01/4/21

Profile In Courage Josh Hawley Fights For Trump vs. Cowardly Ben Sasse

By Daniel John Sobieski

 

Sen. Ben Sasse (R-NE) is one of those people who thinks they are the smartest person in the room, which is usually true in their case until someone else enters. As our Constitutional Republic disintegrates under the weight of a corrupted electoral process, he would split constitutional hairs to allow others, including SCOTUS of the empty-robed Chief Justice John Roberts, to shred and ignore the U.S. and state constitutions, to steal the 2020 presidential election from Donald J. Trump in the biggest crime spree in history.

Sen. Sasse is an ignorant coward, the Sgt. Shultz of the Senate, who sees, hears and knows nothing, lest he offends the Deep State and their allies in Big Tech and the legacy media. How else could he claim that doing what the Constitution and laws of the United States allow you to do, letting elected representatives of we the people contest on the floor of our Senate and our House of Representatives an election stolen from us? As Sasse claimed:

“The president and his allies are playing with fire,” Sasse said in a lengthy Facebook post Wednesday night. “If you make big claims, you had better have the evidence. But the president doesn’t and neither do the institutional arsonist members of Congress who will object to the Electoral College vote.”

A clever phrase which only shows the difference between being glib and being articulate. Those who will contest this stolen election in the Senate and the House have the evidence. Sasse may not have seen it because he is not looking for it but he would have if he had read any of the election worker and poll watcher affidavits sworn to under penalty of perjury. Did Sasse watch any witness testimony under oath by witnesses to election chicanery in any legislative hearing in any of the contested states?

Sasse would claim as the liberal swamp tweets in unison that every election lawsuit alleging fraud has been dismissed. Name one court anywhere that has allowed an evidentiary hearing or ordered a forensic audit of the actual ballots, including the signatures on the absentee ballots? Or are we merely to accept the fact that they have been thrown away in many instances, and move on that a basement dweller like Joe Biden could amass more votes than Hillary Clinton, Barack Hussein Obama, and Donald J. Trump? Have your office, Sen. Sasse, call Sidney Powell and the others who have risked stellar legal careers and reputations to defend this country from its electoral assassins. What are you willing to risk, Sen. Sasse?

Playing with fire? That’s the torch of liberty, the same torch that adorns the Statue of Liberty, a torch lit centuries ago by men who risked their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor to give us a republic where we the people select our leaders, not software companies, activist judges, and media titans. Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) has seen and heard the evidence and is willing to light the way to the truth, the truth that will keep us free.

Democrat Maryland Sen. Chris Van Hollen agreed with Sasse, calling Hawley “grossly irresponsible” despite the fact that Van Hollen participated in just such a challenge when it was his ox being gored.

“First of all, I don’t hear the Democrats making such outrageous claims when they were the ones who were objecting during the electoral college certification in 2004 and 2016. Democrats have done this for years to raise concerns about election integrity,” Hawley said on Fox News. “Now when Republicans and 74 million Americans have concerns about election integrity, we are supposed to sit down and shut up? Somebody has to stand up here.”

The lawmaker pointed out that Van Hollen did not object to then-Sen. Barbara Boxer’s, D-Calif., formal objection to Ohio electors during the 2005 certification of President George W. Bush’s reelection and therefore defeat of then-Sen. John F. Kerry, D-Mass.

Boxer had been formally joined in her objection by the late Rep. Stephanie Tubbs-Jones, a Democrat from Cleveland.

“I think Van Hollen in 2005 — January 2005 — personally praised the Democrats in the House and Senate who objected during the certification process as it was their right to do,” Hawley said. “Every senator and House member has the right to object if they want to. It is a judgment call on their part.”

We are a union of states, operating by the consent of the governed, and any state is harmed when another state is allowed to willy-nilly ignore its own state constitution and the Constitution of the United States in favor of the whims and agendas of activist governors and activist state courts.

The U.S. Constitution actually says the state legislatures determine things.  The Electors Clause — Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution — provides that “[e]ach State shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress.”

States are not allowed, as in Pennsylvania, to do end-runs around constitutional imperatives. When the governor of Pennsylvania could not get last-minute Biden-friendly election changes through the state legislature, he went to an activist “living Constitution” state Supreme Court which gleefully complied. Except that governors and state courts are not allowed to bypass state legislatures. As Hawley notes, Pennsylvania is the poster child for elected fraud:

Hawley singled out the Keystone State, accusing officials there of “not follow[ing] their own laws in the election process.”

In 2019, the Republican-majority legislature passed Act 77, which was signed by Democratic Gov. Tom Wolf. The new law allowed for no-excuse absentee voting, among other measures — but several state Republicans have claimed the Democratic-majority State Supreme Court legislated from the bench when they issued 2020 orders giving voters until the Friday after Election Day to submit those ballots through the mail and essentially negated signature verification requirements.

“We had unprecedented interference with the biggest most powerful of corporations all in favor of Joe Biden, censorship like we have never seen before,” Hawley said referring to Big Tech like Facebook and Twitter.

Who does Sasse believe selects electors? The state legislature or the state courts? A lawsuit by the Amistad Project of the non-partisan Thomas More Society attempts to correct this grievous usurpation of constitutional power:

The Amistad Project of the non-partisan Thomas More Society has filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia demanding that legislatures in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin be allowed to certify electors prior to congressional certification.

“Kings and Queens dissolve parliaments and legislative bodies, not Governors. At least that was the case until this year. Governors in these contested states have declared themselves to be the law due to COVID and are now actively preventing the state legislatures from exercising their constitutional authority to review the election process,” said Phill Kline, Director of the Amistad Project.

The lawsuit argues that current federal and local statutes interfere with state legislatures’ constitutional right to certify Presidential electors, in a direct violation of separation of powers. It also cites an Amistad Project white paper which illustrates how the Electoral College vote deadline of December 14 is arbitrary and does not apply to the contested states.

Our Congressmen and Senators should rise up against this Deep State coup by our enemies, both foreign and domestic. President Trump’s trade adviser Peter Navarro has documented the widespread fraud, now departed Jeff Sessions clone William Barr couldn’t see while he was attorney general:

President Donald Trump’s trade adviser Peter Navarro has an explosive update to his previously released comprehensive report that supported the Trump campaign’s claims of the “theft by a thousand cuts” that was the 2020 election.

Now, he is calling for a full review of election misbehavior, as WND reports.

In a Vimeo video on Monday, he explained that additional data and documents from the battleground state of Michigan have the potential to flip the election from a Joe Biden victory to President Donald Trump.

“I’ve concluded that the number of possible illegal votes in the state of Michigan tops 379,000 ballots, more than twice the alleged victory margin of Joe Biden,” Navarro declared.

Official vote totals for the state, where there have been compelling allegations of fraud and irregularities, record Biden as winning their 16 Electoral College votes by a scant 150,000 votes.

Navarro’s detailed 36-page report released last week, “The Immaculate Deception: Six Key Dimensions of Election Irregularities,” had not contained the specific number of ballots he believed was illegal.

He concluded that at least 100,000 ballots in Arizona, Georgia, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin could have been illegal and if these were ruled as such, it would prove Trump was the legitimate winner of the election.

The White House official accused the Democrats of having launched a “coordinated strategy to effectively stack the election deck against the Trump-Pence ticket.”

His report charged “outright voter fraud, ballot mishandling, contestable process fouls, Equal Protection Clause violations, voting machine irregularities, and significant statistical anomalies” in Georgia, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin on Election Day.

Navarro also stated it’s been confirmed that there were 9,500 Michigan ballots from dead voters and an additional 2,000 votes that were more than 100 years old but listed among the states centenarians.

What’s more, Wayne County had over 174,000 absentee ballots with no individual voter registration numbers, which would make them illegal.

In Georgia, where a $107 million contract Gov. Brian Kemp signed with Dominion Voting Systems and a consent decree with Biden Democrat Stacey Abrams opened the door to widespread election fraud, legislators are moving to decertify Georgia’s results:

A committee of lawmakers in contested swing state Georgia has recommended that the election results in their state that have declared Joe Biden to be the winner of the 2020 presidential race be decertified.

This recommendation comes after a study conducted by the Standing Senate Judiciary Committee that culminated in a report which declared the election “was chaotic and any reported results must be viewed as untrustworthy.”  …

The report stated that the legislature needed to examine their findings and act accordingly to decertify the election results were members convinced by its assertion.

“The Legislature should carefully consider its obligations under the U.S. Constitution. If a majority of the General Assembly concurs with the findings of this report, the certification of the Election should be rescinded and the General Assembly should act to determine the proper Electors to be certified to the Electoral College in the 2020 presidential race,” it stated.

They called for the immediate convening of the necessary bodies to examine the evidence.

Back in 2005, nobody had a problem when Sens. Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy. Harry Reid and Dick Durbin applauded Sen. Boxer’s objections to the counting of electors for President George W. Bush from Ohio, and their comments stand in stark contrast to Sasse’s remarks about Republican electoral objections in 2020:

Senate Dems on Barbara Boxer’s objection, Jan. 2005 –

Hillary: “I commend the senator from California for raising the objection”

Ted Kennedy: “I commend and thank our friend for giving us this opportunity”

Harry Reid: “I applaud my friend”

Dick Durbin: “I thank her for doing it”

Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin once reportedly observed, “The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything.” The statistical anomalies in 2020 boggle the mind and beg for an explanation.  Perhaps Sasse can explain how Biden could win a record low 17% of counties, lose Black & Hispanic support, lose 18/19 “bellwether counties,” lose Ohio, Florida, & Iowa — and lose 27/27 House “Toss-Ups” — but shatter the popular vote record. Or explain how Biden lost 212 more counties than Barack Obama did in 2012 (Biden won 477 counties vs Obama who won 689), yet Biden magically gained 13 million more votes than Obama.

Okay, we understand not all counties have the same population, but Biden would have had to win all the big counties and Trump virtually none of them. Or maybe just win by curiously large margins the few large counties with cities run by Democrats in key swing states. As Matt Vespa over at Townhall.com reports,  Democracy Institute’s Patrick Basham has singled out some of the more curious anomalies:

,,, Basham quoted Joseph Stalin’s remarks about elections, where the Soviet dictator mentioned something about how it’s not important who votes but how they are counted, which appears to ring “eerily true” with this race…. at the end of his column, Basham cites Richard Baris of Big Data Poll who noted something funny about Biden’s numbers in the cities, how it lagged behind Clinton’s numbers, but shot off to the moon in these four cities. Just take a look at the states in which these cities are located as well [emphasis mine]…

How curious that, as Baris notes, “Trump won the largest non-white vote share for a Republican presidential candidate in 60 years. Biden underperformed Hillary Clinton in every major metro area around the country, save for Milwaukee, Detroit, Atlanta, and Philadelphia.”

Robert Barnes, the foremost election analyst, observes in these “big cities in swing states run by Democrats…the vote even exceeded the number of registered voters.”

Trump’s victories in Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin were on target until, in the middle of the night, counting was arbitrarily halted. Miraculously, several hundred thousand votes – all for Biden – were mysteriously ‘found’; Trump’s real leads subsequently vanished.

The protracted, eventual outcome will determine the contemporary relevance of Stalin’s observation. No matter who wins, most pollsters already have lost their credibility and influence.

Miraculous indeed. In fact, it was an immaculate deception. Not only pollsters have lost all credibility but so have swamp creatures like Ben Sasse who says there’s nothing to see here, move along. God bless patriots like Josh Hawley who work to see the Statue of Liberty’s fire is never extinguished.

*Daniel John Sobieski is a former editorial writer for Investor’s Business Daily and freelance writer whose pieces have appeared in Human Events, Reason Magazine, and the Chicago Sun-Times among other publications.

01/4/21

What the Constitution REQUIRES Congress to do on January 6, 2021

By: Publius Huldah

  1. The Rule of Law is being erased in our Land

Several years ago, I saw a movie on TV.  The setting was Berlin, Germany just after WWII at the time the Soviets were laying rolls of barbed wire on the ground to mark the border between East and West Berlin.  The main characters were a young American woman and a young German man. He had gotten a law degree while Hitler was taking over Germany, but he never practiced law.  She asked him why and he said, “The Law disappeared”.

And that’s what’s going on in our Country:  The Law – as the standard which those in government must obey – has disappeared and is being replaced by the age-old system where those with the power do what they want, and the cowards go along with it.

Just as the cowards in Germany went along with Hitler; cowards in America are going along with the Left’s brazen theft of the recent election.  Countries are destroyed by such cowards; and that may be the reason Revelation 21:8 lists cowards as the first to be thrown into the Lake of Fire:  Tyrants couldn’t get to first base without the acquiescence of cowards.

So this paper calls upon each Member of Congress to rise up and restore the Rule of Law to our Land.Knowledge of Truth – and the Love of Truth – makes us strong.  So, learn the Truth, embrace it, and restore the Rule of Law.

  1. We must read each Part of the Constitution in the Light cast by the other Parts

It is impossible to understand any part of the Constitution without understanding how that Part fits into the Whole; and how each individual Part is affected by the other Parts addressing the same subject. Accordingly, it is an ancient rule of construction that constitutional provisions or statutes that are on the same subject (in pari materia) must be construed together [link].

So it is a serious misconstruction of the 12th Amendment to assert that Congress’s role on January 6 is the passive one of merely counting numbers; or that the Presiding Officer has the discretion to do whatever he wants.

As shown below, specific provisions of the Constitution impose on Congress the Duty to determine whether the Electors were lawfully chosen; and whether the putative President-elect and Vice-President-elect are qualified for office.

  1. When it meets on January 6, Congress must enforce these Constitutional provisions respecting the Appointment of Electors

Article I, §4, clause 1; Article II, §1, clause 2; and Article II, §1, clause 4

Art. I, §4, cl. 1 says that only state and federal legislatures have the power to make laws addressing the Times, Places, and Manner of conducting federal elections.  So Judges and State executive officials have no lawful authority to change the election laws made by the Legislatures!

Art. II, §1, cl. 2 says that the Electors for President and Vice-President are to be appointed in such manner as the State Legislatures shall direct.  So Judges and State executive officials have no lawful authority to change the election laws respecting how the Electors are to be chosen!

So Electors who were appointed in violation of these two provisions were unlawfully appointed and hence are not legally competent to cast votes for President and Vice President.

Art. II, §1, cl. 4 provides that Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors.  At 3 USC §1, Congress set the time for chusing Electors for November 3.  So Electors who were appointed after November 3 by means of late ballots (which was made possible by unconstitutional changes to state election laws which unlawfully extended the deadlines for receiving ballots past Nov. 3) were unlawfully appointed and hence are not legally competent to cast votes for President and Vice President. 2

  1. Congress must also enforce these Constitutional provisions respecting the qualifications for the Offices of President and Vice-President

Article II, §1, clause 5

Art. II, §1, cl. 5 sets forth qualifications for the Office of President.  After our first generation of Presidents [who were all born as subjects of the King of England] had passed away; the qualifications for President are that he must be a “natural born citizen”, at least 35 years of age, and have been for at least 14 Years a Resident within the United States.

The last sentence of the 12th Amendment shows that no person who is ineligible to be President is eligible to be Vice-President. 3

The 22nd Amendment

The 22nd Amendment imposes term limits on the office of the President.  So any person who has already served two terms is constitutionally ineligible to be President.

The 20th Amendment, §3

§3 of the 20th Amendment addresses what happens when the President-elect and/or Vice-President-elect “fail to qualify”. So §3 underlines Art. II, §1, cl. 5; the last sentence of the 12th Amendment; and the 22nd Amendment: If the President-elect or the Vice-President-elect “fail to qualify”, they are to be passed over.

So!  The Constitutional scheme is that the Electors’ choice is subject to Congress’ determinations of:

  • whether the requirements of Art. I, §4, cl. 1; Art. II, §1, cl.2; and Art. II, §1, cl. 4 were obeyed when the Electors were selected; and
  • whether the persons whom the Electors chose meet the requirements of Art. II, §1, cl. 5; the last sentence of the 12th Amendment, and the term limits provision of the 22nd

If not, Congress must disqualify the persons.

  1. Congress is also bound by these Constitutional provisions

The Guaranty clause at Article IV, §4

Art. IV, § 4 says:

“The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government…” [emphasis added]

Since the essence of a “Republic” is that power is exercised by representatives elected by The People; 4 the violations of Art. I, §4, cl. 1; Art. II, §1, cl. 2; and Art. II, §1, cl.4  (which made massive election fraud possible) strike at the heart of our Constitutional Republic.

When Electors are selected in violation of our Constitution by means of last minutes changes unlawfully made to state election laws; and/or an election is stolen by means of fraud, the Right of The People to choose their Representatives is taken away from them – and the Republic is destroyed.

Art. IV, §4 imposes on Congress the Duty to guarantee lawful and honest federal elections.  Congress can do this by enforcing Art. I, §4, cl. 1; Art. II, §1, cl.2; and Art. II, §1, cl. 4 by disqualifying the Electors chosen in contravention of those provisions.

Congress may (and should) also disqualify Biden and Harris on the additional ground that their pretended election was procured by cheating.  They must be stripped of their sham “win”. 5

The Supremacy clause at Article VI, cl. 2

Art. VI, cl. 2 says:     

“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof…shall be the supreme Law of the Land…” [italics added]

Only those Acts of Congress which are consistent with the Constitution are part of the supreme Law of the Land. 6

Accordingly, Sections 5 and 15 of the Electoral Count Act (3 USC §§1-21), are unconstitutional to the extent they purport to:

  • require Congress to accept slates of Electors who were appointed in violation of Art. I, §4, cl.1; Art. II, §1, cl. 2; and Art. II, §1, cl. 4;
  • require Congress, in the case of dueling slates of Electors, to choose the slate signed by the Governor of the State and reject the slate approved by the State Legislature; 7 and
  • eliminate the 12th Amendment’s dispute resolution procedures under which the House of Representatives chooses the President, and the Senate chooses the Vice-President. 8  

But, contrary to what some have asserted, the 12th Amendment most manifestly does NOT vest exclusive authority and sole discretion in the President of the Senate (Vice-President Mike Pence) to determine which slates of Electors for a State are to be counted and which slates are to be rejected!

As President of the Senate, the Vice-President has certain Parliamentary powers at his disposal; but he has no “discretion” in deciding whether he will adhere to the Constitutional framework governing the Election.  He – and every other Member of Congress – must adhere to and enforce each Constitutional provision.

The Oath of Office at Article VI, cl. 3

Every Member of Congress is bound by Oath or Affirmation to support our Constitution.  On January 6, you must lay aside all personal considerations.  Do your DUTY as set forth in the Constitution.  And remember:  This isn’t about Trump – this is about whether our Republic is to survive.  If you permit violations of the Constitution and the resulting fraud to prevail; you will destroy our Republic.

  1. Our Constitution sets up an elegant system of checks and balances

One of the benefits of the “separation of powers” principle is that it provides a mechanism for one power to correct violations made by another power. Within the federal and state governments, powers are divided into three Branches: Legislative, Executive, and Judicial.  Each Branch has the duty to “check” the violations of the other Branches.

Likewise, the power of the State governments is separated from the power of the federal government.  When people within State governments violate the Constitution – as was done in the recent election – it is the Duty of the federal government to “check” the violation.  Since Electors were chosen in violation of the Constitution; Congress has the Duty to check the violations and reject those Electors.

Endnotes:

1 The term, “rule of law”, is defined here at Point 7.

2 The same Principle applies to Electors who were chosen before Nov. 3 pursuant to [unconstitutional] state election laws which permit early voting for selection of Electors.

3 It appears that at the time Kamala Harris was born, her parents were not US Citizens.  If so, she is constitutionally ineligible to be President or Vice-President [link].  Congress has the duty to inquire into this matter; and if they find that she is not a “natural born citizen” within the original intent of Art. II, §1, cl.5, it is Congress’ Duty to disqualify her.  Congress is the body that is charged with determining the eligibility of the President and Vice-President [link].

4 Federalist No. 10 (J. Madison): “A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, … *** … The two great points of difference between a democracy and a republic are: first, the delegation of the government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest; …”

5 If you win a medal at the Olympics, and it’s later discovered that you cheated by taking performance-enhancing drugs, you will be stripped of “win” and medal – and both will be awarded to your runner-up. The same principle applies to stolen elections.

6 Federalist No. 78, 10th para (A. Hamilton): “…every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; ….” [emphasis mine]

7 Art. II, §1, cl. 2 provides that the State Legislatures have the power to direct how the Electors are to be appointed!  The State Governor has no constitutional power whatsoever in the selection of Presidential Electors!

8 To the same effect, see the Complaint recently filed by US Representative Louie Gohmert [link].