Category Archives: Government

HUGE: Dr. Shiva Discovers Existence of the Secretive Long Fuse Report — Exposes Twitter-Government Collusion — As Momentous Discovery as Pentagon Papers & Update: Hearing Tomorrow with Link

By Jim Hoft
Published August 3, 2021 at 7:45am

Previously we reported on Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai was able to uncover Twitter’s “partner support portal.”

Dr. Shiva discovered that Twitter built a special portal offered to certain governmental entities so that government officials can flag and delete content they dislike for any reason, as part of what they call their “Twitter Partner Status.”

Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai, the man who invented email, ran for US Senate in Massachusetts as a Republican and made allegations of voter fraud on Twitter. These tweets were then deleted by the far-left tech giant.  Later it was discovered that they were deleted at the direction of government employees of the Massachusetts Secretary of State’s office.

Discovering this, Dr. Ayyadurai filed a federal lawsuit by himself, alleging that his federal civil rights were violated when the government silenced his political speech in order to affect an election.

TRENDING: HUGE: Dr. Shiva Discovers Existence of the Secretive Long Fuse Report — Exposes Twitter-Government Collusion — As Momentous Discovery as Pentagon Papers …Update: Hearing Tomorrow with Link

Legal observers noted back in May that the judge is signaling that Twitter’s days of claiming it is a private company so as to avoid it’s clear oppression of conservative speech, banning scores of conservative journalists, and promotion of liberal views, may be coming to a close end:

This case could spell the end of CDA 230.

CDA 230 is the provision of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 that gives internet and social media companies legal immunity from lawsuits due to the content they publish.

This provision in law gives companies like Facebook and Twitter a way to dismiss lawsuits, but it also gives them the ability to act with impunity so that their actions cannot be legally challenged. These companies have, according to their detractors, abused this immunity by suppressing dissident, and specifically conservative, views, viewpoints and journalism.

Because Dr. Ayyadurai did not argue about Twitter’s “Terms of Service,” everything will instead hinge on the degree of interaction between Twitter and the state government of Massachusetts.

EXCLUSIVE: More proof that tech giants are working with Democrat State Governments to Censor Conservatives

We noticed back in early July that Dr. Shiva’s lawsuit also included the National Association of State Election Directors (NASED):

We’ve reported on the NASED previously.  This group of election directors in the US, as well as the group of Secretaries of State, worked with the UN before the 2020 election:

These non-profits received donations from voting machine companies, ballot printing companies, Zuckerberg’s non-profit as well as a Hillary-related non-profit in 2020.

And we also know that NASED was working with Twitter to prevent free speech in the US.

In late July Dr. Shiva released another explosive report.

Dr. Shiva revealed how election officials and government actors work together to coordinate with social media platforms to silence speech in America.

Via Vashiva.comclick here for high resolution image.

Dr. Shiva described this discovery in his latest amended legal complaint filed on July 22.

1. This case is about the government surveilling and blacklisting a minority, political candidate Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai (“Dr. Shiva”), and then eventually silencing his speech, in the midst of his U.S. Senate campaign, because he criticized government officials, thereby violating his First Amendment rights – the foundational principle of the United States.

2. Starting in June of 2020, Dr. Shiva, a candidate for U.S. Senate in Massachusetts, was one of the top six (6) individuals in the United States who had been identified,in The Long Fuse Report, as an Influence Operator (IO) per the Playbooks (created by the Defendants), and was under 24/7 surveillance by teams working 4-hour shifts, using an infrastructure – of technology and relationships as shown in Exhibit A, coarchitected by the Defendants in this case. Dr. Shiva is mentioned twenty-two (22) times in The Long Fuse Report.

Advertisement – story continues below

3. Starting in October 2017, government officials concluded that though the nature of U.S. elections was decentralized – spread across 10,000 jurisdictions and using different kinds of machines (and diverse methods: paper and electronic) – was the best defense to cyberhacking, they needed to eliminate such decentralization because it was a hindrance to their desire to establish and use a centralized infrastructure with nongovernmental entities to “fill the gap” between domestic government agencies who had no power to curtail speech, and federal intelligence agencies who were forbidden from curtailing domestic speech, in order to censor speech by surveilling, blacklisting, and silencing U.S. citizens, domestically, and thus allow government officials to violate the First Amendment without fear of being sued.

4. The Defendants in this case were architects of this infrastructure. The Defendants and their allies co-authored the foundational documents – The Playbooks – at Harvard’s Belfer Center for Defending Digital Democracy, testified to the US Senate Intelligence Committee to lobby for such an infrastructure, and forged relationships with billionaires, in particular Pierre Omidyar, through his Democracy Fund, as well as the Rockefeller Brothers, the Murdoch Family’s Quadrivium, Mark Zuckerberg, and other nongovernmental entities, to fund, design and deploy this centralized infrastructure for censorship of speech. The network diagram in Exhibit A provides a visual illustration of those relationships and the technology infrastructure they created to censor speech. These relationships provided the Defendants special access to channels to use if when and necessary for personal benefit, to not only blacklist and surveil US citizens, but also to silence their domestic speech, which is what they did to Dr. Shiva starting on September 25, 2020.

5. The existence of this infrastructure was discovered during the course of this lawsuit: On October 30, 2020, testimony elicited by this Court, revealed for the first time the existence of a “Trusted Twitter Partnership” between Government and Twitter; on May 19, 2021, Dr. Shiva discovered the “Playbooks” co-authored by the Defendants, which were presented to this Court during the May 20-21, 2021 hearings, that detail the step-by-step process for identifying Influence Operators (IOs), monitoring them and silencing their speech; and, on June 28, 2021, the staggering discovery of The Long Fuse Report, confirmed that this infrastructure had been monitoring Dr. Shiva starting as early as June of 2020. Discovery of The Long Fuse Report is as momentous in US History as discovery of the Pentagon Papers. This lawsuit provides the context to understand it.

6. Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai (“Dr. Shiva”), MIT PhD, the inventor of email, is a scientist, technologist, political activist (see Exhibit B), and educator – an independent thinker -, a minority, who was born as a low-caste “Untouchable” in India’s deplorable caste system, earned four degrees from MIT, a Fulbright Scholar, Westinghouse Science Talents Honors Award recipient, Lemelson-MIT Awards Finalist, nominee for the Presidential National Medal of Technology and Innovation. His life has been about identifying problems and proposing solutions based on a systems science approach – that is neither partisan nor bi-partisan -, is beyond left and right, and is based on objectively understanding the interconnections of the parts of any system. He developed a systems science curriculum, which he originally taught at MIT, that he now teaches to the broad public to educate them on applying a systems approach to any problem. This approach is what Dr. Shiva employs in his videos and social media posts in analyzing a problem or situation.

7. Since 2011, Dr. Shiva worked hard to build his followers on Twitter – his main platform for education, outreach, and political activism – from 0 to 360,000 followers with a reach of tens to hundreds of millions as documented in The Long Fuse Report, before he was deplatformed by these Defendants on February 1, 2021. His content, combining text posts, images and video streams, enabled his students and followers on Twitter to get a deep and unique education, from a systems approach, on any number of issues be it innovation, healthcare, education, agriculture, vaccines, election integrity, Big Tech, etc. Given that Twitter is the most powerful megaphone for politics (politicians and political activists must be on Twitter to even have a chance of their message being heard), Dr. Shiva’s content, based on this systems-based approach, appealed to the broad mass of independent thinkers in America. Up until September 25, 2020, Dr. Shiva was never
suspended or deplatformed from Twitter, though he spoke on a number of controversial topics, from a non-mainstream, systems-science-based approach.

8. In February of 2017, Dr. Shiva decided to engage in electoral politics. He ran as an Independent for U.S. Senate from Massachusetts in 2018 against Elizabeth Warren. In 2020, he ran as a Republican (though the Massachusetts GOP did not support him, given he had his own independent base) in the U.S. Senate primary; and later, in the U.S. Senate general elections as a write in candidate on the platform of #StopElectionFraud and #TruthFreedomHealth.

10. On September 1, 2020, following the confounding results from his own U.S. Senate Primary election Dr. Shiva began his journey to discover two (2) systemic problems in the processes of U.S. electronic voting systems:
a. The certification by State Election Directors of voting systems software with features that allowed for the multiplication of a voter’s vote by a factor (the “weighted race” feature), thus denying one person one vote; and,
b. The lack of adherence to Federal law 52 USC 20701 that election officials must preserve digital ballot images for twenty-two (22) months for federal elections, to enable auditing.

11. During September 1-24, 2020, Dr. Shiva used Twitter to educate his nearly 260,000 students and followers, from a systems science approach, to appreciate the realities of these two systemic system problems that he had identified. He tweeted, shared posts, did videos on his own experience during his primary election campaign, the mechanics of the weighted race feature that denies one person one vote, how ballot images were being deleted – thus thwarting forensic audits, and the slogan of his U.S. Senate Write In campaign: #StopElectionFraud. The Long Fuse Report documents that at that time, the infrastructure co-architected by these Defendants was being only used to surveil him and actively analyze his ‘influence and reach’ to gauge his threat severity. During this period, Twitter never took any action to silence any of his tweets (see Exhibit C) or deplatform his tweets or his Twitter account.

13. On September 24, 2020, Dr. Shiva tweeted out about destruction of digital ballot images by Tassinari and Galvin, which went viral on social media. In response to this tweet, Defendant Galvin had his office respond with a press release disputing Dr. Shiva’s tweet. Galvin’s office also officially filed a complaint with Twitter through their dedicated Partner Support Portal (“PSP”). Galvin’s office is a “Trusted Twitter Partner,” which means any complaints from them receive a higher priority response than some normal private citizen complaining to Twitter. The Playbooks explain this in detail.

14. On September 25, 2020, Dr. Shiva posted a threaded tweet sharing four (4) screenshots of emails that explicitly named Defendant Michelle Tassinari, (“the September 25, 2020 Tassinari Tweet”). Tassinari holds many positions of power at the key intersection of governmental and non-governmental members of the infrastructure established to censor domestic speech:

a. State Election Director of Massachusetts;
b. Chief Legal Counsel for Massachusetts Secretary of State Galvin;
c. President of the National Association of State Election Directors (NASED);
d. Executive Committee Member of the DHS Cybersecurity and Infrastructure
Security Agency’s Election Infrastructure-Government Coordinating Council (CISA EI-GCC);
e. Member of the Advisory Board of the MIT Election Data & Science
Laboratory;
f. Member of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (US EAC); and,
g. Member of the Council of State Governments

15. The September 25, 2020 Tassinari Tweet went viral and revealed her personal role in destroying digital ballot images. This time, unlike the earlier official response, Tassinari had Amy Cohen, the Executive Director of NASED and someone who commanded immense influence through relationships that Cohen had forged over years in Washington DC, as shown in Exhibit A, to do ‘whatever it takes’ to get Dr. Shiva’s tweet removed.

16. Tassinari and Cohen’s coordination with Twitter and using the relationships they had forged, resulted in Dr. Shiva’s tweet being removed and Dr. Shiva being locked out of his Twitter account for most of the one month period leading to the general elections on November 3, 2020. Tassinari had used the relationships and the infrastructure to benefit her personally i.e. removing the tweet that revealed her violation of federal law. The deliberate silencing of Dr. Shiva on Twitter in the midst of his U.S. Senate campaign just prior to election day, severely crippled his last month of efforts including: raising money, reaching out to voters, sharing his message, etc.

17. On October 20, 2020, Dr. Shiva filed a lawsuit and sought to enjoin Galvin from further silencing him on Twitter. On October 30, 2020, this Court held a TRO hearing Case 1:20-cv-11889-MLW
and elicited testimony which gave us the first glimpses of the infrastructure designed by the Defendants i.e. the “Trusted Twitter Partnership.” In her affidavit, Tassinari had concealed the Trusted Twitter Partnership and her use of the infrastructure through Amy Cohen to do ‘whatever it took’ to stop Dr. Shiva from spreading the news of Tassinari’s violation of federal law. This Court ruled in Dr. Shiva’s favor, ordered Galvin to stop contacting Twitter; Galvin to stop contacting NASED; and, ordering Galvin to respond to Dr. Shiva’s speech on Twitter with his own speech. At that hearing, this Court also indicated that it was more than likely that, per the Blum test, Dr. Shiva would prevail in his lawsuit in demonstrating that Twitter’s action was State Action.

18. Dr. Shiva would discover, later that Tassinari’s and Cohen’s influence and coercive power far outweighs that of the average state election director.

19. Starting on November 4, 2020, when Dr. Shiva was back on Twitter, until January 31, 2021, Dr. Shiva tweeted on all different topics. At this time his followers had grown to 360,000 and his influence and reach had also grown, as documented in The Long Fuse Report.

20. On February 1, 2021, when he once again shared the September 25, 2020 Tassinari Tweet in a video lecture about developments in this very lawsuit, to his students and followers, Dr. Shiva received, within seventeen(17) minutes of the lecture ending, an official Twitter email informing him that Twitter had permanently suspended his account. Those seventeen (17) minutes permitted no time for Twitter to exercise any independent private internal judgment; it kicked Dr. Shiva off Twitter because the other Defendants wanted it to do so. Interestingly, Tassinari, Cohen, and Twitter’s counsel Stacia Cardille (“Cardille”), who has submitted false affidavits in this case, were all together at NASED’sFebruary 1-5, 2021 Winter Conference at which Tassinari and Cohen had invited Cardille to give a talk on “Managing Misinformation on Social Media Platforms,” at the same time that Twitter deplatformed Dr. Shiva.

21. The Defendants, to conceal their coordinated efforts to silence Dr. Shiva, then coordinated together to conceal from this Court the existence of their relationship. Already in this case, multiple of the Defendants have made repeated omissions as well as direct factual misrepresentations via testimony and affidavit. Two of the more recent efforts to conceal the truth from this Court include:
a. Defendants failed to disclose to the Court the existence of the Playbooks setting out the means by which they were to regulate speech on social media and the fact that Twitter Legal, Tassinari and Cohen co-wrote them; and b. Cardille, on behalf of the Defendants, misrepresented that Twitter deplatformed Dr. Shiva through internal deliberations within Twitter. Cardille was confronted with the need to explain the 17-minute response time. This would have required her to reveal to this Court that 24/7 live surveillance teams were watching Dr. Shiva’s tweets on 4-hour shifts every day on behalf of the Defendants, as documented in the Long Fuse Report. Cardille chose to conceal this fact and filed a false affidavit instead.

22. The Long Fuse Report analyzed Dr. Shiva as the test subject, the canary in the coal mine, the first U.S. Senate candidate deplatformed during his election campaign, to see if the infrastructure works as designed, in order to next be employed against a sitting member of Congress (which is now underway as this lawsuit is being filed). In fact The Long Fuse Report, recommends in its closing chapters that political speech not be given preferential treatment – openly challenging the highest protection afforded by the First Amendment – and bringing the United States back in line with the British Commonwealth.

Dr. Shiva previously uncovered for the first time the existence of a “Trusted Twitter Partnership” between the Government and Twitter.

In his latest report, Dr. Shiva exposed the existence of  The Long Fuse Report which is as momentous in US History as the discovery of the Pentagon Papers.

UPDATE–  The hearing is tomorrow…

Tomorrow’s hearing will be on August 4, 2021 at 2PM

And, the public can attend via Zoom provided they register at https://forms.mad.uscourts.gov/courtlist.html

They must choose the hearing date Wednesday, August 4, and select ‘Judge Wolf.’

BREAKING EXCLUSIVE: Uncovered Email Shows Milwaukee Elections Executive Woodall-Vogg Laughing About the Election Steal on Election Night

Source: BREAKING EXCLUSIVE: Uncovered Email Shows Milwaukee Elections Executive Woodall-Vogg Laughing About the Election Steal on Election Night

FOX WILL NOT AIR THIS AD! EVERY AMERICAN NEEDS TO SEE & HEAR THIS! DO NOT MISS THIS! IT’S GOING TO ROCK YOUR WORLD!!

Mike Lindell’s: CYBER SYMPOSIUM AUGUST 10-12, 72 HOURS OF LIVE STREAMED EVIDENCE!

IRREFUTABLE EVIDENCE THE 2020 ELECTION WAS WROUGHT WITH FRAUD AT A LEVEL NEVER SEEN IN THE HISTORY OF ANY COUNTRY EVER!

DO NOT MISS THIS HISTORIC IN DEPTH LOOK AT THE WHO, THE WHAT AND WHERE OUR 2020 ELECTIONS WERE ATTACKED! WATCH RECORDED DIGITAL INFORMATION OF PACKET CAPTURES, UNPRECEDENTED BLATANT FRAUD AND THE BIGGEST ATTACK WAS FROM THE COMMUNIST PARTY OF CHINA (CPC)!

FIND OUT FOR YOURSELF!-SEND THIS TO YOUR FAMILY, FRIENDS, AND EVERYBODY!-THEY NEED TO KNOW! THE HEALTH OF THEIR FUTURE IS AT STAKE!-IF YOU ARE AN AMERICAN START ACTING LIKE ONE!-DO NOT MISS THIS!!-YOUR COUNTRY IS DEPENDING ON YOU-YOUR CHILDREN ARE DEPENDING ON YOU-THE WORLD IS WATCHING, PRAYING AND HOPING WE CHOOSE THE RIGHT ROAD!DEFEND THE REPUBLIC OF THESE SOVEREIGN UNITED STATES NOW!!

CYBER SYMPOSIUM AUGUST 10-12, 2021, IRREFUTABLE EVIDENCE OF 2020 ELECTION MASIVE FRAUD!

Watch The Ad that Fox won’t play:

WATCH THE CYBER SYMPOSIUM HERE: FRANKSPEECH.COM

    T E L L E V E R Y B O D Y Y O U K N O W !!

WATCH LIVE! President Donald Trump in AZ at Turning Point Action’s Rally To Protect Our Elections!

Source: WATCH LIVE! President Donald Trump in AZ at Turning Point Action’s Rally To Protect Our Elections!

BREAKING BIG: Georgia Residents to File Lawsuit on Monday at 1:30 PM Contesting the Fraudulent Results of the Georgia Senate Elections

BREAKING BIG: Georgia Residents to File Lawsuit on Monday at 1:30 PM Contesting the Fraudulent Results of the Georgia Senate Elections

400+The Gateway Punditby Jim Hoft / 44min

//keep unread//hide

A lawsuit will be filed on Monday at 1:30 PM in the Henry County Superior Court contesting the certifications of Jon Ossoff and Raphael Warnock as the winners of the election for Georgia’s U.S. Senate seats.

There will be a press conference immediately following the court hearing in Henry County Georgia.

A court hearing will take place in Henry County Superior Court on Monday, July 19th at 1:30 pm ET regarding the U.S. Senate runoff election in Georgia, certified in January of 2021.

The lawsuit, brought by Atlanta resident Mike Daugherty contests the certifications of Jon Ossoff and Raphael Warnock as the winners of the election for Georgia’s U.S. Senate seats and seeks a new election conducted on paper ballots under Ga. Code 21-2-334.

Listed defendants include Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, Jon Ossoff, Raphael Warnock, Fulton, DeKalb, and Coffee County Election Boards, as well as the Georgia State Election Board.

The lawsuit alleges the results of this election do not accurately reflect the intent of eligible voters in Georgia and therefore should be overturned. The lawsuit points to significant misconduct, legal irregularities committed by election officials, procedural violations, and security breaches surrounding electronic voting equipment, among other things.

A joint press conference will immediately follow the hearing outside the courtroom. In attendance will be former State Representative Vernon Jones, an election integrity advocate, as well as Mr. Mike Daugherty, and others involved in the case. (Note: Rep. Jones is not affiliated with this legal filing)

WHERE: Henry County Superior Court, Superior Court, No. 1 Courthouse Square, McDonough, GA 30253 – Courtroom A

WHEN: July 19th, 1:30 PM ET – Press Conference to follow

Here is the live-feed video from the press conference following the court hearing on Monday.

Gubernatorial candidate Vernon Jones is expected to speak:

The post BREAKING BIG: Georgia Residents to File Lawsuit on Monday at 1:30 PM Contesting the Fraudulent Results of the Georgia Senate Elections appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

5th Circuit Keeps Sanctions On Democrat Russia Hoax Lawyer Marc Elias

5th Circuit Keeps Sanctions On Democrat Russia Hoax Lawyer Marc Elias

July 8, 2021 By Audrey Unverferth

The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said Wednesday it will keep sanctions it levied against lawyer Marc Elias, known for his role in the Russia collusion hoax and other Democrat operations, for his “lack of candor.” The court will vacate its sanctions against three of Elias’s fellow Perkins Coie lawyers.

Elias ran campaigns to change voting laws and practices to favor Democrats and in 2020 founded Democracy Docket, an organization self-described as “the leading progressive platform dedicated to opinion, advocacy, and information about voting rights, elections, redistricting and democracy.”

Democrats have celebrated Elias and his advocacy, but the 5th U.S. Circuit Court was displeased with him and five of his colleagues at Perkins Coie after they filed a supplemental motion in February that was almost an exact replica of a motion that had been filed and denied in September, “without disclosing the previous denial.” The court strongly disapproved of the attorneys’ behavior, deciding to sanction them in March.

As the court responsible for “oversee[ing] courts in Texas, Mississippi and Louisiana,” Reuters reported the court “ordered Elias and [his] team to pay attorneys’ fees and court costs incurred by their opponents over the ‘duplicative’ motion and any related response and also to pay ‘double costs.’” The court also suggested that Elias and his colleagues spend time reviewing the court’s rules on candor.

The court imposed these sanctions in a straight-ticket voting case in Texas, titled Texas Alliance for Retired Americans v. Hughes. In this case, Elias and his team “represent Democrats fighting in favor of the practice [of straight-ticket voting,] against the state’s top election officials.”

Straight ticket voting enables constituents to vote for a political party’s “entire slate of candidates with just a single ballot mark,” making it easy for uninformed partisans to quickly engage in down-ballot voting. It’s one of the “election reforms” currently demanded by some Democrats.

Frustrated by their sanctions, Elias and his team urged the court to reevaluate them in March. He and his colleagues were represented by Kirkland & Ellis partner Paul Clement, who served under former President George W. Bush as U.S. solicitor general.

Represented by Clement, Elias’s team claimed their February motion was “not intended to conceal the denial of the initial motion to supplement the record, but reflected good faith misunderstandings.” On behalf of his clients, Clement issued a filing, which asserted that courts “generally reserve sanctions for egregious misconduct and the disregard of clearly established rules,” not “good-faith mistakes.” The filing also claimed, “As a result, if the Sanctions Order stands, it will have (and, indeed, already has had) outsized collateral consequences on each of the affected attorneys.”

Despite the frustrations of Elias and his team, the 5th Circuit Court held that it is “not required to find bad faith when imposing sanctions for violations of local rules.” Moreover, the court reminded Elias and his team that “[the court’s] local rules permit [it] to discipline ‘any member of the bar of th[e] Court for failure to comply with the rules of th[e] Court, or for conduct unbecoming a member of the bar.’”

The court won’t drop its sanctions against Elias or his legal partner Bruce Spiva because both men have almost 30 years of experience in the legal field and should have reasonably known better. Since counsel Skyler Howton signed both the September and February motions to supplement, the court also kept its sanctions against her. The court vacated its sanctions against the other half of Elias’s team. 

Audrey Unverferth is an intern at The Federalist and a senior at the University of Chicago, where she studies Law, Letters, and Society and Russian and East European Studies. She is also the co-founder, publisher, and editor-in-chief of the Chicago Thinker. Follow her on Twitter @audrey__unver or email audreyu@uchicago.edu.

Photo YouTube/MSNBC

Voter ID a Sticking Point in Pennsylvania Voting Reform; Leftist Gov. Tom Wolfe vows to veto it

A sign reminds voters they need photo ID to vote on Election Day at a polling station at Hillsboro Presbyterian Church in Nashville, Tenn., on Nov. 6, 2018. (Drew Angerer/Getty Images)

A sign reminds voters they need photo ID to vote on Election Day at a polling station at Hillsboro Presbyterian Church in Nashville, Tenn., on Nov. 6, 2018. (Drew Angerer/Getty Images)

REGIONAL NEWS

BY BETH BRELJE

June 24, 2021 Updated: June 24, 2021

A voting reform bill, moving quickly through the Republican-led Pennsylvania General Assembly, would require voter identification and impose hefty fines for election tampering.

But Democrat Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Wolf has vowed to veto the Voting Rights Protection Act, which the state House passed Tuesday and the Senate State Government Committee passed on Wednesday. It now goes to the full state Senate where it is expected to pass Friday or Saturday.

House Bill 1300 is the result of 10 legislative public hearings that questioned the Pennsylvania Department of State and election officials both locally and from other states about system flaws.

According to the bill’s sponsor, Republican state Rep. Seth Grove, it aims to improve voter accessibility, increase security, and modernize Pennsylvania’s 1937 Election Code. It also rolls back some changes made to the code in 2019.

The bill would require voters to show a photo identification printed with an expiration date and their name, similar to how it appears in the district voting registry.

Democrat lawmakers reject this requirement. Senator Sharif Street called the requirement onerous, noting that his own state Senate photo identification would not work at the polls because it has no expiration date.

Democrat Senator Katie Muth questioned Grove about rolling back the length of time for early voting.

“Are there are concerns of limiting people’s access to the ballot box considering the time has been shortened?” Muth asked during the State Government Committee debate. “Are you aware of the concerns for working-class people, and also people of color that have job schedules that may limit them from accessing (voter options) if they work the weekend. Not everyone works 9-5 and not everyone has access to transportation. Are you worried that this will disenfranchise people of color from having access to vote?”

Under the proposed plan, early in-person voting would start the Friday before Election Day and continue through the weekend, plus Monday and the traditional Tuesday Election Day. Polls are open 7 a.m.- 8 p.m. daily and mail-in ballots are another option.

“I think there is plenty of opportunity for an individual who wants to vote, who makes it a priority to get out there and vote through the multiple methods we now have,” Grove responded to Muth.

The bill moves the voter registration deadline back from 15 days to 30 days before the election, establishes a state bureau of election audits, allows for pre-canvassing of mailed ballots, and makes it easier for older and disabled voters by moving them to the front of the line or providing curbside voting so they can remain in their car.

It also introduces stiffer fines and longer possible prison terms for election tampering, including $30,000, up to 14-years in prison, and a felony conviction for election officers who permit unregistered voters to vote or who challenge or refuse to allow qualified voters to vote.

The penalty is the same for any judge, clerk of election, or machine inspector who makes a false return of the votes cast, deposits fraudulent ballots in the ballot box, or certifies as correct a return of ballots known to be fraudulent.

Unfolding or prying into ballots to see how they are marked before they are deposited in the ballot box gets a $1,000 fine and possibly two years of prison.

Election officials who delay completing their duties, block the door to a polling place, or tamper with the voter registration list would also face fines, along with voters voting in the wrong district or voting more than once in an election. Many of these rules are not new, but the fines have doubled.

The bill adds a detailed section on accountability for voting system vendors, requiring them to disclose and repair any flaws in their systems and instructs the Department of State to investigate suspected defects.

“Based on what I hear from people I represent, we can do a better job in the conduct of our elections,” said Pennsylvania state Sen. David Argall, Republican chair of the State Government Committee, in a phone conversation with The Epoch Times. “The last election took way too long to count the ballots and it’s not the fault of the local people working at the courthouse. It is a misinterpretation of Act 77 by the Department of State and the state Supreme Court.”

Act 77, signed by Wolf in 2019, created a new option to vote by mail without providing an excuse, which had been required for voters using absentee ballots. It also allowed for a 50-day mail-in voting period, the longest vote-by-mail period in the country; extended the deadline to register to vote from 15 days from 30 days before an election; and extended mail-in and absentee submission deadlines from the Friday before an election to 8 p.m. on Election Day.

After the 2020 presidential election, state Republicans asked the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to declare universal mail-in voting unconstitutional and to throw out the 2.5 million ballots cast by mail. The Democrat-leaning court dismissed the case, saying Republicans waited too long to challenge the 2019 law. The U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear the case.

Wolf’s office was asked Wednesday if he would support the bill if voter identification were removed, and what changes would gain his support. The office did not respond in time for this report. But Wolf did send out a tweet on Tuesday.

“I want election reform, too. But House Bill 1300 isn’t it. The lawmakers behind this bill are the same ones who asked Congress to throw out PA votes and whose lies directly contributed to the Jan. 6 insurrection. I will veto this bill if it reaches my desk in its current form,” Wolf’s tweet said.

In addition to this bill, Senate Republicans are working on a measure to change the state Constitution to require voter identification when voting. It must be passed in two consecutive General Assembly sessions and then placed on the state ballot for voters to decide if they want to make that change. The soonest the question would go to voters is 2023.

AN OPEN LETTER TO THE SUPREME COURT | Intercessors for America

Every God fearing, America loving patriot should use THIS letter as a model to write your own. Let’s all inundate the nation, our respective “representatives”, with letters just like the one below. May we unite over the true love we ALL have for this country and what it stands for, the United States of America!

TiLT

Source: AN OPEN LETTER TO THE SUPREME COURT | Intercessors for America

AN OPEN LETTER TO THE SUPREME COURT

June 12, 2021 | Zoraida Noratto-White, IFA Intercessor
We pray for justices to be courageous to mend their ways by doing what is good and right: to rule justly, to protect the innocent and punish the wicked, and to walk humbly before the God who called them to this purpose for such a time as this in the history of the world.

We are publishing this letter that an IFA intercessor sent this week to the Supreme Court. Sensing the prompting of the Holy Spirit, she wrote her story, hoping and praying that it will impact these nine men and women who have such an impact on our lives. We believe you will be blessed by reading it.

Dear Justices,

My name is Zoraida. I am a naturalized citizen of the United States, born and raised in Colombia. I write to you the justices with all due respect and in a spirit of meekness, in order to express my thoughts regarding some of the Court’s decisions and to make a request. I thank you in advance for your consideration to this letter.

Since I was a little girl I began to dream of coming to America. It was movies I watched, news I heard, stories of people who had traveled to this land. There was something about this country that inspired in me a burning desire for seeing her; it was an inexplicable hope that this nation offered freedom and justice to all its citizens. Such things, I sensed, were not the standard of the world at large. My sense was that this nation would allow me the opportunity to prosper and to realize my dreams; a country where I could aspire to more than just basic survival. There was something about America that made me feel excited for my future. Although I was growing up in a Democracy, the sense I had was that the Democracy of the United States was unique, at a higher level, where all her citizens could trust that they would be protected, respected and treated fairly and equally under the law. My admiration for this country eventually turned into deep love.

After many years of hoping, praying and waiting for a miracle, I was granted a visa to visit the United States. At long last my dream of coming to America was to be realized! I remember walking out of that Embassy crying tears of joy, sobbing with thankfulness to God Almighty for the miracle and with gratitude to the country that welcomed me. In the course of time, I visited again; later I was granted permission to stay and worked my way up to eventually becoming a US Citizen through a legal process that lasted about 14 years from beginning to end. My resolve was always that if I was granted that privilege, I would do nothing less than my best to be a productive member of society, someone who would contribute to the betterment of this nation. My heart burst with happiness and my eyes were flooded with tears on that wonderful day in August 2009 as I held my Certificate of Citizenship after being sworn in. I felt immensely proud, honored and humbled at such an amazing privilege.

Among the marvelous thoughts that went through my mind about being a US Citizen stood the notion that under the US Constitution I was granted certain rights and privileges, as well as responsibilities. One of the most wonderful rights was that of being able to vote in federal and local elections. I was thrilled at the notion that my vote would mean something, that it would be respected and counted with all the other votes… “because in this country the Constitution would always be upheld”, I thought. A beautiful constitution under which I was fortunate, unlike multitudes of people in the world who do not have the right to vote or whose rights are violated by evil oppressive regimes. That same beautiful constitution affords me today even the right to address this letter to the Supreme Court.

On November 4th 2020, I awakened to disturbing news and images of illicit activity that had taken place the previous day and night during the Presidential election, in a sinister reversal of the results that were clearly displayed on television screens throughout the evening. I felt dismayed at what my eyes were seeing: many instances of illegal moves (observers of one party being denied access to observing the process while observers of the other party were offered Carte Blanche; officials changing election rules in unconstitutional manner just days before the election, clerks hiding ballots under tables and pulling them to tabulate after observers had been told to leave, machines and software being manipulated from within and outside the USA, dead people voting, etc. Law breaking, Lies, deception, fraud; in one word clear and brazen instances of Corruption. That was one of the saddest days in my life. The thought that my Vote might have been invalidated or even worse, stolen from me, brought grief to my heart and a terrible realization that our beautiful constitution had been tainted by corruption; I wept much that day! In a self-sobering motion of my mind however, I thought “Surely the Supreme Court will not allow this corruption to prevail; surely they will right this wrong; surely they will order the auditing of the election processes and systems and uphold the Constitution”.

The dismay I felt on November 4th was greatly compounded when in subsequent months the Supreme Court refused to listen to arguments regarding various election fraud cases, which were presented by several states on behalf of many millions of Americans. As I have thought for weeks and months as to the possible reasons why the Supreme Court would not even listen to the arguments and examine the evidence, my mind has boggled. It is my strong conviction that any reasonable person who is presented with the preponderance of evidence such as was available to contend for those cases, would be alarmed, or at least intrigued, by the facts and would seek to examine the evidence. I felt extremely disappointed, to say the least, over the Court’s terrible decision. The confidence that I once felt in the Democracy of the United States began to be eroded by the Court’s decision, which meant to me that the Court denied justice to some 75 millions of American citizens, in essence siding with the perpetrators of corruption. Since that day a mourning ensued; it felt as though something precious had died. The US Constitution had been trampled underfoot.

With all due respect I ask the justices these questions: Is the Constitution dead in America?

Do you realize how damaging the consequences of your refusal to listen to these cases are?

Why would the Supreme Court not do what was simply right and reasonable to do in this type of case? As I have considered the facts surrounding this situation a few possible scenarios have surfaced as possibilities in my mind:

Could it be Apathy? that the justices do not really care to protect the Constitution; that it is not important to them? Incompetence? That they do not really understand the constitution? Or perhaps Fear? Could it be that the justices are afraid? Afraid of facts? Of finding out the truth? Of the mob perhaps? that mob which for months has been rampant in the nation committing crime and violence and leaving destruction in their path? or afraid of someone, or of something else?

An even yet worse possibility has arisen: could it be that the High Court be complicit with the corruption? I wonder! This possible scenario hurts me too much to contemplate for long, although I do not think it totally out of the realm of possibilities. Given the posture of some of the justices in the Court it seems to me that they are more preoccupied with advancing a certain political agenda and making laws according to that agenda, rather than with interpreting the Constitution.

Well, I wonder which one of those scenarios might be the answer to my question! Dereliction of Duty? Incompetence? Cowardice? Complicity? How I would welcome the opportunity to ask the Justices this question in person, but I suppose a letter is the best next thing I can aspire to. As I understand it, every one of the justices, while being sworn in, swears under oath to protect the constitution; I even remember some time not too long ago hearing one of the justices proclaim:

“I love the Constitution”. Why are the justices not protecting the Constitution they swore to uphold?

I wonder if the justices realize that since the illicit events of November 3rd surrounding the Election, followed by the Court’s refusal to listen to the Election fraud cases on behalf of many millions of American citizens, there is an air of lawlessness in America. Do the justices realize that the entire world looks at America for an example, for hope, for help, for guidance, for justice, for leadership? It grieves me to imagine how hopeless the dear people of many nations, such as Venezuela or China, for example, must feel at realizing that if the United States of America, the beacon of hope to the world, allows corruption to prevail and to go unchallenged, what hope is there for them in this world! You, the justices have the power to moderate the tensions and division in our country; to bring some sense of sanity; and to help to bring unity and healing to our nation… and with it hope to the world once again. I urge the justices, I beseech you, your honors, please do the job you were appointed to do: To interpret and uphold the constitution. Please protect the rights of all Lawful Citizens of this country. Please do justice!

I do not believe this to be true of all the justices in the High Court, but perhaps some of you may be of the persuasion that you will not be accountable to any higher authority (for after all, you are the highest authority in the land). I respectfully submit this thought to you; a notion that may appear foolish, antiquated or outlandish to the “sophisticated” minds in the culture, possibly to some members of this Court. However, I urge you, your honors, to consider this: Whatever your faith background, or lack thereof, one day each one of you will stand before the Supreme Judge of the universe, the ultimate Justice, to give an account of your own lives and for what you have done with the great and awesome responsibility you were entrusted with, on behalf of America and the world. God, the Supreme Judge, will not be mocked! May your legacy from now on be one of corrective course, may you choose to judge in righteousness and with integrity, in accordance with the calling for which you were appointed by your Creator.

I would like you to know, your honors, that I am praying for you; for every one of you by name. And I will continue to pray that each one of you would be convicted of your own sins and would repent of every way in which you may have contributed to the demise of America and of present and future generations. I pray that you will know the Fear of God, for the salvation of your souls. I pray for courage for you; courage to do what is right for the nation and for all her citizens, not favoring wrong-doers because of pressures or alienating the right-doers because of wicked agendas. I pray that each one of you will be courageous to mend your ways by doing what is good and right: to rule justly, to protect the innocent and punish the wicked, and to walk humbly before the God who called you to this purpose for such a time as this in the history of the world.

Thank you very much for your attention! May God bless you all, the justices; and May God bless the United States of America!

Respectfully,

Zoraida Noratto-White
Will you pray that the justices give thought to these words? Let’s pray for the justices by name: John Roberts, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett. Share your thoughts below as you pray.

EVERY State Should Be Audited – In California 3,000 Votes Were Recorded from an Empty Dorm Building


By Joe Hoft
Published June 5, 2021 at 8:30am

Which state did not incur election fraud in the 2020 election?
We’ve received numerous emails from individuals around the country who say that their state did not go blue. Americans in Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Arizona, Georgia, Nevada, Virginia, Colorado, Minnesota, Rhode Island, California and more, all say their states were not blue.

As we reported, Virginia had five 300,000+ votes entries on election night in one county alone.

More on Biden’s 308,000 Ballot Drop in Fairfax County Virginia on Election Night – This One Ballot Drop Was 73% of Biden Votes in the County — EXPLAIN THAT!

The election gang in the state recommended a BS audit to address the issue.

Virginia Now Starting Another Garbage Audit – Using a 1980 Audit Program to Catch 2020 Voter Fraud

Numerous states are like Virginia. Colorado’s numbers make no sense. We presented our argument and the individual who rebutted us claimed to be a good Republican but we found out his wife worked for Dominion voting machines:

WE CAUGHT THEM: Matt Crane, Critic of TGP’s Article on Obvious Questions of the 2020 Election Results in Colorado, Was Not Forthright – Turns Out His Wife Worked for Dominion and Sequoia for Over a Decade

This past week we were introduced to an anomaly in California. Numerous individuals have told us California did not go to Biden. For one, millions of Californians loved President Trump. There were rallies all across the state before the election for President Trump but there were none for Biden. The other reason is that Californians hated their evil Governor whose actions related to COVID were insane.

AMAZING! 2,000 Vehicles Take Part in Trump Car Rally and Parade in Southern California Los Angeles Beach Towns!

The Santa Barbara News-Press reported this past week:

Approximately 3,000 mail-in ballots counted in the Nov. 3 election were supposedly cast by UCSB students residing in a voting precinct that, along with other dorm buildings, includes the Francisco Torres/Santa Catalina Residence Hall at 6850 El Colegio Road in Goleta.

Problem: Due to COVID-19, the Torres Building, which normally accommodates 1,300 students, was empty and locked down through most of 2020, as were all other UCSB dorms.

This means no students/voters were residing inside the Torres Building (nor any of the other dorms) during the election season.

It also means these ballots were fraudulent.

That’s because there’s a second problem: These ballots could not legally have been forwarded to students where they were actually living.

Why not?

Because forwarding ballots to alternative addresses is a felony.

When an individual went to the law to have this investigated he was basically given the runaround.

No more.

Americans can follow in Arizona’s footsteps. Average Americans took their anger and rage over the corrupt election and demanded a forensic audit take place in Maricopa County.

We all know there is no longer a Justice Department and an FBI which adhere to justice. They cannot be trusted. Many politicians cannot be trusted – certainly no Democrats and many Republicans.
The effort to save America starts with you. Reach out and find others (there are millions) who you can work with to bring justice back to American elections and America.

Joe Hoft

Joe Hoft is the twin brother of TGP’s founder, Jim Hoft. His posts have been retweeted by President Trump and have made the headlines at the Drudge Report. Joe worked as a corporate executive in Hong Kong and traveled the world for his work, which gives him a unique perspective of US and global current events. He has ten degrees or designations and is the author of three books. His new book: ‘In God We Trust: Not in Lying Liberal Lunatics’ is out now – please take a look and buy a copy.
@joehoft

Source

President Donald Trump Latest Interview Reveals His Plans For 2022 & 2024 Elections

Source: President Donald Trump Latest Interview Reveals His Plans For 2022 & 2024 Elections



May 19 interview with Donald J. Trump on OANN without commentary

Source: May 19 interview with Donald J. Trump on OANN without commentary

120 Retired Generals, Admirals and Military Officers Sign Letter Warning of Conflict Between Marxism and ‘Constitutional Freedom’

120 Retired Generals, Military Officers Sign Letter
The Melting Pot / By WhyNot / 13 May 2021
Terrorist Organization Antifa members gather in Berkeley, California
Antifa Terrorists and counter protesters face off during a No-to-Marxism rally at Martin Luther King Jr. Park in Berkeley, Calif., on Aug. 27, 2017. (Amy Osborne/AFP/Getty Images)

120 Retired Generals, Military Officers Sign Letter Warning of Conflict Between Marxism and ‘Constitutional Freedom’

More than 120 retired generals, admirals, and military officers signed a letter that warned that the United States is embroiled in an existential fight and called on “all citizens” to get involved in local and state politics.

“We are in a fight for our survival as a Constitutional Republic like no other time since our founding in 1776. The conflict is between supporters of Socialism and Marxism vs. supporters of Constitutional freedom and liberty,” stated the letter (pdf), which was signed by 124 former generals and admirals, released by “Flag Officers 4 America.”

The letter also posited that opposition to proposed bills and laws that would strengthen election initiatives has troublesome implications.

“Election integrity demands insuring there is one legal vote cast and counted per citizen. Legal votes are identified by State Legislature’s approved controls using government IDs, verified signatures, etc. Today, many are calling such commonsense controls ‘racist’ in an attempt to avoid having fair and honest elections,” the letter added.

According to the Flag Officers 4 America website, it is a group of former military leaders who “pledged to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies,” who are “domestic” and “foreign.”

Of note, signatories of the letter include retired Army Brig. Gen. Donald Bolduc—a Senate candidate in New Hampshire, retired Army Lt. Gen. William Boykin, and retired Vice Adm. John Poindexter—who was the deputy national security adviser for President Ronald Reagan.

“China is the greatest external threat to America. Establishing cooperative relations with the Chinese Communist Party emboldens them to continue progress toward world domination, militarily, economically, politically, and technologically. We must impose more sanctions and restrictions to impede their world domination goal and protect America’s interests,” their letter also said.

Other threats they listed include the United States re-entering the Iran nuclear deal, illegal immigration, and the stoppage of the Keystone Pipeline project. President Joe Biden issued an order halting the pipeline project early on in his presidency.

Meanwhile, amid the COVID-19 pandemic, the retired military leaders said that lockdown orders impacting schools and businesses are tantamount to “population control actions.”

“We must support and hold accountable politicians who will act to counter Socialism, Marxism and Progressivism, support our Constitutional Republic, and insist on fiscally responsible governing while focusing on all Americans, especially the middle class, not special interest or extremist groups which are used to divide us into warring factions,” the letter added.

The letter concluded by urging “all citizens to get involved now at the local, state and/or national level to elect political representatives who will act to Save America, our Constitutional Republic, and hold those currently in office accountable.”

Some former military members questioned why the letter was sent.

Retired Adm. Mike Mullen, the former head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that the letter “hurts the military and by extension, it hurts the country” and said it contains GOP “talking points,” according to Politico.

Meanwhile in France, dozens of retired generals were sanctioned after they recently sent a letter warning about a possible civil war over the “protection of our civilizational values.” They blamed France’s leadership for not dealing with what they described as unfettered immigration into the country.

By: Jack Phillips – May 12, 2021

Loader Loading...
EAD Logo Taking too long?

Reload Reload document
| Open Open in new tab

Download [193.97 KB]

507701341-2021-Open-Letter-From-Retired-Generals-and-Adm

Comment: The MSM will pretend they didn’t read or see this letter and it is our job as Patriots to write or call our Representatives and make our feelings known. Furthermore, to take an active roll in insuring the Rule of Law, Bill of Rights and the Constitutional remains protected.

Stop The Attack On The Constitution! Defending the Constitution: The ‘Three-Fifths Compromise’ Was Not Based on Racism

Source: Defending the Constitution: The ‘Three-Fifths Compromise’ Was Not Based on Racism


A replica of the U.S. Constitution. (WikiImages/Pixabay)

Rob Natelson
March 21, 2021 Updated: March 21, 2021

Commentary

This is the second in a series of essays answering defamatory charges leveled against the U.S. Constitution. The first in the series addressed the allegation that the Constitution discriminated against women. In fact, as that essay showed, the framers took pains to ensure the document was gender-neutral.

Another false charge is that the Constitution stems from, and continues to reflect, “systemic racism.” Critics point to Article I, Section 2, Clause 3—the “three-fifths compromise” explained below—even though that provision was amended out of the document more than 150 years ago.

By way of illustration, a 2011 Time magazine cover story asserted, “The framers … gave us the idea that a black person was three-fifths of a human being.” Last year, Time doubled down with a column stating that “the Constitution defined African-Americans as only three-fifths of a person.” Similarly, a Teen Vogue item misinformed its young readers with these words:

“White supremacy is systemic. … It thrives in politics with systems … like the electoral college, a process originally designed to protect the influence of white slave owners, which is still used today to determine presidential elections [because] … [e]nslaved black people … were declared three fifths of a person in order to strengthen the power of the white men who kept them in bondage.”

The Internet is littered with such drivel.

The truth is that the Constitution’s text was racially neutral. The framers employed the same word—“person”—to refer to humans of all races. They rejected the racial qualifications for voting and office-holding that marred some state constitutions. For all purposes, they treated Indians who paid taxes and the significant number of free African-Americans exactly as they treated white people.

So what was the three-fifths compromise? And what is the basis of the charge that it was racist?

The three-fifths compromise addressed two issues: (1) the size of each state’s delegation in the House of Representatives and (2) each state’s contribution of federal direct taxes. Direct taxes were levies imposed on individual persons (“capitations”) and on a wide range of items, such as property, income, wealth, and professions. Direct taxes were distinguished from “indirect taxes” or “duties,” which were primarily levies on consumption and on transportation of goods across political boundaries.

The Constitution provided that every state would have at least one representative in the House of Representatives. The three-fifths compromise added that both the additional representatives and direct taxes would be split among the states according to their population. But for these purposes only, each state’s population figure would be reduced (1) to exclude “Indians not taxed” and (2) to rate each slave as three-fifths of a free person.

If you assume that counting persons is the proper basis for congressional representation, it’s easy to see how one could misread the reduction for slaves and the exclusion of non-tax-paying Indians as expressions of racism. However, many, probably most, of the framers did not think counting persons was the proper basis for representation. They believed representation should follow ability to contribute federal tax revenue. This view was inherited from English history, and was reflected in the Revolutionary War slogan, “No taxation without representation!”

But when the framers tried to find a formula for calculating each state’s ability to contribute tax revenue, they ran into practical difficulties. After rejecting several proposed formulas as unworkable, they conceded that, at least over the long run, a state’s tax capacity would correlate with its population.

As James Wilson of Pennsylvania said, “[I]n districts as large as the States, the number of people was the best measure of their comparative wealth. Whether therefore wealth or numbers were to form the ratio it would be the same.”

There were two exceptions to the rule that tax capacity followed population. First, some states contained substantial numbers of Indians who were governed exclusively by their tribes. They did not pay state taxes and would not pay federal taxes. Second, the framers recognized that, on average, slaves produced far less than free people.

This recognition had nothing to do with race. It was because slaves—of any race—could not sell their labor and talents in the free market. They were stuck in a centralized system of command and control, rather like communism.

Thus, the framers had to find a way to reduce a state’s representation according to the proportion of its population held in bondage.

Fortunately, the Confederation Congress already had done the work for them. In 1783, Congress studied the relative productivity of slave and free workers. Among the factors it considered were

The differing incentives of enslaved and free people;
the value of their respective output, which was much less among slaves because of poor incentives;
the respective costs of feeding and clothing free and slave labor;
the ages at which young free people and slaves began working (found to be lower for free children than for slave children);
the differing climates in free and slave states;
the value of imports and exports in free and slave states; and
that slaves were disproportionately confined to agriculture as opposed to manufacturing and other activities.

Race wasn’t even on Congress’s list!

One is reminded of Thomas Jefferson’s quotation of the Greek poet Homer: “Jove fix’d it certain, that whatever day, Makes man a slave, takes half his worth away.” As Jefferson knew, Homer was speaking of white slaves.

In other words, the three-fifths compromise was not a statement about race at all. It was a statement about the economic inefficiency of slavery.

Critics contend that the three-fifths compromise rewarded slave states. Actually, it punished them with reduced congressional representation. Here’s how it worked: Suppose a state had a population of 300,000. Suppose this population included 210,000 whites, 10,000 free blacks, 50,000 slaves, 20,000 citizen-Indians who paid taxes, and 10,000 tribal Indians who did not pay taxes. Only the tax-producing Indians would be counted, and the count of slaves would be reduced to reflect their relatively poor productivity. Thus, for purposes of allocating representatives and direct taxes, the state’s population would be credited as only 270,000 rather than 300,000. That is: 210,000 + 10,000 + [3/5 x 50,000] + 20,000 + 0 = 270,000.

It’s true that the compromise also reduced a slave state’s direct taxes. But that was not a particularly good deal for the slave states, because except in wartime Congress was expected to resort only to indirect taxes—a prediction that proved true for many years.

Nearly all the framers understood that slavery was evil. But as I shall explain in a later essay, they needed to come to terms with it if they hoped to hold the union together. Failure would have led to a fractured continent and European-style internecine warfare.

But let’s not make more of the framers’ concession than the facts dictate: The three-fifths compromise was not an endorsement of, or subsidy for, slavery. It was based on a finding that slavery was economically stupid as well as unjust.

Robert G. Natelson, a former constitutional law professor, is senior fellow in constitutional jurisprudence at the Independence Institute in Denver. Supporting documentation for this essay can be found in his research paper, “What the Constitution Means by ‘Duties, Imposts, and Excises’—and Taxes (Direct or Otherwise),” 66 Case Western Res. L. Rev. 297 (2015). He is also the author of the book, “The Original Constitution: What It Actually Said and Meant.”

President Trump’s CPAC 2021 Speech

Newsom recall leaders say they have 1.95 million signatures | The Sacramento Bee

Source: Newsom recall leaders say they have 1.95 million signatures | The Sacramento Bee

Newsom recall leaders say they have enough signatures to trigger an election

By Sophia Bollag
March 07, 2021 04:02 PM

Leaders in effort to recall Gavin Newsom claim enough signatures for recall election

Leaders in the campaign to recall Gov. Gavin Newsom announce at the Hyatt Regency in downtown Sacramento on Sunday, March 7, 2021, that they have collected enough signatures to put the recall on the ballot. The signatures still have to be verified. By Daniel Kim

Leaders of the effort to recall California Gov. Gavin Newsom said Sunday they’ve collected 1.95 million signatures a little more than a week before the deadline, a number they believe will be more than enough to trigger a special recall election.

County and state elections officials still need to verify that nearly 1.5 million are valid signatures from registered California voters before the recall can qualify for the ballot. But recall supporters said Sunday that they’re confident they’ve collected enough.

The most recent signature verification numbers from the Secretary of State’s Office found that about 83% of the signatures counted by early February were valid. There’s no guarantee that validity rate will hold for the remaining signatures, but if it does, proponents would reach the threshold needed to trigger a special recall election.

Most of the movement’s signatures – about 1.6 million of them – have been collected by volunteers, recall proponent Mike Netter said during a press conference near the Capitol ahead of a recall rally scheduled that afternoon.

“I don’t think you’ve ever seen a volunteer movement like this,” Netter said. “It’s literally people from all walks of life, all parties, all religions. We have a diversity across the board collecting and united (on) one thing, and that’s the fact that California needs a new governor.”

Until recently, the signature gathering effort was done almost entirely by volunteers and through a mail campaign. In recent weeks, an influx of donations has allowed the effort to begin paying professional signature gatherers, a more traditional method of qualifying a measure for the ballot in California.

Opponents of the recall have argued Newsom does not deserve to be removed from office and have dismissed the effort as a Republican scheme to challenge Newsom in a special election, when lower voter turnout tends to favor more conservative causes and candidates.

But rally attendees and recall organizers argue their movement includes more than just Republicans, and say more and more people who voted for Newsom are becoming disenchanted with his actions as governor.

“Californians are becoming more disgruntled with how their state’s run,” said Randy Economy, a political adviser working for the recall effort.

Glenda Roybal said she traveled all the way from her home in Santa Clarita to Sacramento and has been volunteering in support of the recall effort for six months. She had set up a folding chair on the Capitol mall, and sat facing the Capitol building as she waited for the rally to begin that afternoon.

“I’m here because I am tired of schools not being in session,” she said. “I’m here because I’m tired of small businesses closing down, restaurants closing down.”

She said she was thrilled to hear how many signatures the movement has collected.

“It’s like being on a roller coaster at Magic Mountain, when you’re at the top and you’re just ready to go down that roller coaster. That’s the feeling you get,” she said, ”knowing that we’re so close to getting rid of someone that has destroyed this beautiful, beautiful state.”

The Bee Capitol Bureau’s Lara Korte contributed to this report.

Read more here: https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article249768103.html#storylink=cpy

20 States Send Letter to Senate Leaders Promising Swift Consequences if HR1 Passes

20 States Send Letter to Senate Leaders Promising Swift Consequences if HR1 Passes By Elizabeth Stauffer Published March 6, 2021 at 2:06pm Share on Facebook Tweet Mewe Share P Share Email Democratic leaders no longer even try to hide their real objectives. All of the bills introduced by Democratic lawmakers of late have been undisguised power grabs. Having been well pleased with the flexibility in voting methods the pandemic allowed them, and certainly with the results of the 2020 election, par

Source: 20 States Send Letter to Senate Leaders Promising Swift Consequences if HR1 Passes

20 States Send Letter to Senate Leaders Promising Swift Consequences if HR1 Passes
By Elizabeth Stauffer
Published March 6, 2021 at 2:06pm

Democratic leaders no longer even try to hide their real objectives. All of the bills introduced by Democratic lawmakers of late have been undisguised power grabs.

Having been well pleased with the flexibility in voting methods the pandemic allowed them, and certainly with the results of the 2020 election, party leaders decided to make these changes permanent. The result was the passage of H.R. 1, the “For the People Act of 2021,” by the House of Representatives on Wednesday.

Noting the gross overreach by the federal government in the bill, the attorneys general of 20 states penned a letter to Congressional leadership which can be viewed here.

This group of top law enforcement officers wrote that “it is difficult to imagine a legislative proposal more threatening to election integrity and voter confidence.” They make the case that H.R. 1 strips the state legislatures of their constitutionally granted authority to determine how elections will be held in their states.

Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita, the leader of this group and the first signer of the letter, issued a statement to Fox News which read in part, “This monstrosity of a bill betrays the Constitution, dangerously federalizes state elections, and undermines the integrity of the ballot box. As a former chief election officer, and now an Attorney General, I know this would be a disaster for election integrity and confidence in the processes that have been developed over time to instill confidence in the idea of ‘one person, one vote.’”

The letter addressed to leaders in Congress began: “As introduced, the Act betrays several Constitutional deficiencies and alarming mandates that, if passed, would federalize state elections and impose burdensome costs and regulations on state and local officials.

“Under both the Elections Clause of Article I of the Constitution and the Electors Clause of Article II, States have principal — and with presidential elections, exclusive — responsibility to safeguard the manner of holding elections. The Act would invert that constitutional structure, commandeer state resources, confuse and muddle elections procedures, and erode faith in our elections and systems of governance.”

It stated further, “the Act regulates ‘election for Federal office,’ defined to include ‘election for the office of President or Vice President.’ The Act therefore implicates the Electors Clause, which expressly affords ‘Each State’ the power to ‘appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct,’ the state’s allotment of presidential electors, and separately affords Congress only the more limited power to ‘determine the Time of chusing the Electors.’

“That exclusive division of power for setting the ‘manner’ and ‘time’ of choosing presidential electors differs markedly from the collocated powers of the Article I Elections Clause, which says that both States and Congress have the power to regulate the ‘time, place, and manner’ of congressional elections.”

“That distinction is not an accident of drafting,” the group maintained. “After extensive debate, the Constitution’s Framers deliberately excluded Congress from deciding how presidential electors would be chosen in order to avoid presidential dependence on Congress for position and authority.”

They cited a Supreme Court ruling in the case of McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1, 27 (1892) in which the court upheld “a Michigan statute apportioning presidential electors by district.” The court “observed that the Electors Clause ‘convey[s] the broadest power of determination’ and ‘leaves it to the [state] legislature exclusively to define the method’ of appointment of electors.”

“The exclusivity of state power to ‘define the method’ of choosing presidential electors,” the attorneys general wrote, “means that Congress may not force states to permit presidential voting by mail or curbside voting, for example.”

The group noted the Act’s “regulation of congressional elections” which includes “mandating mail-in voting, requiring states to accept late ballots, overriding state voter identification (‘ID’) laws, and mandating that states conduct redistricting through un-elected commissions [gerrymandering], also faces severe constitutional hurdles.” Rather than “acting as a check,” the group argued, Congress is “seizing the role of principal election regulator.”

The letter excoriated the Democrats’ proposal to eliminate voter ID laws, which the group wrote is “perhaps” the “most egregious” feature of the bill. It also cited the Act’s attempt to put limitations on how states can purge voter rolls of those who have left the state.

“The Act would dismantle meaningful voter ID laws by allowing a statement, as a substitute for prior-issued, document-backed identification, to ‘attest [ ] to the individual’s identity and … that the individual is eligible to vote in the election.’ This does little to ensure that voters are who they say they are.”

Identification is required for everything in modern life. I went to a Connecticut Department of Motor Vehicles facility to renew my driver’s license. In Connecticut, a trip to the DMV requires several hours. Finally working my way to the front of the line, I presented my passport, social security card, even my birth certificate — complete with a raised seal.

I had forgotten, however, to bring two pieces of mail from my address of the last 27 years, so I would not be allowed to receive a “REAL ID,” one that could be used to board an airplane. Unless I wanted to do all of this over again, I would be issued a “standard” license that stated “Not for Federal Identification” on its face. Deciding that I’d rather stick needles in my eyes than repeat this exercise anytime soon, I opted for the standard license.

Voting is one of the most sacred privileges of a U.S. citizen. There is only one reason for waiving the voter ID requirement — and that is because it facilitates voter fraud. It’s that simple.

The attorneys general concluded with the following message: “Despite recent calls for political unity, the Act takes a one-sided approach to governing and usurps states’ authority over elections. With confidence in elections at a record low, the country’s focus should be on building trust in the electoral process. Around the nation, the 2020 general elections generated mass confusion and distrust — problems that the Act would only exacerbate. Should the Act become law, we will seek legal remedies to protect the Constitution, the sovereignty of all states, our elections, and the rights of our citizens.”

In their quest for absolute power, Democrats have forgotten that the United States is a constitutional federal republic. Our government “is based on a Constitution which is the supreme law of the United States. The Constitution not only provides the framework for how the federal and state governments are structured, but also places significant limits on their powers.” (Emphasis added.)

Finally, “‘federal’ means that there is both a national government and governments of the 50 states.” Under the federal system of government, state legislatures are granted the power to determine election laws in the state.

Blinded by their lust for power, Democrats are ignoring the Constitution and showing complete disregard for the rule of law. The fact that 20 attorneys general have come forward to threaten “legal remedies to protect the Constitution, the sovereignty of all states, our elections, and the rights of our citizens,” if this bill becomes law, speaks volumes.

The National Constitution Center, a left-leaning think tank, provides a weak counter-argument to the belief that states have the right to set their own regulations concerning elections. The group claims that the Elections Clause “vests ultimate power in Congress.” They write that the framers “were concerned that states might establish unfair election procedures or attempt to undermine the national government by refusing to hold elections for Congress.”

The NCC website states: “Although the Elections Clause makes states primarily responsible for regulating congressional elections, it vests ultimate power in Congress. Congress may pass federal laws regulating congressional elections that automatically displace (‘preempt’) any contrary state statutes, or enact its own regulations concerning those aspects of elections that states may not have addressed.

“[The constitutional framers] empowered Congress to step in and regulate such elections as a self-defense mechanism.”

I am not a lawyer, but I believe the opposite is true — that the framers were more concerned with endowing the states with sovereignty.

A final decision on this case may ultimately require an interpretation of the 10th and 11th Amendments by the Supreme Court.

So far, however — perhaps because they feel vulnerable over Democrats’ threats to pack the court — the justices have repeatedly rejected attempts to get pulled into political disputes. Rather than being mere “political disputes,” I see them as questions requiring constitutional interpretation. And isn’t that why we have a Supreme Court?

This bill may never need to be settled by the Supreme Court. Hopefully, it will fail in the Senate. In March 2019, then-Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell blocked an earlier version of the “For the People Act.”

(Note: After the new version was introduced in January, Fox News’ Tucker Carlson addressed the features of this proposed legislation on his show. He concluded that if H.R. 1 were to become law, it would “enshrine fraud.” A video of Carlson’s excellent analysis can be viewed here.)

The Wound That Will Never Heal. The Bitter Taste of Betrayal.

I read an article the other day about how Mike Pence and Trump still spoke as if they were anything but curt. I did not post the article or the link because I don’t buy it. Some news agencies think that reporting “anything” about Mike Pence is a good idea. If they are looking for polling numbers, they are wasting their time. If they think they are informing the public, they’re wasting your time. Mike Pence needs to be: shunned in public; his name removed from any and all recognition of any committee or signage of any documents; his name as Vice President of the United States eliminated; and then strip him of his citizenship. Mike Pence stabbed America in the back on January 6, 2021 and handed our government over to a communist regime! That is TREASON!

WAKE UP AMERICA! The death of the Republic lies at the feet of the GOP, The Grand Ole Party! These “representatives” who call themselves “leaders”, don’t lead anything. They took an oath and broke it! They stand before you as an illegal regime, the elite who are above the law and changing the laws as they see fit, like a Monarchy. The Democrats, the RINO’s, the weaklings of the GOP, the courts and the judges, they have ALL broken our one Supreme Law in spades! The Republic is broken.

This is why MAGA, all 80 million of us, are taking over the Republican Party because we ARE the party. We are the America First Agenda and we are going to gut out every single little weakling who didn’t have the courage to do the right thing! They have ALL failed every single American for generations to come and should be remembered as such by name!

This is exactly WHY they are being exposed right now for ALL TO SEE! Heed these warnings America; do not doubt what you see before you. God works in His own time in mysterious ways and he is allowing this to be seen so that all will know. This is a spiritual battle but a battle that we must fight to preserve the freedom granted us by our Creator, not from imperfect men. It is the Almighty who gave us this life, to speak, to prosper, to find happiness. No one has the right to take that from you, no one.

So do yourself a favor. Get involved with your State Legislators in the Republican Party. Become a Precinct Chair, poll worker or get involved with supporting the best candidates, not just any. Here is a great breakdown of what, where, who and how you can make a difference cleaning up each states elections! It is imperative we have fair and honest elections or we truly are dead as a Republic and America will be no more. A thousand years will pass before our offspring will regain their righteous freedoms.

It is up to WE THE PEOPLE now. Not President Trump, not anybody but us. The buck truly stops HERE with US, the self-governed rulers of our own destiny as we journey through our days in the foretold Kingdom on Earth! Only WE can control our destiny. DO NOT LET THIS LEGACY DIE ON OUR WATCH!

We have and continue to be the last bastion of hope for humanity! But don’t think we are the only ones though, because what is happening to America has already happened to every other country in the world. To date they are suffering severe damages from this globalist elite rule that is already here. Humanity must unite for freedom and rid this poison from our once beautiful planet, once and for all.

Together We Are Victorious!

God Speed Patriots, now get to work!

~TiLT

Pennsylvania Poll Watchers Sued By County For Questioning Election Results

News, Entertainment, EnlightenmentPennsylvania Poll Watchers Sued By County For Questioning Election ResultsPennsylvania Poll Watchers Sued By County For Questioning Election Results — Leah Hoopes and Gregory Stenstrom are being sued for costs — claimed to be $19,224.56 — relating to their actions against the Delaware County (Pa.) Board of Elections for perceived irregularities stemming from the Nov. 3 election.Leah and Strenstrom –who were Delaware County Board of Elections certified poll watcher

Source: Pennsylvania Poll Watchers Sued By County For Questioning Election

Bill Lawrence

Pennsylvania Poll Watchers Sued By County For Questioning Election Results

Pennsylvania Poll Watchers Sued By County For Questioning Election Results — Leah Hoopes and Gregory Stenstrom are being sued for costs — claimed to be $19,224.56 — relating to their actions against the Delaware County (Pa.) Board of Elections for perceived irregularities stemming from the Nov. 3 election.

Leah and Strenstrom –who were Delaware County Board of Elections certified poll watchers and observers at the counting center — testified at the Nov. 25 hearing in Gettysburg before state senators that the chain of custody for ballots was shattered in Delaware County, and the USB drives containing records from voting machines disappeared.

Leah says when the Board of Elections ignored their concerns, they took the matter, on Dec. 22, to Delaware County Common Pleas Court.

Judge John Capuzzi did not allow them to present evidence or allow discovery to see ballots and envelopes, she says.
On Jan. 11, he dismissed the case with prejudice.

And now, the Democrat-controlled county, in which can only be considered an act of intimidation, is seeking attorney fees, despite the attorneys defending the board being county employees.

OK, there doesn’t seem to be any dispute that USB drives vanished and the chain of custody was violated.

Why aren’t the courts interested in investigating? Why hasn’t there been any resolution to the voter books that were given to unauthorized persons as we reported on Oct. 31?

Capuzzi is a Republican. So what? People are starting to realize that it is not about Democrat vs Republican but a battle between people who want to get rich off of government — i.e. have the people be the servants — and those who know that it is government that should serve the people.

Leah says the Delaware County Republican Party has abandoned them in their battle as has the state party. Leah says the GOP lawyer they had quit and their new one, Deborah Silver, has been threatened with disbarment.

“We are being denied our 1st Amendment rights plain and simple,” said Leah. “Who is protecting us? Where is law enforcement?”

Leah says she and Stenstrom are raising money to continue her legal battle and contributions can be made here: https://givesendgo.com/Protectingyourvote

“Irrefutable Proof Is Coming Soon – We Are NOT Done” Sidney Powell Forms SuperPAC, Addresses Recent Supreme Court Refusal To Address Lawsuit

Source: “Irrefutable Proof Is Coming Soon – We Are NOT Done” Sidney Powell Forms SuperPAC, Addresses Recent Supreme Court Refusal To Address Lawsuit

“Irrefutable Proof Is Coming Soon – We Are NOT Done” Sidney Powell Forms SuperPAC, Addresses Recent Supreme Court Refusal To Address Lawsuit
By Ulysses S. Tennyson | Feb 23, 2021

Sidney Powell
As we reported, the federal Supreme Court denied any review of pending Pennsylvania cases regarding 2020 election fraud on Monday, despite mountains of data. They claim that the case is “moot” since the election is already over. However, they slow-walked America to its demise since November and the Georgia Supreme court refused to hear cases prior to elections claiming they were “speculative,” despite 270 pages of evidence.
Attorney Sidney Powell

So, there is no way to win because you aren’t allowed to even play. Whether you file the case before or after a (allegedly) fraudulent election, rogue justices refuse to hear the cases, of which there were several dzen related to the presidential election.

In reality, there is no constitutional justification for this latest SCOTUS refusal. The only possible reasons for refusal are that Supreme Court justices–including two appointed by Trump, are complicit in the insurrection against President Trump and America, or they are too lazy or incompetent to want to take on such a contentious case whose rulings will resonate around the globe and completely alter the trajectory of America.

But, all is not lost. There are patriots who are taking action. One of those consistent voices has been attorney Sidney Powell who has formed a SuperPAC to “amplify the voice” of true constitutional patriots around the country.
In a Telegram Post, Sidney Powell sent the following hopeful message to American patriots:

Trending: BREAKING: Justices Kavanaugh, Coney-Barrett and Roberts Join Liberal Supreme Court Justices Who REFUSED To Review PA Election Cases…Justice Thomas Asks: “One wonders what this Court waits for?”

Thank you all! There are still important live cases. Irrefutable proof is coming soon. Keep educating everyone about the facts. Today’s Supreme Court orders were disappointing but we are NOT done, and we will not let this fraud stand. #WeThePeople are supposed to run this country. Our new SuperPAC should be up tomorrow.
Www.DefendingTheRepublicPAC.com
It’s to amplify the voice of #WeThePeople across the country. We intend to expose corruption in both parties and support people with the courage to protect our constitutional rights and the Rule of Law. Sign up for updates. Join for as little as $10 a year. Contributors of $200 a year total or less are confidential.

Consider supporting her PAC.

Or–better yet, be one of the patriots who is willing to take political action in your local communities. There are people like you all over the country who must unify and create pathways to success on local and state levels as Sidney Powell is doing on a national level.

‘Imperfect’: Gen. Flynn Says Raw ‘Authenticity’ Made Trump, Will Remake the Republican Party

By Andrew J. Sciascia
Published February 12, 2021 at 1:32pm

“Donald Trump was an authentic guy. I used to introduce him at rallies in the 2016 campaign as the most imperfect, and I’ll say that again, as the most imperfect candidate you’re ever going to vote for to be president of the United States,” Gen. Michael Flynn said.

It was a jarring statement. Not hostile, incorrect or in any way antagonistic, but something of a surprise note from a loyal, if short-lived, fixture in the early administration of former President Donald Trump. By all accounts, both left- and right-wing, unwillingness to hold the line had served as an unofficial grounds for excommunication from the Trump camp.

For a prominent ally to emphasize the former president’s flaws was hardly commonplace — but Flynn had a tune to play, and he intended to play it with the highs and the lows intact.

Advertisement – story continues below

“Donald Trump is not a perfect guy. He never said he was. What he is, is he’s tough. He’s not an establishment guy. He’s a Washington outsider,” Flynn went on.

“And that’s what the American people wanted then, that’s what they wanted in 2020 and I believe in 2024, if we are able to have a free, fair and transparent election.”

TRENDING: Lindsey Graham: ‘I Don’t Know How Kamala Harris Doesn’t Get Impeached’ if the GOP Takes Over the House

The remarks came at the close of an hour-long Western Journal feature interview that saw the general let loose on establishment Republicans for steering back into the status quo at the close of the Trump era.

With Democratic cannons trained on the GOP in light of a deadly Capitol Hill election fraud protest on Jan. 6, longstanding members of the congressional establishment unveiled their escape plan, more than ready to cut the Trump coalition anchors they had long ago deemed dead weight.

Among the escape artists was Rep. Liz Cheney of Wyoming, whose rumored support for a second Trump impeachment left fellow Republicans whispering behind closed doors for several days, many waiting on the House Republican Conference Chair to make a move and provide cover for their own vote to charge the president. When the high-dollar fundraiser finally announced in favor of the proceedings, others waded in behind her.

The decision only served to exacerbate Republican infighting, setting the stage for a days-long quarrel between Cheney, freshman Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene and a number of other anti-establishment caucus members.

When the dust settled and the dirt had been flung, however, impeachment had passed the House with 10 Republicans voting in favor, and neither Greene nor Cheney was punished by the federal party.

Instead, Greene saw her committee assignments stripped by the Democratic House majority. Cheney, on the other hand, saw her position strengthened, as secret ballot saw the House GOP vote in favor of her continued leadership by a margin of 145-61.

“We should not be embracing the former president,” Cheney told Fox News in light of the vote. “That is a person who does not have a role as a leader of our party going forward.”

Flynn was quick to deride establishment figures for this type of behavior Tuesday, telling The Western Journal that “the establishment is not a good place to be” in the coming 2022 and 2024 Republican primaries.

“If you’re defined as an establishment candidate in the 2024 presidential election, I don’t believe that’s going to happen. I actually don’t believe it’s going to happen too much in the 2022 congressional elections. I mean, look at what they just did to Liz Cheney up in Wyoming, you know, for what she did,” Flynn said.

“I think that the American people, like I said, I think they’re just absolutely tired of everything that they’ve seen in our political establishment. And so if you’re defined in the establishment, woe betide you in this next set of elections.”

According to a Jan. 15-17 Morning Consult poll of 4,400 GOP voters with a margin of error of +/-1 percentage points, roughly 79 percent still supported President Trump in light of favorability dips resulting from the Jan. 6 incursion on the Capitol.

Another 69 percent were found “less likely to vote for a senator who convicts Trump” in a Feb. 5-7 poll of 1,213 likely voters with a margin of error of +/- 2.8 percentage points from the left-wing Vox/Data for Progress, a reality that lends considerable support to Flynn’s suggestion the GOP establishment may be in for a reckoning.

“What I do know is what I’m hearing and what I’m listening to and what I’m watching from the American people is the American people are sick and tired of the political games and the political nonsense that we have faced,” he said.

Record Republican turnout in the 2020 presidential election had handed Trump more than 74 million votes, with thousands turning out for the incumbent’s famed campaign rallies, even in throws of a once-in-a-century pandemic.

Flynn went on to tell The Western Journal this loyal support was the result of one thing. It was not shrewd politicking or even policy success that expanded the Republican coalition, the general said. It was “authenticity.”

And if the Republican Party was to prevent a voter exodus, it would need to retain that authenticity, with or without Trump at the helm.

“Whether or not Trump will run in 2024, I have no idea,” Flynn said. “I will tell you that I’ve had many, many conversations in just the last couple of weeks — and certainly over the last couple of years, but certainly the last couple of weeks — about who’s next. You know, ‘Will he or she be viable to be the next president of the United States?’”

“I’m going to tell you what. One of the things that Donald Trump gave the United States of America was authenticity. Donald Trump was an authentic guy,” the general added.

“People want authentic leadership and leaders do matter. And I do believe that going forward, they’re going to look for that authenticity in the people that they vote for.”

Andrew J. Sciascia is an associate staff reporter with The Western Journal, having joined the outlet as a regular contributor of opinion in 2018. He regularly co-hosts the outlet’s video podcast, “WJ Live.”
@AndrewJSciascia

Source Here4x

Blue State Blues: Why The House Failed to Prove Its Case


House impeachment managers (Drew Angerer / Getty)

Joel B. Pollak11 Feb 2021

The House impeachment managers could not prove incitement — the central charge in the Article of Impeachment.

Then-President Donald Trump told supporters to protest “peacefully and patriotically.” No court could convict him on the facts.

So Democrats created a new standard. Trump is guilty of “inciting” the Capitol riot, they said, because he rejected the election, and he used provocative rhetoric for years.

But by that standard, Democrats would be guilty of “incitement,” too.

Democrats never accepted the result of the 2016 presidential election. Hillary Clinton “conceded” only in a formal sense. She and her deputies blamed “Russia collusion,” a conspiracy theory for which there was no real evidence.

The “Russia collusion” hoax undermined the peaceful transition of power, divided the nation, and led to violations of civil liberties. After it was debunked, neither the Democrats nor the media apologized for the hoax. Clinton, in fact, is still pushing it.

Moreover, Democrats have used provocative tactics — including violence — for years. In 2011, Democrats surrounded and occupied the Wisconsin state capitol to prevent Republicans from governing. That same year, they backed Occupy Wall Street, a lawless movement. In 2014, they embraced Black Lives Matter, which led to rioting and attacks on police. They did so again on a massive scale in 2020, as rioters burned cities, destroyed monuments, and attacked the White House.

For Democrats to judge Trump by their new standard of “incitement,” they would have had to admit that it was wrong to question the 2016 election, or to condone left-wing rioting.

But they could not. Just look at who is prosecuting Trump.

Lead impeachment manager Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) objected to the certification of the Electoral College vote in 2017, hoping to prevent Trump from being declared the winner. He also vowed to impeach Trump as soon as he took office.

Fellow impeachment manager Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-TX), who lectured the Senate this week on the need to accept losing elections, pushed the “Russia collusion” hoax. He also “doxxed” Trump donors in his congressional district in 2019.

Their colleague, impeachment manager Rep. Ted Lieu (D-CA), claimed Trump was an “illegitimate” president in 2017. He also pushed “Russia collusion.” At one point, he had to apologize for mocking Trump for visiting tornado victims.

The problem with the Democrats’ “incitement” standard is that they have no credibility.

It took the Capitol riot for the Democrats to condemn political violence or to speak out on behalf of police or in defense of national monuments.

The new “incitement” standard is also too broad. It cannot be forbidden to raise questions about an election — especially in light of revelations in TIME about how a “secret” and “well-funded cabal” worked to change rules and suppress media.

The House impeachment managers told the Senators that if they did not vote to convict Trump by their new standard, there would be no accountability for the riot.

But if Democrats wanted accountability, they would not have put a trial before any investigation.

There would have been other ways to hold Trump accountable, such as a bipartisan inquiry to investigate what happened. The impeachment has poisoned future efforts to find out the truth and assign responsibility.

At one point, several Republican Senators walked out of the trial, after Raskin played clips from Trump rallies going back to 2015 to argue his supporters were violent, painting them as extremists.

They knew: if Trump is guilty of “incitement,” millions can be smeared as accomplices.

Democrats made clear that convicting Trump, and barring him from office, would blacklist a generation of conservatives.

Their case failed because they put Republicans on trial. Perhaps that was the point.

Joel B. Pollak is Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News and the host of Breitbart News Sunday on Sirius XM Patriot on Sunday evenings from 7 p.m. to 10 p.m. ET (4 p.m. to 7 p.m. PT). He is the author of the recent e-book, Neither Free nor Fair: The 2020 U.S. Presidential Election. His recent book, RED NOVEMBER, tells the story of the 2020 Democratic presidential primary from a conservative perspective. He is a winner of the 2018 Robert Novak Journalism Alumni Fellowship. Follow him on Twitter at @joelpollak.
Source HERE.