court, said: ‘The fourteenth amendment to the constitution of the United States does not prohibit legislation which is limited either in the objects to which it is directed or by the territory within which it is to operate. It merely requires that all persons subjected to such legislation shall be treated alike, under like circumstances and conditions, both in the privileges and in the liabilities imposed. As we said in Barbier v. Connolly, speaking of the fourteenth amendment: ‘Class legislation, discriminating against some [146 U.S. 1, 40]   and favoring others, is prohibited; but legislation which, in carrying out a public purpose, is limited in its application, if within the sphere of its operation it affects alike all persons similarly situated, is not within the amendment.’ 113 U.S. 27, 32 , 5 S. Sup. Ct. Rep. 357.’

If presidential electors are appointed by the legislatures, no discrimination is made; if they are elected in districts where each citizen has an equal right to vote, the same as any other citizen has, no discrimination is made. Unless the authority vested in the legislatures by the second clause of section 1 of article 2 has been divested, and the state has lost its power of appointment, except in one manner, the position taken on behalf of relators is untenable, and it is apparent that neither of these amendments can be given such effect.

The third clause of section 1 of article 2 of the constitution is: ‘The congress may determine the time of choosing the electors, and the day on which they shall give their votes; which day shall be the same throughout the United States.’

Under the act of congress of March 1, 1792, (1 St. p. 239, c. 8,) it was provided that the electors should meet and give their votes on the first Wednesday in December at such place in each state as should be directed by the legislature thereof, and by act of congress of January 23, 1845, (5 St. p. 721,) that the electors should be appointed in each state on the Tuesday next after the first Monday in the month of November in the year in which they were to be appointed: provided, that each state might by law provide for the filling of any vacancies in its college of electors when such college meets to give its electoral vote: and provided that when any state shall have held an election for the purpose of choosing electors, and has failed to make a choice on the day prescribed, then the electors may be appointed on a subsequent day, in such manner as the state may by law provide. These provisions were carried forward into sections 131, 133, 134, and 135 of the Revised Statutes, (Rev. St. tit. 3, c. 1, p. 22.)

By the act of congress of February 3, 1887, entitled ‘An act to fix the day for the meeting of the electors of president and vice president,’ etc., (24 St. p. 373.) it was provided that the electors of each state should meet and give their [146 U.S. 1, 41]   votes on the second Monday in January next following their appointment. The state law in question here fixes the first Wednesday of December as the day for the meeting of the electors, as originally designated by congress. In this respect it is in conflict with the act of congress, and must necessarily give way. But this part of the act is not so inseparably connected, in substance, with the other parts as to work the destruction of the whole act. Striking out the day for the meeting, which had already been otherwise determined by the act of congress, the act remains complete in itself, and capable of being carried out in accordance with the legislative intent. The state law yields only to the extent of the collision. Cooley, Const. Lim. *178; Com. v. Kimball, 24 Pick. 359; Houston v. Moore, 5 Wheat. 1, 49. The construction to this effect by the state court is of persuasive force, if not of controlling weight.

We do not think this result affected by the provision in Act No. 50 in relation to a tie vote. Under the constitution of the state of Michigan, in case two or more persons have an equal and the highest number of votes for any office, as canvassed by the board of state canvassers, the legislature in joint convention chooses one of these persons to fill the effice. This rule is recognized in this act, which also makes it the duty of the governor in such case to convene the legislature in special session for the purpose of its application, immediately upon the determination by the board of state canvassers.

We entirely agree with the supreme court of Michigan that it cannot be held, as matter of law, that the legislature would not have provided for being convened in special session but for the provision relating to the time of the meeting of the electors contained in the act, and are of opinion that that date may be rejected, and the act be held to remain otherwise complete and valid.

And as the state is fully empowered to fill any vacancy which may occur in its electoral college, when it meets to give its electoral vote, we find nothing in the mode provided for anticipating such an exigency which operates to invalidate the law. [146 U.S. 1, 42]   We repeat that the main question arising for consideration is one of power, and not of policy, and we are unable to arive at any other conclusion than that the act of the legislature of Michigan of May 1, 1891, is not void as in contravention of the constitution of the United States, for want of power in its enactment.

The judgment of the supreme court of Michigan must be affirmed.

Bill Barr Never Said Federal Investigation On Voter Fraud Allegations Was Over, It Was Fake News

Bill Barr Never Said Federal Investigation On Voter Fraud Allegations Was Over, It Was Fake News

The media lies so much they should lose their First Amendment protections.  The Freedom of the Press clause in the First Amendment was put there so that the press could keep the government honest.  But the majority of news outlets today lie so much they should not be allowed to hide behind the protections.

The Department of Justice (DOJ) hit back at media organizations who reported on Tuesday that the DOJ had concluded its investigation into allegations of voter fraud and had found no evidence, saying that claim was false.  In other words, the media outlets lied.

CBS’s Catherine Herridge, one of the few good journalists left, took to social media to spread the news that the press once again lied about the Trump administration, over an AP story that reported Attorney General William Barr said that the DOJ concluded its investigation into allegations of voter fraud and that they did not find enough evidence to overturn an election.  Well, Barr never said that.  It was Fake News, a lie.

#Election2020results From a DOJ spokesperson: “Some media outlets have incorrectly reported that the Department has concluded its investigation of election fraud and announced an affirmative finding of no fraud in the election. That is not what the Associated Press reported nor what the Attorney General stated. The Department will continue to receive and vigorously pursue all specific and credible allegations of fraud as expeditiously as possible.”

The Associated Press reported on Tuesday:

“Barr told the AP that U.S. attorneys and FBI agents have been working to follow up specific complaints and information they’ve received, but ‘to date, we have not seen fraud on a scale that could have effected a different outcome in the election.’

The comments, which drew immediate criticism from Trump attorneys, were especially notable coming from Barr, who has been one of the president’s most ardent allies. Before the election, he had repeatedly raised the notion that mail-in voting could be especially vulnerable to fraud during the coronavirus pandemic as Americans feared going to polls and instead chose to vote by mail.”

“There’s been one assertion that would be systemic fraud and that would be the claim that machines were programmed essentially to skew the election results,” Barr added. “And the DHS and DOJ have looked into that, and so far, we haven’t seen anything to substantiate that.”

The article starts out:

“Disputing President Donald Trump’s persistent, baseless claims, Attorney General William Barr declared Tuesday the U.S. Justice Department has uncovered no evidence of widespread voter fraud that could change the outcome of the 2020 election.”

The obnoxiousness of that statement, which is the first paragraph of the story, goes to show how biased the media is against Trump.  There have been hearings with state legislators in multiple states where whistleblowers are coming forward and testifying about rampant and massive voter fraud they witnessed on Election Day and after.  How can the Associated Press call Trump’s allegations “baseless claims” when the evidence is being presented all over the place?  Baseless means none.  There’s no base, which means nothing can grow from nothing.  It’s a lie!

That got my blood boiling so much I had to reach out to the AP.

The AP mentioned that Barr also said that some people were incorrectly looking to the federal criminal justice system for a fix-all solution over election issues, adding that the proper remedy for many of these issues is often found in civil lawsuits.  Those are the civil lawsuits we have seen that the AP has turned a blind eye on.

“Most claims of fraud are very particularized to a particular set of circumstances or actors or conduct. … And those have been run down; they are being run down,” Barr added. “Some have been broad and potentially cover a few thousand votes. They have been followed up on.”

The Trump legal team responded to Barr’s remarks by stating that “there hasn’t been any semblance of a Department of Justice investigation” and that the evidence they compiled has not been examined by the DOJ. The legal team added, “Again, with the greatest respect to the Attorney General, his opinion appears to be without any knowledge or investigation of the substantial irregularities and evidence of systemic fraud.”

National Petition for ‘Partial Martial Law and Re-vote’ Encouraged by Gen. Flynn and Lin Wood

National Petition for ‘Partial Martial Law and Re-vote’ Encouraged by Gen. Flynn and Lin Wood

On Tuesday, General Mike Flynn retweeted a petition, directed to President Donald J. Trump, for a national federal revote of the 2020 Presidential election, that had been addressed earlier in the day by Attorney Lin Wood, and which started discussions among different groups over the Presidential authority used 68 other times in US History, to declare military law or “martial law.” 

“I knew that the left would start using fearful images of tanks in the street with the use of the words Martial Law,” the author told me saying that he felt it would show their mindset on the topic.  “I am not talking about making the United States a military zone, or about President Trump installing himself, I am talking about a re-vote under the control of the US military, and that is actually their job,” Tom Zawistowski, President We the People Convention, told me.

Flynn’s retweet of the petition, according to Zawistowski, can be seen as an encouragement, “I spoke with General Flynn since he has been pardoned to check some facts with him about what the military can do,” Zawistowski said.

The full petition is linked in Flynn’s following tweet:

In his press release, WTPC Calls for President to Invoke Limited Martial Law to Hold New Election and Protect our Vote, in Full Page Washington Times Ad, if Legislators, Courts and Congress Do Not Follow the Constitution, Zawistowski talks in detail about his motivation to examine the use of martial law during the Civil War period, when Americans were deeply divided over National Issues.

“In the months following the start of the Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln struggled to preserve the Union. Many objected to Lincoln’s extraordinary use of Presidential authority, in particular, his suspension of the right of “Habeas Corpus”.  Zawistowski wrote.

“That is key,” he told me. “I want President Trump to say that we are handing this over to the military to oversee and that at the end of it all, we will all live with what they determine. I believe that is the only way to solve this mess. I say that if Joe Biden won, the left needs to prove it. There are too many questions over fraud, and lawsuits are not going to fix it. In fact, it feeds the left’s attacks to solve this election mess in the courts. They will say that the election was overturned and used as an excuse for more civil unrest. I think we have to do it by having a revote, and I am getting a lot of support,” Zawistowski said.

“President Trump is not installing himself. I called it out in the petition, and it is important to really understand what we want,” he said.

From the press release, the group calls on President Trump to “exercise the Extraordinary Powers of his office and declare limited Martial Law to temporarily suspend the Constitution and civilian control of these federal elections to have the military implement a national re-vote that reflects the true will of the people. Federal candidates only. Paper ballots. No computers. Hand-counted with both parties watching every vote. Only registered voters. Photo ID to prove residence. Conducted safely with everyone wearing masks and six feet apart, just like we did in Ohio.”

To read and sign the petition please visit: We The People Conention

Witness Testimony: Trump Votes Allegedly Switched To Biden in Maricopa County, Arizona Dominion Machines

Witness Testimony: Trump Votes Allegedly Switched To Biden in Maricopa County, Arizona Dominion Machines

Arizona is another battleground state where election fraud was apparently rampant.

On November 30, the GOP chairwoman for Maricopa County, Linda Brickman, testified before the Arizona legislature testifying that she personally witnessed votes for President Donald Trump being counted as votes for his opponent, Democratic nominee Joe Biden when votes were input into Dominion Voting Systems machines.

Brickman, a veteran county elections worker, had already given her testimony in a sworn affidavit under penalty of perjury.  In her testimony, she said that she and her partner worker, a Democrat, witnessed “more than once” Trump votes switch over to Biden votes when they were entering votes into the Dominion equipment from ballots that could not be read by machines.

She also testified that she was threatened by election supervisors at the Maricopa County Tabulation and Election Center (MCTEC) for openly talking about what she saw.

“I observed, with my Democratic partner, the preparation of a new ballot, since the original one was soiled, or wouldn’t go through the tabulators. I read her a Trump Republican ballot, and as soon as she entered it into the system, the ballot defaulted on the screen to a Biden Democratic ballot,” Brickman testified GOP Arizona State legislators on Monday.

She said that when she reported the problem to election supervisors, there were others in the same room who also commented that they too had “witnessed the same manipulation.”

“We were never told what, if any corrective action was taken,” Brickman added. “All I know is the next day, I was called outside the room that I was working in for signature verification by a supervisor who said, ‘I understand you caused some problems this week and you thought our machines were not working correctly.’

“I was told at that point in time that I could not discuss anything or talk about what was going on,” Brickman said.

“Many people were threatened,” Brickman told the lawmakers. “They were told that their voices would be suppressed, they would have to leave the room and not work there again. I’m here because I think this is our duty to speak the truth.”  And God Bless her for having the courage to do speak out.

She testified that she was yelled at and even “reprimanded” by her own supervisor, who accused her of causing trouble and “bringing things up that I shouldn’t have.”  If you see election irregularities, I think it’s your civic duty to speak out.  The others must have been worried that their little voter fraud scheme would be exposed.

Brickman additionally mentioned that during testing and certification of the Dominion voting machines on Nov. 18, she refused to approve the certification of the Dominion system throughout a meeting with Secretary of State Katie Hobbs as a result of the machines had malfunctioned throughout the test, and were shut down and reset by Dominion staff instead of being corrected.

She added that no one was given any explanation concerning the errors.  “We could see the machines, but we could not see or observe the software behind the machine to confirm what had really gone on,” she added.

Members of the Trump legal team had already pointed to witness testimony alleging that election results from Dominion Voting Systems are vulnerable to being manipulated, an allegation that the company has repeatedly denied.  Does anyone believe that Dominion Voting Systems company would admit to any manipulation of voter data?

Brickman also testified that a number of voting machines displayed irregularities, including the intentional lowering of signature verification standards by the election supervisors who claimed it was done to make things “move more quickly” so that they could push through a higher amount of ballots.  I don’t think there is a “move more quickly” section in Arizona election laws.

“Standards were lowered from approximately 15 points of similarities … reduced to a minimum of three, and then lowered to one, and ultimately none,” Brickman said, recalling that she was told to “just pass each signature verification through.”

“We were told, ‘Too many rejections have already been turned in … we need to move more quickly.’ This is not the way an election should be run. Where’s the integrity?” Brickman said.  So, screw the republic, these election officials must have wanted to get to the bar quicker.

Brickman also testified that she saw signatures on ballot envelopes that were nothing like the name of the voter listed who was being let through by election supervisors.

“So the ones who signed the envelopes were not the actual voters, but these were allowed to go through with ‘Maricopa County verified’ stamped on the outside of each affidavit envelope,” she said.  She also observed batches of envelopes with different signatures coming from the same handwriting.

“There were at least 30 ballots that I saw at one time, that were signed by the same handwriting but on different voters’ names,” Brickman testified. “When I asked if the county attorney would be alerted for possible fraud, I was told ‘no,’ that supervisors would take care of it.”

One of the most “egregious” problems, Brickman said, was the tossing out Trump votes as duplicated votes or “overvotes” because the voter both checked the bubble for Trump on the ballot and also wrote in the president’s name under the write-in candidate.

“This would continue on as an overvote, which means no vote was counted at all despite the policy having been changed to allow these overvotes. Supervisors contradicted their own policies where the [voter’s] intent was clear,” she said.

It sounds like fraudsters wrote in Trump’s name just to invalidate the votes.  Democrats will stop at nothing to cheat.

“I am here today again not as an expert in the Dominion software but as a voter in Maricopa County who wants to hear and speak the truth even though myself and others have been suppressed to speak before you now,” Brickman told the hearing.

“There should be integrity,” she said.

Volunteer Groups In Georgia Claim They Have Discovered Enough Evidence of Election Fraud To Decertify Biden Victory. Have They?

Volunteer Groups In Georgia Claim They Have Discovered Enough Evidence of Election Fraud To Decertify Biden Victory. Have They?

When it comes to voter fraud that is being allegedly discovered in all the key battleground states, Georgia is one of the more difficult situations.  It’s one thing when you have discovered massive efforts by Democrats to commit election fraud in a multitude of ways, and that’s hard enough to fight, but when you have Republican public officials in the Executive branch who seem to be a part of the problem, it makes it necessary for private groups to form in order to help fight the effort against the illegal things that went on during the 2020 election.  Yes, I’m talking about Georgia’s Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger and Governor Brian Kemp among others.

Through a mostly volunteer, donation-funded effort, the nonprofit group “Nations In Action” has discovered the most compelling evidence of alleged voting irregularities of any other investigation currently underway in Georgia.

One of many volunteer groups, a Georgia-based voter data analytics firm says it has found that about 40,000 illegal votes were cast in Georgia in the November 3 general election.  Mark Davis, President of Data Productions, Inc. and considered an expert in five court cases concerning election disputes found 40,239 people who moved from one county to another more than 30 days before the election and voted in their old county, which is illegal according to Georgia law.  Those 40,239 people who voted failed to register their new address in time to vote in their new county, and according to the law they cannot vote in either county until they do.

40,239 illegal votes are more than triple the size of the current margins in the Presidential race as Joe Biden is listed as being approximately 12,000 votes ahead of President Donald Trump.

Full disclosure: Mark Davis has been one of my best friends for about a dozen years.  He is like a brother to me.  I can say with confidence that he has been very concerned about voter residency issues in his state for decades.  He is the go-to guy in Georgia for voter data analysis.

Davis’ investigation say they found there were 312,971 people who moved within the state from one county to another and that out of that 122,231 people moved more than 30 days prior to the election and failed to notify the state in time to vote, which means they were ineligible to vote in the 2020 election.  That 40,239 number comes from that batch of people.

The analysis also found that 267,255 people notified the USPS that they moved outside the state of Georgia, which means they are no longer eligible to vote in the state, yet, 14,980 of those people allegedly voted in the 2020 election in Georgia, 100 percent of them illegally.

“When we ran the data on these changes of address, the numbers startled me,” said Davis.

In search of additional verification, a second Nations In Action volunteer, Derek Somerville, CEO of Sierra Partners LLC and former FBI Special Agent, started to analyze individual voters in Mr. Davis’ data.  “I worked in the US intelligence community. I’m a trained federal investigator who was assigned to Public Corruption cases” says Somerville. ”After investigating a random sample of these voters, it became abundantly clear that thousands, if not tens of thousands of voters in this election do not reside in the county in which they voted…or even in the state of Georgia.”

Maria Strollo Zack, founder and chairman of Nations In Action, acknowledged that what is allegedly occurring in Georgia ought to concern every voter no matter party, adding “The Georgia legislature has failed its citizens by refusing to focus on systemic widespread voter fraud for decades.”

Up to now, Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) requests for the final certified voter file from the Secretary of State Raffensperger have been ignored.  “What are they hiding over there,” Zack asked.

“Americans demand honest, free and fair elections and Georgia voters deserve better than this,” Zack said. “Georgia has clear statutory and case law when it comes to voters casting ballots where they live and the Election Lawyers, Attorney General, and Georgia Bureau of Investigation should get involved.”

Zack also called on the Georgia state legislature to immediately begin hearings over this information. “They may ultimately need to sue to get more time to recount without these illegal ballots, bad addresses, and unverified signatures.”

“Otherwise, if the election is de-certified, the General Assembly may need to step in and decide for itself whether to send electors and make that important decision on who will be the next President.”

Through a mostly volunteer, donation-funded effort, the nonprofit group “Nations In Action” has discovered the most compelling evidence of alleged voting irregularities of any other investigation currently underway in Georgia.

One of many volunteer groups, a Georgia-based voter data analytics firm says it has found that about 40,000 illegal votes were cast in Georgia in the November 3 general election.  Mark Davis, President of Data Productions, Inc. and considered an expert in five court cases concerning election disputes found 40,239 people who moved from one county to another more than 30 days before the election and voted in their old county, which is illegal according to Georgia law.  Those 40,239 people who voted failed to register their new address in time to vote in their new county, and according to the law they cannot vote in either county until they do.

40,239 illegal votes are more than triple the size of the current margins in the Presidential race as Joe Biden is listed as being approximately 12,000 votes ahead of President Donald Trump.

Full disclosure: Mark Davis has been one of my best friends for about a dozen years.  He is like a brother to me.  I can say with confidence that he has been very concerned about voter residency issues in his state for decades.  He is the go-to guy in Georgia for voter data analysis.

Davis’ investigation say they found there were 312,971 people who moved within the state from one county to another and that out of that 122,231 people moved more than 30 days prior to the election and failed to notify the state in time to vote, which means they were ineligible to vote in the 2020 election.  That 40,239 number comes from that batch of people.

The analysis also found that 267,255 people notified the USPS that they moved outside the state of Georgia, which means they are no longer eligible to vote in the state, yet, 14,980 of those people allegedly voted in the 2020 election in Georgia, 100 percent of them illegally.

“When we ran the data on these changes of address, the numbers startled me,” said Davis.

In search of additional verification, a second Nations In Action volunteer, Derek Somerville, CEO of Sierra Partners LLC and former FBI Special Agent, started to analyze individual voters in Mr. Davis’ data.  “I worked in the US intelligence community. I’m a trained federal investigator who was assigned to Public Corruption cases” says Somerville. ”After investigating a random sample of these voters, it became abundantly clear that thousands, if not tens of thousands of voters in this election do not reside in the county in which they voted…or even in the state of Georgia.”

Maria Strollo Zack, founder and chairman of Nations In Action, acknowledged that what is allegedly occurring in Georgia ought to concern every voter no matter party, adding “The Georgia legislature has failed its citizens by refusing to focus on systemic widespread voter fraud for decades.”

Up to now, Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) requests for the final certified voter file from the Secretary of State Raffensperger have been ignored.  “What are they hiding over there,” Zack asked.

“Americans demand honest, free and fair elections and Georgia voters deserve better than this,” Zack said. “Georgia has clear statutory and case law when it comes to voters casting ballots where they live and the Election Lawyers, Attorney General, and Georgia Bureau of Investigation should get involved.”

Zack also called on the Georgia state legislature to immediately begin hearings over this information. “They may ultimately need to sue to get more time to recount without these illegal ballots, bad addresses, and unverified signatures.”

“Otherwise, if the election is de-certified, the General Assembly may need to step in and decide for itself whether to send electors and make that important decision on who will be the next President.”

“We want Trump!” Trump Supporters Rally in Phoenix to Protest AZ Election Certification

“We want Trump!” Trump Supporters Rally in Phoenix to Protest AZ Election Certification

Several hundred Trump supporters gathered in the streets of Phoenix on Monday to show support for President Trump and to protest the election results.

Wearing MAGA hats, waving American flags, and holding “Stop the Steal” signs, the crowd gathered outside the Hyatt Regency in downtown Phoenix, where Trump’s legal team was meeting with state legislators to discuss the credibility of Arizona’s election.

At the same time, Arizona certified their election results, officially declaring Joe Biden the state’s victor with 10,457 more votes than Trump.

Inside the hotel, however, an unofficial legislative hearing called into question the viability of the election results. Trump’s personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, and legal advisor, Jenna Ellis, hosted the event.

Large screens were set up outside the hotel to broadcast the event to those gathered outside.

The event also gave a platform to speakers Michelle Malkin and Nick Fuentes.

“My parents came here from the Philippines to live in a constitutional republic, not a banana republic,” Malkin shouted to the crowd.

Fuentes took shots at the GOP, saying that “if they cannot protect our president, then they are useless and they must be cast aside.”

Trump’s legal team has been hard at work challenging the election results while the media continues to call such claims baseless. The president’s supporters have been enthusiastic in following those legal challenges and declaring their belief that the election was stolen from him.

Despite challenges, many politicians and election officials have continued to insist that the election was fair.

Following Arizona’s certification, Arizona Secretary of State Katie Hobbs called the state’s election “transparent, accurate, and fair”, and called allegations to the contrary “unfounded.”

Arizona Governor Doug Ducey declared, “We do elections well, here in Arizona. The system is strong.”

Outside the Hyatt hotel, Trump supporters shouted, “We want Trump!”

Top Cybersecurity Expert NY Times Called ‘The Smartest Man in the Room’ Claims Trump Is Right, Election Rife With Fraud

Top Cybersecurity Expert NY Times Called ‘The Smartest Man in the Room’ Claims Trump Is Right, Election Rife With Fraud

Over the Thanksgiving holiday, Attorney Sidney Powell, who is working on her own to help prove election fraud against President Donald Trump in multiple states as an organized effort, released what she referred to as “the Kraken” which are two lawsuits that allege that massive voter fraud took place in the 2020 presidential election.

According to Conservative US, Powell released a “104-page document detailing allegations about Georgia and a 75-page document looking at Michigan on Wednesday night, calling for the election results to be decertified, Trump to be declared the winner and voting machines to be impounded.”

Powell released the document around midnight the night before Thanksgiving, and she gave a link to her website in the tweet, “The #Kraken was just released on #Georgia…Exhibits to follow. Also #ReleaseTheKraken in #Michigan.”

Sidney Powell said during a phone interview posted by Kyle Becker a freelance journalist, “we’ve got pictures of the check stubs paid to people to ballot harvest and do fraudulent voting.” When asked how many fraudulent votes she believes Joe Biden “had on his slate” Powell answered, “probably at least ten million.”

While Democrats have tried to label lawsuits and allegations of massive voter fraud as false and conspiracy theories, there’s one person involved who they can’t ignore, Navid Keshavarz-Nia, a cybersecurity and counterintelligence expert who has 30 years of experience in national security supporting Defense, US Intelligence Agency (USIA), and has given support to the CIA, NSA, DHS US-CERT, USCYBERCOM in the FBI.

Keshavarz-Nia has declared that there was massive voter fraud in the 2020 election via computers, saying, “all of it intended to secure a victory for Joe Biden.”

Keshavarz-Nia concluded with “high confidence that the election 2020 data were altered in all battleground states resulting in a hundreds of thousands of votes that were cast for President Trump to be transferred to Vice President Biden.”  A couple months ago the New York Times ran one of its Sunday long-form articles about a huge, multi-million-dollar fraud that was run against the American intelligence and military communities.

“Navid Keshavarz-Nia, those who worked with him said, “was always the smartest person in the room.” In doing cybersecurity and technical counterintelligence work for the CIA, NSA and FBI, he had spent decades connecting top-secret dots. After several months of working with Mr. Courtney, he began connecting those dots too. He did not like where they led.”

Well, now “the smartest person in the room” joins with Trump and his legal team that the vote counts for Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, Arizona, Nevada, and Georgia show “electronic manipulation.”

Kershavarz-Nia has worked as a cyber-security engineer.  “My experience,” he attests, “spans 35 years performing technical assessment, mathematical modeling, cyber-attack pattern analysis, and security intelligence.”  The fact of the matter is Kershavarz-Nia is an expert who knows more about cybersecurity than most people in America.

Kershavarz-Nia, cybersecurity expert said that Hammer and Scorecard are real, they are not a hoax or a conspiracy theory as the Democrats and their boot-licking sycophants in the media are saying, and both of them are used to intentionally change votes and therefore election outcomes.

He also says that Dominion, ES&S, Scytl, and Smartmatic are all vulnerable to fraud and vote manipulation, and that the media has done reporting on these vulnerabilities in the past, but that was when they thought Democrats would be the victims of such vulnerabilities.  Now, the very same news outlets are reporting that it’s impossible for the same vulnerabilities they reported on in the past.  Go figure.

Kershavarz-Nia also pointed out that Dominion has been used in other foreign election to “forge election results.”  The machines are able to be hacked very easily, and memory cards and cryptographic key access to the systems were stolen in 2019.

He said that the company’s corporate structure is intentionally confusing to make it easier to hide corporate relationships with China, Cuba, and Venezuela, all countries known for fraudulent elections.

“The Kraken” is also a reference to the Military Intelligence 305th Battalion, according to Lt. Colonel Thomas McInerney.

0