Our Electoral College

By Robin Itzler

Editor's Note:  This is one of the commentaries selected from Robin's weekly newsletter Patriot Neighbors. Any cartoons appearing will have been added by me.  If you wish to get the full edition, E-mail her at PatriotNeighbors@yahoo.com to get on her list, it's free. RK

 The more you listen to Marxist Democrats speak, the more you realize their goal is to dismantle our country and create a gulag utopia. Should President Trump win the electoral college but not the popular vote, expect more chatter and possibly protests about scraping the electoral college.

Our Founding Fathers wisely created the electoral college, which is why we are the United States of America and not just America. Since our nation’s founding, there have been five times when the electoral college and popular vote did not coincide:

• 1824—Andrew Jackson vs John Quincy Adams Jackson won the popular vote by 7.8 percent but lost the electoral college.
• 1876—Samuel Tilden vs Rutherford Hayes Tilden won the popular vote by 3 percent but lost the electoral college.
• 1888—Grover Cleveland vs Benjamin Harris Cleveland won the popular vote by 0.8 percent but lost the electoral college.
• 2000—Al Gore vs George W. Bush Gore won the popular vote by 0.5 percent, but “hanging chads” anyone?
• 2016—Hillary Clinton vs Donald Trump Clinton won the popular vote by 2.1 percent but, well you know that story!

Don’t lose sleep over Marxist Democrat threats to remove the electoral college. It would be extremely difficult for Democrats to get rid of the system that has served us well since our nation’s founding. 

First, it would require a constitutional amendment approved by two-thirds of the House of Representatives and two-thirds of the Senate AND three-fourths of all states. 

What some have proposed is for states to proportionally allocate electoral votes. Currently, Maine and Nebraska have forms of proportional assignment of electoral votes. Do you think more states will choose to do this? It is doubtful that blue states like California or New York would want to give any of their electoral votes to a Republican. This is another reason why Democrats have their eyes on Texas. If they can flip that state, it wouldn’t matter how other red or swing states vote.

Woke Politics: The Democrats’ Plan for a Permanent Majority

February 17, 2021 By William Levin

With the 2020 election in the rear-view mirror, it is timely to focus on election politics for 2022 and beyond.  The first step is pattern recognition: The Democrats are pursuing a multi-prong strategy to cement a permanent majority. To accomplish the goal requires upending the constitutional design. Until the scope of this effort is seen in its entirety, it can proceed in the shadows.

It has six astonishing elements: 

1. Enable Congress to determine who can run for President, 
2. Eliminate the Electoral College without amending the Constitution, 
3. Override the states' constitutionally mandated authority to determine presidential election rules, 
4. Grant statehood to the District of Columbia by statute, 
5. Rewrite the First Amendment to limit political speech, and
6. Enable open border immigration through executive agreement instead of Congressional action. 

Taken together, the program represents a comprehensive challenge to representative democracy. It deserves to be understood and debated front and center.........To Read More....

My Take - For years many of us have contended the goal of the left was the destruction of the American identity, the American Culture, the Constitution and eventually the end of the United States as we know it, and people snickered. Now, it's here, right out in the open, and the snickerlers think it's okay. 

Imagine that!

Democrats launch campaign to change Constitution, abolish Electoral College 'Americans expect and deserve the winner of the popular vote to win office'

'Americans expect and deserve the winner of the popular vote to win office'

By Bob Unruh Published January 13, 2021

 

Democrats, who long have chafed under the stipulations of the Constitution that make the United States a constitutional republic rather than a democracy, have introduced a House resolution to abolish the Electoral College and exchange it with a national popular vote for president and vice president.

The resolution, led by Rep. Steve Cohen, D-Tenn., claims that the "development of mass media and the internet has made information about Presidential candidates easily accessible to United States citizens across the country and around the world," the Washington Examiner reported.

While Democrats now have the majority in the House and Senate as well as the White House, the measure is not likely to succeed because a constitutional amendment must be ratified by two-thirds of the states........To Read More.....

The Vote, The Fraud, The Consequence! Part II

Word of the Day:  Invertebrate - Invertebrates are animals that neither possess nor develop a vertebral column commonly known as a backbone or spine.

By Rich Kozlovich

Along with my file on the which has been used to justify folding on this election fraud like a limp rag, here are my files on for those who say these claims were spurious, or unproven.  

For anyone to have actually been paying attention to what was happening, and then claim this was a clean election, they're either irrational, morally defective, just plain dumb or all three.   A lot of them are in Congress, the courts, state government and Corporate America. 

There were 147 Republicans who had the courage to stand up against this outrageously fraudulently election, followed by a list of corporations who are now "woke", abandoning truth, justice, the American way and Trump, all in spite of how much they benefited from his policies.    

Corporations are at best, leaky vessels, and the managers can never be trusted to ever have the courage to be the rock in the current..  Unlike the visionaries who created their companies, they're bean counters who think because they can count beans they know about beans.   Here are the lists, be sure to read to the end.

Senate: Eight out of 100 Senators, half of them Republicans!

1. Tommy Tuberville,  
2. Ala.Rick Scott, Fla.,  
3. Roger Marshall, Kan., 
4. John Kennedy, La.,  
5. Cindy Hyde-Smith, Miss., 
6. Josh Hawley, Mo. 
7. Ted Cruz, Texas., 
8. Cynthia Lummis, Wyo.. 

House:  139 out of 541 willing to defend the Constitution in the face of massive corruption, including five defenders of justice from Ohio, which has 16 House members, 12 of whom are Republicans. 

1. Robert B. Aderholt, Ala.
2. Mo Brooks, Ala.
3. Jerry Carl, Ala.
4. Barry Moore, Ala.
5. Gary Palmer, Ala.
6. Mike Rogers, Ala.
7. Andy Biggs, Ariz.
8. Paul Gosar, Ariz.
9. Debbie Lesko, Ariz.
10. David Schweikert, Ariz.
11. Rick Crawford, Ark.
12. Ken Calvert, Calif.
13. Mike Garcia, Calif.
14. Darrell Issa, Calif.
15. Doug LaMalfa, Calif.
16. Kevin McCarthy, Calif.
17. Devin Nunes, Calif.
18. Jay Obernolte, Calif.
19. Lauren Boebert, Colo.
20. Doug Lamborn, Colo.
21. Kat Cammack, Fla.
22. Mario Diaz-Balart, Fla.
23. Byron Donalds, Fla.
24. Neal Dunn, Fla.
25. Scott Franklin, Fla.
26. Matt Gaetz, Fla.
27. Carlos Gimenez, Fla.
28. Brian Mast, Fla.
29. Bill Posey, Fla.
30. John Rutherford, Fla.
31. Greg Steube, Fla.
32. Daniel Webster, Fla.
33. Rick Allen, Ga.
34. Earl L. "Buddy" Carter, Ga.
35. Andrew Clyde, Ga.
36. Marjorie Taylor Greene, Ga.
37. Jody Hice, Ga.
38. Barry Loudermilk, Ga.
39. Russ Fulcher, Idaho
40. Mike Bost, Ill.
41. Mary Miller, Ill.
42. Jim Baird, Ind.
43. Jim Banks, Ind.
44. Greg Pence, Ind.
45. Jackie Walorski, Ind.
46. Ron Estes, Kan.
47. Jacob LaTurner, Kan.
48. Tracey Mann, Kan.
49. Harold Rogers, Ky.
50. Garret Graves, La.
51. Clay Higgins, La.
52. Mike Johnson, La.
53. Steve Scalise, La.
54. Andy Harris, Md.
55. Jack Bergman, Mich.
56. Lisa McClain, Mich.
57. Tim Walberg, Mich.
58. Michelle Fischbach, Minn.
59. Jim Hagedorn, Minn.
60. Michael Guest, Miss.
61. Trent Kelly, Miss.
62. Steven Palazzo, Miss.
63. Sam Graves, Mo.
64. Vicky Hartzler, Mo.
65. Billy Long, Mo.
66. Blaine Luetkemeyer, Mo.
67. Jason Smith, Mo.
68. Matt Rosendale, Mont.
69. Dan Bishop, N.C.
70. Ted Budd, N.C.
71. Madison Cawthorn, N.C.
72. Virginia Foxx, N.C.
73. Richard Hudson, N.C.
74. Gregory F. Murphy, N.C.
75. David Rouzer, N.C.
76. Jeff Van Drew, N.J.
77. Yvette Herrell, N.M.
78. Chris Jacobs, N.Y.
79. Nicole Malliotakis, N.Y.
80. Elise M. Stefanik, N.Y.
81. Lee Zeldin, N.Y.
82. Adrian Smith, Neb.
83. Steve Chabot, Ohio
84. Warren Davidson, Ohio
85. Bob Gibbs, Ohio
86. Bill Johnson, Ohio
87. Jim Jordan, Ohio
88. Stephanie Bice, Okla.
89. Tom Cole, Okla.
90. Kevin Hern, Okla.
91. Frank Lucas, Okla.
92. Markwayne Mullin, Okla.
93. Cliff Bentz, Ore.
94. John Joyce, Pa.
95. Fred Keller, Pa.
96. Mike Kelly, Pa.
97. Daniel Meuser, Pa.
98. Scott Perry, Pa.
99. Guy Reschenthaler, Pa.
100. Lloyd Smucker, Pa.
101. Glenn Thompson, Pa.
102. Jeff Duncan, S.C.
103. Ralph Norman, S.C.
104. Tom Rice, S.C.
105. William Timmons, S.C.
106. Joe Wilson, S.C.
107. Tim Burchett, Tenn.
108. Scott DesJarlais, Tenn.
109. Chuck Fleischmann, Tenn.
110. Mark E. Green, Tenn.
111. Diana Harshbarger, Tenn.
112. David Kustoff, Tenn.
113. John Rose, Tenn.
114. Jodey Arrington, Texas
115. Brian Babin, Texas
116. Michael C. Burgess, Texas
117. John R. Carter, Texas
118. Michael Cloud, Texas
119. Pat Fallon, Texas
120. Louie Gohmert, Texas
121. Lance Gooden, Texas
122. Ronny Jackson, Texas
123. Troy Nehls, Texas
124. August Pfluger, Texas
125. Pete Sessions, Texas
126. Beth Van Duyne, Texas
127. Randy Weber, Texas
128. Roger Williams, Texas
129. Ron Wright, Texas
130. Burgess Owens, Utah
131. Chris Stewart, Utah
132. Ben Cline, Va.
133. Bob Good, Va.
134. Morgan Griffith, Va.
135. Robert J. Wittman, Va.
136. Carol Miller, W.Va.
137. Alexander X. Mooney, W.Va.
138. Scott Fitzgerald, Wis.
139. Tom Tiffany, Wis.

Now here's the current list of corporations who've stated "They Won’t Donate To GOP Lawmakers Who Objected To Electoral Votes From Contested States" .  They will either no longer donate to Republicans, or Republicans who stood up for justice, or will stop donations entirely to anyone, and one wants their money back.

Corporations:

• American Express Co
• American Airlines
• Airbnb Inc
• Alphabet Inc’s Google
• Amazon
• AT&T Inc
• Best Buy Co Inc
• BP Plc
• Blue Cross Blue Shield
• Comcast Corp
• Citibank
• Cisco Systems Inc
• Dow Inc.  the massive chemical company will not donate to any member of Congress that objected to the certification of the presidential vote This is not a pause. The company won't donate to these Republicans ever again.
• Facebook Inc
• Ford Motor Co,
• Freeport-McMoRan Inc,
• General Electric Co.
• Goldman Sachs
• Hallmark Company Ltd said it had asked senators Josh Hawley and Roger Marshall to return its contributions.
• Marriott
• Mastercard Inc,
• Microsoft Corp
• Northrop Grumman
• Smithfield Foods Inc a
• Union Pacific Corp
• Verizon Communications Inc,

Trade associations:

• The National Association of Beer Wholesalers,
• National Association of Auto Dealers
• American Bankers Association
• National Association of Homebuilders

One thing we might want to know is just how much they donated to Republicans in the first place, and I'm betting it wasn't comparable to what they donated to Democrats.  However, I really don't know, but one thing I do know.  Once again:  Corporations, as allies, are leaky vessels on the best of days.

This is all a part of a massive movement by Democrats to punish Trump supporters in Congress. and destroy any opposition to their globalist socialist agenda working to destroy the Constitution in support of a system of world wide governance, now being called the Great Reset.   Call it Agenda 21, Agenda 30, the New Green Deal, or any other name, but unlike a rose, it's still stinks. 

In the House, "Senior Democrats are planning to censure Republican Reps. Louis Gohmert of Texas and Mo Brooks of Alabama for supporting President Trump. Fox News reporter Chad Pergram said Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., also could be the target of a censure resolution in the House in the coming days,: and in the Senate, "Fox News reported Democratic Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, was calling for the expulsion of Sens. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., Ted Cruz, R-Texas, and perhaps others for signing on to objections at the joint session."  And for my fellow Ohioans, Sherrod Brown has made similar demands.   

What Can Be Done in This Age of Election Fraud? Whom Can We Count On?

January 6, 2021 By Donald N. Finley

Here's a question: since the U.S. Constitution provides for the legislatures of each respective state to choose their representing electors to the Electoral College, with the U.S. as a constitutional republic, not a democracy...what happens when, internal to the state, that process breaks down?  Whether by state executives violating their own state law to change the conduct of the election to countermand the legislatively approved laws or by those same legislatively approved laws being usurped by judges, the final result is an inaccurate count of the votes cast.

Here's another: when a state certifies as true and accurate the vote totals known not to be true and accurate but refuses to acknowledge the inaccuracy, who fixes that wrong?

I listened to President Trump's entire phone call with the Georgia secretary of state, and contrary to most of the characterizations you'll read, it was not a desperate ploy on the part of the president.  It was just that by Raffensperger.  The president gave detailed numbers of fraudulent votes in Georgia, demonstrating a mastery of the pertinent data.  He offered a simple solution, listing several categories of illegal votes, with the respective numbers in that category.

Raffensperger only had to correct one or two categories, and the margin would flip to a Trump victory.  The president gave numbers for dead people who voted, those who weren't registered voters, those who voted without any address, those with only P.O. box addresses, those who live out of the state, those who were turned away because their votes had been cast by someone else, and the current estimate for the suitcase ballots pulled out in the famous video.  

President Trump made it easy for Raffensperger to fix the problem, not caring if he was declared the winner by half a million votes or only one vote, but making it clear that he was the winner and Joe Biden was not, it was easy to prove, and it wasn't even close.  The president emphasized transparency and the truth.  He wasn't negotiating a shady deal.  He offered Raffensperger a face-saving way out of being known to history as the overseer and certifier of a massive fraud. .............To Read More.....

No, it's not time for a ‘Congressional Hail Mary’

December 27, 2020 By Mike Robinson

  

As the 2020 election, with all of its fraud, winds towards its final legal conclusion in a few weeks, many people are now speculating about a “Congressional ‘Hail Mary Pass,’” in which Vice-President Mike Pence or the House and the Senate finally “make things right” by overruling or ignoring the conflicting actions of the five states in which the fraud occurred.  As President of the Senate, Pence could decide not to count certain states’ votes.  Senators and Representatives could contest them.  In one scenario, the final selection devolves to the House and to the Senate.

Yes, all of this is true.  But I do not believe that this is what we should now allow to happen.

The “emergency” provisions of Federal Law and the Constitution were not intended to give any legislature a way to avoid a politically unpleasant decision.  Neither the Congress nor the President of the Senate should be expected to second-guess what any state intends to do.  The final approval of the results in Congress should be a mere formality.

The Constitution of the United States places the federal decision of choosing electors specifically and exclusively in the hands of one entity: “the Legislatures thereof.” (Exactly as it originally did for the US Senate.)  Established law has concluded that this is a “plenary” decision:  that they can select absolutely anyone they like, with no power of judicial review being vested in anyone else.  Their decision has only one requirement: they must make “one” choice. Not two............. To Read More

Morning Greatness: Fraud-Heavy States Ready Alternative Electors for Certification

By Liz Sheld December 15, 2020

On Monday electors in states across the country met to cast their votes for president. Alternate electors did the same in battleground states where there was ridiculous amounts of voter fraud. Why did they do this? Because both chambers of Congress can challenge the states’ elector votes. The Trump electors met according to statutory guidelines so they were “certifiable” on January 6, 2021, should Congress challenge the Biden electors from Fraudville.

Trump adviser Stephen Miller explained, “As we speak, today, an alternate slate of electors in the contested states is going to vote and we’re going to send those results up to Congress,” he continued. “This will ensure that all of our legal remedies remain open. That means that if we win these cases in the courts, that we can direct that the alternate state of electors be certified.”

So, either the pending lawsuits go Trump’s way or some courageous elected Congressperson or Senator puts their foot down. In other words, don’t bet on that happening........To Read More....

SCOTUS Has Failed. That Failure May Be An Opportunity!

By Rich Kozlovich

For SCOTUS to decide Texas, and correspondingly all the states that signed on to Texas' lawsuit has "no standing" boggles the mind.  If the states had no standing in this, who could have standing?  And clearly in the weak minds of these jurists:  No one!  They're now saying we will now legally sanctify that which is illegal, criminal and treasonous.   

Now isn't that a happy thought!  So, what now? 

First, before I get into alternatives, let’s do a little evaluation of this strange ruling by SCOTUS from one of my correspondents from one of my networks.  We've been exchanging doom and gloom thoughts, but he came on saying:

Not so fast...

The corrupt electoral mechanism has been exposed for all to see.  Even though they got away with it, it doesn't matter:  It's on the radar screen of all patriots now.  The Dems' biggest mistake was pulling out all the stops, and exposing the soft underbelly, just because of their hatred for Trump.  That is, they have shot their wad, and are all out of plays.

Biden/Harris will be a joke, and in time, even the lamestream media will be forced to cover some of it. While Harris may have the cover of a "woman of color," Biden is nothing more than an old, stupid, corrupt white guy.  Those behind the scenes are already overplaying their hand, with their ridiculous and unconfirmable cabinet choices.  You can also bet that Harris' entire sordid history--and this goes well beyond a veritable career of horizontal favors--will get plenty of coverage in the tabloid media and scores of websites...............the liberal justices would not hear it for ideological reasons, and the conservatives ones would not hear it, either...for ideological reasons.  You see, they are "strict constructionists.".........they are so "strict" that as the entire county is being stolen before their very eyes, they must maintain their ivory tower outlook, lest they dirty their robes.  That, and no one wanting to be "the guy" that overturns this corrupt election.

Alas, the conservative justices were given a choice between love (of their country) and fear.  And they chose fear.  "There is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear, because fear involves punishment, and the one who fears is not perfected in love."  Or, to put it another way, Evil has no power, unless you grant it.  It's times like this that make me glad that there are currently 400 million guns in the US.  The good news is that rebellion (peaceful or otherwise) is in the air--and you can see it in how people are responding to the absurd COVID lockdowns.  

Dear friends:  They jumped the shark, and the response will not be silent.

At this point we are already seeing people in the streets with massive demonstrations, and this is the first day after the ruling.   Was this was largely spontaneous, or was it organized by some hidden group with large finances providing transportation and money, as it was with BLM and Antifa, and that ilk?

Furthermore, they're not burning down buildings, not attacking anyone, no demonstration of violence or intimidation, just Americans who are outraged at this stolen election and the corruption in the nation's institutions that are allowing it.

The nation has now awakened to the leftist corruption that’s been brewing forever.  A corruption that was obvious to those who pay attention to what’s going on for years.  Corruption so many tried to alert everyone to it, to no avail.  Why?   We were all conspiracy theorists.  

However, the corruption was so obvious it should have been obvious to so-called conservatives in leadership roles in commerce, in politics, in the media,  unions, trade associations, and most importantly, the leadership in the Republican party.   Few of which did anything to prevent this mess.   I wonder how many history books they've read?

Let's put this in perspective.  If a bug man could see this unfolding and predict this: How could they not have seen this?  How could they not have predicted this?  And finally, how could they have not realized this was in serious need of being fixed before it happened? 

So, what now? There's a lot of options being thrown around, so let's take a look at them.

According to James Arlandson, We Don't Need SCOTUS to Win saying the SCOTUS ruling wasn't cowardice, it was an unwillingness to grab power from the legislatures. Really?  He's kidding...right?  Since when has SCOTUS been reluctant to override and capture for itself the authority given to the state legislatures by the Constitution?  That's a new one for me in my lifetime!  

However, I think his research on this issue provides extremely useful information noting: 

The first federal law for our purposes, titled "Determination of controversy as to appointment of electors," says:

If any State shall have provided, by laws enacted prior to the day fixed for the appointment of the electors, for its final determination of any controversy or contest concerning the appointment of all or any of the electors of such State, by judicial or other methods or procedures, and such determination shall have been made at least six days before the time fixed for the meeting of the electors, such determination made pursuant to such law so existing on said day, and made at least six days prior to said time of meeting of the electors, shall be conclusive, and shall govern in the counting of the electoral votes as provided in the Constitution, and as hereinafter regulated, so far as the ascertainment of the electors appointed by such State is concerned.

So this provision, if I understand it correctly, says that states may appoint electors after a controversy ("controversy or contest").  Now, what happens when fraud and illegalities are so egregious that they help one candidate exclusively and harm only one candidate in such a way that it is unclear which electors shall be appointed?  That definitely qualifies to become a "controversy or contest."  The provision opens the door to each state legislature having the right to determine how the state can appoint electors ("appointment of electors" and "ascertainment of electors").  (This is already clear in the Twelfth Amendment, but here this provision gives more clarity after a controversy.)  Bottom line: The electors for Biden, the "fake winner," can be set aside if that is what each individual state law allows...................

The author goes on to say:

However, what about the "six days" in the election law provision?  The next federal law, in a section titled "failure to make a choice before prescribed day," says:

Whenever any State has held an election for the purpose of choosing electors, and has failed to make a choice on the day prescribed by law, the electors may be appointed on a subsequent day in such a manner as the legislature of such State may direct. 

The states can determine when they appoint the electors "on a subsequent day" (not the next day).  The phrase "In such a manner as the legislature of such State may direct" gives the states much leeway to select the right electors, which agrees with the Electors Clause, cited above.  And if the controversy in selecting electors, caused by fraud and illegalities, persists past Dec. 14, then the states can ignore the date and follow their need to further investigate fraud and illegalities. 

The whole thing can work out like this, apart from the Texas lawsuit before SCOTUS.

The undisputed states vote electorally on Dec. 14, and neither Biden nor Trump reaches 270, so neither one is the winner.  The five GOP state legislatures (Arizona, Michigan, Georgia, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania) of the six disputed states (minus Nevada) say they need to postpone their electoral votes because they are investigating fraud and illegalities. The legislatures perform due diligence (they have been holding hearings to collect the evidence) and conclude that fraud and illegalities unilaterally hurt Trump and helped only Biden.  Assuming that the Democrat Legislature in Nevada says everything was legitimate, each disputed GOP state may reach this conclusion on any day after Dec. 14 — say, on Dec. 27 or even Jan. 15.  Then they appoint electors who vote for the rightful winner: Trump (provided the GOP-selected electors do not suffer from TDS).  These votes are added in to the votes cast on Dec. 14.  Trump goes past 270 electoral votes.  He wins!

However, what happens if the disputed states cannot select the electors, and neither Trump or Biden reaches 270?  Then it goes to the House of Representatives, and each state has one vote, and this one vote is determined by the political makeup of the state legislatures.  The GOP controls 29 state legislatures, and the Democrats have 19 (two are split).  Trump wins again..............

First, we can keep up the pressure on the legislators of those five GOP states to select electors who will vote for the rightful winner, who is obviously Trump.  Some of the members in these legislatures may suffer from TDS, so the message must be sent that they have to set aside their irrational opposition and do the right thing. 

Second, Sidney Powell's legal team can continue with their lawsuits, so they can expose and uproot Dominion Voting Systems.  Now the goal will not be to overturn elections, but to get rid of the flawed, rigged system.  This goal is m uch more realistic and easier to accomplish. The court cases will take a long time.  But that's okay, because they keep in the public view the "fake president" and 2024, if Biden (unjustly) prevails. ................. 

The battle is not over. It was always going to boil down to the legislatures without SCOTUS. If we keep up the fight, we shall win with knowledge and the law on our side. 

Other alternatives?  There's a lot of talk out there, but I chose to use the one above and here's what the real hero of this election is doing.

Sidney Powell @SidneyPowell 

Pay attention! We made emergency filings in #SupremeCourt tonight for #Georgia & #Michigan. Will be filing #Arizona #Wisconsin shortly. These cases raise constitutional issues and prove massive #fraud. Our plaintiffs have #standing #WeThePeople will not allow #rigged elections 

I'll be covering more tonight and in the morning, and I'll post then.

 Best wishes to us all!

Big Data to the Rescue: The Electoral College Meets Data Pattern Science

November 13, 2020 By Jay Valentine

 

 Too many Americans who never had a civics class are learning about the Electoral College, which they are coming to realize may be James Madison’s “Do-Over Button” for times just like these.  (If you are under 35, Madison was a president a long time ago.)

The Electoral College is the last chance to stop a presidential election from going off a cliff.  Let’s take some examples. What if the presidential candidate of a leading party were caught taking bribes from an American enemy and that was learned after the vote counting began?  What if his son delivered prima facie evidence, and a witness stepped forward weeks before the election and the media suppressed it so the voters never heard a word?  What if a candidate were in early stage dementia and his party and the media hid it?  What if millions of American voices were suppressed utilizing social media, so only the voices of one party were allowed to speak?

Oh my gosh!  How could such things happen?

The Electoral College has a “do-over button.”  States fail to certify the vote, and Congress decides.  Remember, Congress is the house of the people -- Nancy Pelosi notwithstanding.  Madison and his pals actually thought that through over two hundred years ago, no kidding.   It applies only to the presidential vote, not to senators or representatives.  The Founders knew how important it was to get the executive thing right. So just how do we make a case to the Electoral College that massive voter fraud, on an industrial scale, thwarted the will of the American people?

Remember, the Electoral College at this point means six Republican legislatures in swing states!........To Read More...

• The Law Is There’s No Presidential Transition Until Congress Certifies the Election

The Founders Outsmarted the Presidential Election Fraudsters

Who chooses the President of the United States?

 

By Gary Gindler  @ American Thinker

 

This question is by no means rhetorical.  For example, the mass disinformation media has chosen Joe Biden as the winner of the 2020 election.  Many people liked this news, but I must disappoint them – the television broadcasters have, according to the U.S. Constitution, nothing to do with who will live in the White House for the next four years.

Maybe the Supreme Court chooses the President? No, the Constitution does not provide for this.  Could it be that the citizens of America choose their President? Following the U.S. Constitution, no.  So, who then chooses the President?

Before answering this question, let us note that, contrary to popular misconception, the President of the United States is not a representative of the American people.  State legislators and governors are representatives of the people, and at the federal level so are the members of the House of Representatives of the United States Congress.  (Currently, senators are also representatives of the people, but before the ratification of the 17th Amendment to the Constitution in 1913, they were appointed by state legislators).  So, who does the President of America represent?

The President of the United States of America, according to the Constitution, represents state legislators' interests and no one else.

In general, the federal government's structure in America reflects the numerous attempts of the Founding Fathers of the United States to introduce a system of effective state control over the federal government.  The fact is that the main difference between our country and all other countries, without exception, is that it was organized "from the bottom up," that is, individual colonies voluntarily united against a common enemy – the British Empire.  All other "republics" on the planet were created "from the top down," when the already existing provinces were graciously granted some independence by the already existing central government.

In building the American state, the fundamental principle was state control over the newly created federal power structure.  Therefore, from the Founding Fathers' point of view, the federal government in Washington should consist of both representatives of the people (congressmen) and representatives of the state leadership – the federal President and senators.  This is how the institution of the Electoral College was invented and implemented.  The electors are appointed by the state legislatures, and they are the ones who elect the President of the country.

So why do American citizens need to participate in the presidential elections? Well, strictly speaking, it is not necessary.  It is just that there is a long tradition in America – state legislators appoint electors in such a way that these appointments correspond to the mood of the people (in some states, this is even enshrined by law).  This is a tradition, but according to the U.S. Constitution, the participation of the people in presidential elections, generally speaking, is not required.  According to the Constitution, the people participate in the direct elections of their legislators, which is quite enough.

There is nothing reprehensible in this – after all, the President of America is not the representative of the American people.  He is the representative of state legislators.  From the point of view of the states, the President (and pre-1913, two senators from each state) are the "overseers" of the federal government.  In other words, the President, from the point of view of state legislators, is "our man in Havana" (that is, in Washington), who is responsible for the observance of state rights by the federal government.

Thus, under the Constitution, state legislators have the right to generally ignore the results of the voting of citizens of their state and appoint those who they deem necessary to the Electoral College.  Why did the Founding Fathers of the United States give state legislators such unprecedented power? Because most of the Founding Fathers were geniuses with impressive foresight.  They did not know precisely when this would happen, but they knew it would eventually happen: the election's published results would have nothing to do with how the citizens voted.

This is exactly what happened in 2020.

Of course, there have been falsifications in the counting of votes in America before.  However, in 2020, the Democrats went all-in with a scam, and for the first time in American history, they were close to success.  Actually, they simply had no other choice.  They knew very well that another Trump term would be enough to crush the American left to its core.  (However, even if Trump does not manage to stay in the White House, his departure from politics will be such that the left will not be envied.)

Now, more than a week after the elections, it is already clear what the Trump team is doing.  They are working in two directions.

First, they sue in states where there was a clear violation of the electoral law.  Violations include the counting of votes that came after polling stations closed, turnout of more than 100%, the use of computer systems that were systematically "wrong," always in favor of Biden, the thousands of Pennsylvania voters born on January 1, 1900 (or even on January 1, 1800), and much more.

For example, election results in some Democrat-controlled states violate fundamental laws of both mathematics and physics.  The votes cast for Biden do not comply with the statistical law of distribution of digits (Benford's Law), while the ballots cast for Trump do adhere to this law.  Thousands of mailed ballots were received even before they were officially sent.  Thus, the 2020 election showed compelling evidence of the possibility of time travel.

Secondly, the Trump team calls on state legislators to use their constitutional powers to rectify the local executive authority's criminal actions to the point of completely ignoring the falsified voting results.

These are the expected steps.  Any presidential candidate would and should take such measures.  Al Gore did the same in 2000, but then the case concerned only the state of Florida.  In 2000, the country did not know the name of the winner for 35 days, and in 2020 we should not expect a faster resolution of the issue because now we are talking about at least six "problem" states.

Only now is the reason for the frenzy with which the Democrats attacked the three Trump-nominated Supreme Court justices is becoming clear.  The fact is that the Trump-nominated current U.S. Supreme Court justices – Gorsuch, Kavanagh, and Barrett – were on Bush's legal team that secured the Supreme Court case in favor of Bush in 2000.

But the main difference between the 2020 elections and the 2000 elections is the involvement of the federal government's apparatus in investigating violations.  The investigation is carried out by both prosecutors of the Department of Justice and FBI agents.

According to the Constitution, all courts and all other voting problems must be resolved by the first Monday after the second Wednesday of December, which falls on December 14 this year.  If on December 14, the Electoral College fails to elect a president, then the Constitution also provides for this scenario.  Per the 12th Amendment to the Constitution, in this case, the President and Vice President will be elected by the House of Representatives (however, if for some reason the Vice President cannot be elected by the House of Representatives, then the right of his choice is transferred to the Senate.)

In the House of Representatives, state delegations will be voting, not the individual congressmen themselves.  Now in the House of Representatives, the majority of delegations – 26 – belong to Republicans.  In the Senate, the Republicans also have an advantage.  So, the only reason Trump can lose the election now, a week after the election, is his own admission of defeat.  But such a strange decision by Trump is unlikely – this guy is from Queens, and if he gets involved in a fight, he will see it through to the end.

It is also unlikely that Trump does not understand that if the chronic vote-rigging by Democrats is not stopped now, America will end.  The Trump team is well aware that such an opportunity to end the creeping socialist revolution may no longer be presented.

As a result, Democrats will likely not recover from this fraud.  The disinformation media (which Fox News joined on the election night) will not recover from deliberately covering up this fraud, this attempted coup.  If the Democrats went for broke, then Trump could, most likely, also go for broke.

Trump may have already destroyed the Democratic National Committee, but they just do not know it yet.

In military terms, Trump's team conducted careful reconnaissance and intelligence on the enemy for a week.  They collected numerous affidavits about the electoral fraud of Democrats, witnesses who confirm their testimony under oath.  But on the evening of November 10, the reconnaissance was completed, and massive artillery bombardment began in the form of lawsuits in several key states and the initiation of criminal investigations into violations by the Department of Justice.  If this does not help, Trump will bring into the battle the strategic reserves available only to the President of the American state apparatus – for example, in the form of a complete declassification of Obamagate.  In any case, our country is by no means at the end; we are at the very beginning of this process.

From a legal perspective, Biden is an impostor, a false president, at least until December 14 of this year.  If Biden can declare himself President-elect without any legal basis, then any other American citizen can also declare himself President-elect.

Therefore, I am forced to repeat my advice once again – to survive in this leftist madhouse, turn off the TV and start thinking for yourself.  If you have read the article so far, you will definitely succeed.  And remember – if the laws in our country are still observed, then the chances of the Harris-Biden administration (in this order) are practically zero.  If the laws in America are not followed, then the great American political experiment will unfortunately end.

Gary Gindler, Ph.D., is a conservative columnist at Gary Gindler Chronicles and the founder of a new science: Politiphysics. Follow him on Twitter and Quodverum.

 

 

 

..............To Read More.....

 

The Founding Fathers Vested State Legislatures With Authority to Decide Presidential Electors for Good Reason

Stephen B. Meister November 29, 2020 Updated: December 1, 2020

The Founding Fathers vested exclusively within the legislatures of the respective states the power—and solemn duty—to decide the manner in which its presidential electors are chosen (U.S. Const. Article II, Sect. 1, Cl 2.).

By contrast, Article III vests in the judicial branch—the federal courts—the power to decide actual “cases and controversies” between litigants who come before the courts. The “cases and controversies” requirement to invocation of a court’s jurisdiction is universal in Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence, and applies to all state courts as well.

This fundamental distinction is crucial to understanding the very different roles to be played by the swing state legislatures, on the one hand, and the state and federal courts, on the other, in the electoral fraud charges now gripping the nation................  @ Epoch Times