01/11/21

Apple Bans 39,000 Apps After Demands By The CCP

By: Denise Simon | Founders Code

And counting… including the newly launched conservative open free speech social media site Parler.

HONG KONG (Reuters) – Apple removed 39,000 game apps on its China store Thursday, the biggest removal ever in a single day, as it set year-end as deadline for all game publishers to obtain a license.

The takedowns come amid a crackdown on unlicensed games by Chinese authorities.

Including the 39,000 games, Apple removed more than 46,000 apps in total from its store on Thursday. Games affected by the sweep included Ubisoft title Assassin’s Creed Identity and NBA 2K20, according to research firm Qimai.

Qimai also said only 74 of the top 1,500 paid games on Apple store survived the purge.

Apple did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Apple initially gave game publishers an end-of-June deadline to submit a government-issued licence number enabling users to make in-app purchases in the world’s biggest games market.

Apple later extended the deadline to Dec. 31. Cases still pending.

China’s Android app stores have long complied with regulations on licenses. It is not clear why Apple is enforcing them more strictly this year.

Analysts said the move was no surprise as Apple continues to close loopholes to fall in line with China’s content regulators, and would not directly affect Apple’s bottom line as much as previous removals.

“However, this major pivot to only accepting paid games that have a game license, coupled with China’s extremely low number of foreign game licenses approved this year, will probably lead more game developers to switch to an ad-supported model for their Chinese versions,” said Todd Kuhns, marketing manager for AppInChina, a firm that helps overseas companies distribute their apps.

In December, shares of Apple (NASDAQ:AAPL) were down a bit after the company removed thousands of paid game apps from its China App Store.

Meanwhile, Disney (NYSE:DIS) stock rose after the company reportedly plans a price increase for its ESPN+ streaming service.

The Wall Street Journal reported last week that tech giant Apple planned to remove thousands of game apps from its App Store in China due to government pressure. Apple reportedly warned Chinese developers earlier this month that paid gaming apps were at risk of removal.

China requires paid video games to be licensed before being released, a policy that has been in effect for the past four years. However, app developers have been able to get around that rule on Apple’s platform. Apple began closing the loophole this year, the Journal reports.

On Thursday, Apple followed through by removing 39,000 game apps from its China App Store, according to Reuters. These include popular titles like Assassin’s Creed Identity and NBA 2K20. Just 74 of the top 1,500 paid game apps on the China App Store are still available, according to research firm Qimai.

The license requirement applies to paid games and games with in-app purchases, so the move by Apple could push more developers to opt for an ad-supported model. Apple takes a cut from the sales of apps and in-app content, so such a shift would hurt Apple’s sales in China. source

*** Expect more stock price decline given the recent anti-trust cases in the legal pipeline against Apple and other big tech corporations. Apple and Google both take a cut of the revenue of the apps on their respective stores.

The factory in China where Apple products, specifically iPhones, undergo final assembly has approximately 230,000 workers. In the US, there are only 83 cities that have the same population as this factory’s number of employees. Meaning the number of possible workers in the US is not enough to cover Apple’s needs.

In China, an estimated quarter of their workforce lives in company-owned dormitories. These barracks are located on factory property. Many people are living and working at the factory. Such jobs are in high demand in China, and they can hire many people overnight. These examples prove that the measure, speed, and efficiency of Chinese manufacturing surpass anything the US is presently capable of. (read slave labor)

'Made in China 2025': is Beijing's plan for hi-tech ...

Apple is a willing partner in the China 2025 plan. You will then understand the China policy of President Trump and Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo.

Continue reading…you need to understand the past implications and those when Biden takes office.

When the US and ultimately the rest of the Western world began to engage China, resulting in China finally being allowed into the World Trade Organization in the early 2000s, no one really expected the outcomes we see today.

There is no simple disengagement path, given the scope of economic and legal entanglements. This isn’t a “trade” we can simply walk away from.

But it is also one that, if allowed to continue in its current form, could lead to a loss of personal freedom for Western civilization. It really is that much of an existential question.

Doing nothing isn’t an especially good option because, like it or not, the world is becoming something quite different than we expected just a few years ago—not just technologically, but geopolitically and socially.

China and the West

Let’s begin with how we got here.

My generation came of age during the Cold War. China was a huge, impoverished odd duck in those years. In the late 1970s, China began slowly opening to the West. Change unfolded gradually but by the 1990s, serious people wanted to bring China into the modern world, and China wanted to join it.

Understand that China’s total GDP in 1980 was under $90 billion in current dollars. Today, it is over $12 trillion. The world has never seen such enormous economic growth in such a short time.

Meanwhile, the Soviet Union collapsed and the internet was born. The US, as sole superpower, saw opportunities everywhere. American businesses shifted production to lower-cost countries. Thus came the incredible extension of globalization.

We in the Western world thought (somewhat arrogantly, in hindsight) everyone else wanted to be like us. It made sense. Our ideas, freedom, and technology had won both World War II and the Cold War that followed it. Obviously, our ways were best.

But that wasn’t obvious to people elsewhere, most notably China. Leaders in Beijing may have admired our accomplishments, but not enough to abandon Communism.

They merely adapted and rebranded it. We perceived a bigger change than there actually was. Today’s Chinese communists are nowhere near Mao’s kind of communism. Xi calls it “Socialism with a Chinese character.” It appears to be a dynamic capitalistic market, but is also a totalitarian, top-down structure with rigid rules and social restrictions.

So here we are, our economy now hardwired with an autocratic regime that has no interest in becoming like us.

China’s Hundred-Year Marathon

In The Hundred-Year Marathon, Michael Pillsbury marshals a lot of evidence showing the Chinese government has a detailed strategy to overtake the US as the world’s dominant power.

They want to do this by 2049, the centennial of China’s Communist revolution.

The strategy has been well documented in Chinese literature, published and sanctioned by organizations of the People’s Liberation Army, for well over 50 years.

And just as we have hawks and moderates on China within the US, there are hawks and moderates within China about how to engage the West. Unfortunately, the hawks are ascendant, embodied most clearly in Xi Jinping.

Xi’s vision of the Chinese Communist Party controlling the state and eventually influencing and even controlling the rest of the world is clear. These are not merely words for the consumption of the masses. They are instructions to party members.

Grand dreams of world domination are part and parcel of communist ideologies, going all the way back to Karl Marx. For the Chinese, this blends with the country’s own long history.

It isn’t always clear to Western minds whether they actually believe the rhetoric or simply use it to keep the peasantry in line. Pillsbury says Xi Jinping really sees this as China’s destiny, and himself as the leader who will deliver it.

To that end, according to Pillsbury, the Chinese manipulated Western politicians and business leaders into thinking China was evolving toward democracy and capitalism. In fact, the intent was to acquire our capital, technology, and other resources for use in China’s own modernization.

It worked, too.

Over the last 20–30 years, we have equipped the Chinese with almost everything they need to match us, technologically and otherwise. Hundreds of billions of Western dollars have been spent developing China and its state-owned businesses.

Sometimes this happened voluntarily, as companies gave away trade secrets in the (often futile) hope it would let them access China’s huge market. Other times it was outright theft. In either case, this was no accident but part of a long-term plan.

Pillsbury (who, by the way, advises the White House including the president himself) thinks the clash is intensifying because President Trump’s China skepticism is disrupting the Chinese plan. They see his talk of restoring America’s greatness as an affront to their own dreams.

In any case, we have reached a crossroads. What do we do about China now?

Targeted Response

In crafting a response, the first step is to define the problem correctly and specifically. We hear a lot about China cheating on trade deals and taking jobs from Americans. That’s not entirely wrong, but it’s also not the main challenge.

I believe in free trade. I think David Ricardo was right about comparative advantage: Every nation is better off if all specialize in whatever they do best.

However, free trade doesn’t mean nations need to arm their potential adversaries. Nowadays, military superiority is less about factories and shipyards than high-tech weapons and cyberwarfare. Much of our “peaceful” technology is easily weaponized.

This means our response has to be narrowly targeted at specific companies and products. Broad-based tariffs are the opposite of what we should be doing. Ditto for capital controls.

They are blunt instruments that may feel good to swing, but they hurt the wrong people and may not accomplish what we want.

We should not be using the blunt tool of tariffs to fight a trade deficit that is actually necessary. The Chinese are not paying our tariffs; US consumers are.

Importing t-shirts and sneakers from China doesn’t threaten our national security. Let that kind of trade continue unmolested and work instead on protecting our advantages in quantum computing, artificial intelligence, autonomous drones, and so on.

The Trump administration appears to (finally) be getting this. They are clearly seeking ways to pull back the various tariffs and ramping up other efforts.

01/9/21

Beware: Patriot Act 2.0 Coming

By: Denise Simon | Founders Code

But there already is a domestic terrorism law… meanwhile it was not applied to BLM or ANTIFA as those protests still go on… .just a few arrests have been made while people and small businesses were not only terrorized but hundreds or maybe thousands lost their businesses. It is okay, however, as VP -Elect Kamala Harris is good with that and supported it all.

Just one day ago –> it is terrorism but they call it unlawful assembly.

Portland rioters smash courthouse window, damage businesses before police declare unlawful assembly

Portland police arrived on the scene and told the crowd it had declared an unlawful assembly.Portland rioters smash courthouse window, damage businesses before police  declare unlawful assembly | Fox News

So why the new proposed legislation? Hardly balanced application of the law and that is good with the new administration and progressive members of Congress.

The Patriot Act 2.0 coming your way.

Note:

March 11, 2020
Press Release

Legislation introduced by Schneider would empower federal law enforcement to better monitor and stop domestic extremist violence

Today, legislation introduced by Congressman Brad Schneider (IL-10) to address the threat of domestic terrorism passed the House Judiciary Committee by a vote of 24-2. The Committee’s markup and bipartisan vote reports H.R. 5602, the Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act of 2020, out of the House Judiciary Committee.

“The rising tide of domestic terror across our country, particularly from violent far-right extremists and white supremacist organizations, demands a response from Congress,” said Schneider. “It is not enough to just condemn hate, we need to equip law enforcement with the tools needed to identify threats and prevent violent acts of domestic terrorism. The Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act improves coordination between our federal agencies and makes sure they are focused on the most serious domestic threats. I thank Chairman Nadler and Chairwoman Bass for their leadership on this issue and my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for supporting this legislation in markup. I look forward to building support for a vote by the full House as soon as possible.”

The Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act of 2020 would enhance the federal government’s efforts to prevent, report on, respond to, and investigate acts of domestic terrorism by authorizing offices dedicated to combating this threat; requiring these offices to regularly assess this threat; and providing training and resources to assist state, local, and tribal law enforcement in addressing it.

According to the Anti-Defamation League, in 2019, domestic extremists killed at least 42 people in the United States in 17 separate incidents. This number makes 2019 the sixth deadliest year on record for domestic extremist-related killings. Last year, a Trump Administration Department of Justice official wrote in a New York Times op-ed that “white supremacy and far-right extremism are among the greatest domestic-security threats facing the United States. Regrettably, over the past 25 years, law enforcement, at both the Federal and State levels, has been slow to respond.”

H.R. 5602 would authorize three offices, one each within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the Department of Justice (DOJ), and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), to monitor, investigate, and prosecute cases of domestic terrorism. The bill also requires these offices to provide Congress with joint biannual reports assessing the state of domestic terrorism threats, with a specific focus on white supremacists. Based on the data collected, H.R. 5602 requires these offices to focus their resources on the most significant threats..

H.R. 5602 also codifies the Domestic Terrorism Executive Committee, which would coordinate with United States Attorneys and other public safety officials to promote information sharing and ensure an effective, responsive, and organized joint effort to combat domestic terrorism. The legislation requires DOJ, FBI, and DHS to provide training and resources to assist state, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies in understanding, detecting, deterring, and investigating acts of domestic terrorism and white supremacy. Finally, H.R. 5602 directs DHS, DOJ, FBI, and the Department of Defense to establish an interagency task force to combat white supremacist infiltration of the uniformed services and federal law enforcement.

The Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act of 2020  has been endorsed by the following organizations: Anti-Defamation League, Arab American Institute, Bend the Arc: Jewish Action, Center for the Study of Hate & Extremism, Human Rights Campaign, Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, Muslim Advocates, NAACP, NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc., Sikh Coalition, Southern Poverty Law Center Action Fund, and Unidos. .

The legislation has more than 100 co-sponsors in the House. A Senate companion bill is led by Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL).

01/9/21

Reichstag Fire and the Rise to Total Power

By: Denise Simon | Founders Code

On March 23, the Reichstag passed the Enabling Act, the partner piece of legislation to the February 28 Decree for the Protection of People and State. The Enabling Act assigned all legislative power to Hitler and his ministers, thus securing their ability to control the political apparatus. When President Hindenburg died in August 1934, Hitler wrote a new law that combined the offices of president and chancellor. It was sanctioned by a national plebiscite.Reichstag fire

Ex-Nazi testimony sparks fresh mystery over 1933 Reichstag fire | News | DW  | 27.07.2019

When the German parliamentary building went up in flames, Hitler harnessed the incident to seize power

Smithsonian: It was the canary in the political coal mine—a flashpoint event when Adolf Hitler played upon public and political fears to consolidate power, setting the stage for the rise of Nazi Germany. Since then, it’s become a powerful political metaphor. Whenever citizens and politicians feel threatened by executive overreach, the “Reichstag Fire” is referenced as a cautionary tale

Germany’s first experiment with liberal democracy was born of the 1919 Weimar Constitution, established after the conclusion of World War I. It called for a president elected by direct ballot, who would appoint a chancellor to introduce legislation to members of the Reichstag (who were also elected by popular vote). The president retained the power to dismiss his cabinet and the chancellor, dissolve an ineffective Reichstag, and, in cases of national emergency, invoke something known as Article 48, which gave the president dictatorial powers and the right to intervene directly in the governance of Germany’s 19 territorial states.

Following a stint in jail for his failed Beer Hall Putsch in 1923, Hitler poured his energy into attaining power through legal channels. He rose to the head of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party (Nazis), and by 1928 the group’s membership exceeded 100,000. The Nazis denounced the Weimar Republic and the “November criminals,” politicians had signed the Treaty of Versailles. The treaty forced Germany to accept responsibility for World War I, pay huge remunerations, transfer territory to their neighbors and limit the size of the military.

Despite its considerable growth, the Nazi party won only 2.6 percent of the vote in the 1928 election. But then the Great Depression hit, sending the U.S. and Europe into an economic tailspin and shooting the number of unemployed up to 6 million people in Germany (around 30 percent of the population). The sudden slump caused massive social upheaval, which the Nazis exploited to gain further political traction. By 1930, the Nazis won 18.3 percent of the Reichstag vote and became the second largest party after the Social Democrats, while the Communist party also grew to ten percent of the vote.

The economic unrest of the early 1930s meant that no single political party had a majority in the Reichstag, so fragile coalitions held the nation together. Faced with political chaos, President Paul von Hindenburg dissolved the Reichstag again and again. Frequent elections followed.

The Nazis aligned with other right-leaning factions and gradually worked their way up to 33 percent of the vote—but were unable to reach a full majority. In January 1933, Hindenburg reluctantly appointed Hitler as chancellor on the advice of Franz von Papen, a disgruntled former chancellor who believed the conservative bourgeois parties should ally with the Nazis to keep the Communists out of power. March 5 was set as the date for another series of Reichstag elections in hopes that one party might finally achieve the majority.

Meanwhile, the Nazis seized even more power, infiltrating the police and empowering ordinary party members as law enforcement officers. On February 22, Hitler used his powers as chancellor to enroll 50,000 Nazi SA men (also known as stormtroopers) as auxiliary police. Two days later, Hermann Göring, Minister of the Interior and one of Hitler’s closest compatriots, ordered a raid on Communist headquarters. Following the raid, the Nazis announced (falsely) that they’d found evidence of seditious material. They claimed the Communists were planning to attack public buildings.

On the night of February 27, around 9:00, pedestrians near the Reichstag heard the sound of breaking glass. Soon after, flames erupted from the building. It took fire engines hours to quell the fire, which destroyed the debating chamber and the Reichstag’s gilded cupola, ultimately causing over $1 million in damage. Police arrested an unemployed Dutch construction worker named Marinus van der Lubbe on the scene. The young man was found outside the building with firelighters in his possession and was panting and sweaty.

“This is a God-given signal,” Hitler told von Papen when they arrived on the scene. “If this fire, as I believe, is the work of the Communists, then we must crush out this murderous pest with an iron fist.”

A few hours later, on February 28, Hindenburg invoked Article 48 and the cabinet drew up the “Decree of the Reich President for the Protection of the People and State.” The act abolished freedom of speech, assembly, privacy and the press; legalized phone tapping and interception of correspondence; and suspended the autonomy of federated states, like Bavaria. That night around 4,000 people were arrested, imprisoned and tortured by the SA. Although the Communist party had won 17 percent of the Reichstag elections in November 1932, and the German people elected 81 Communist deputies in the March 5 elections, many were detained indefinitely after the fire. Their empty seats left the Nazis largely free to do as they wished.

Later that year, a sensational criminal trial got under way. The accused included van der Lubbe, Ernst Torgler (leader of the Communist Party in the Reichstag) and three Bulgarian Communists.

As the trial in Germany proceeded, a different kind of trial captured the public discourse. Willi Münzenberg, a German Communist, allied himself with other Communists to undertake an independent investigation of the fire. The combined research resulted in the publication of The Brown Book on the Reichstag Fire and Hitler Terror. It included early accounts of Nazi brutality, as well as an argument that van der Lubbe was a pawn of the Nazis. Hitler’s party members were the real criminals, the book argued, and they orchestrated the fire to consolidate political power. The book became a bestseller, translated into 24 languages and sold around Europe and the U.S.

01/8/21

The “Others Unknown” in the U.S. Capitol

By: Cliff Kincaid

Democrat Terry McAuliffe, running again for Virginia governor, is raising money by referring to the “deadly terrorists who stormed the U.S. Capitol” in an “attempt to overthrow our democratically elected government.” One of those so-called “deadly terrorists,” a U.S. military veteran, was murdered by a police officer. She was unarmed. Actual terrorists, by the names of Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, raised money for Barack Hussein Obama when he ran for president. McAuliffe was silent about that and backed Obama.

Before we get to the critically important issue of “others unknown” in the events in the Capitol, consider the common lie that Obama backers Ayers and Dohrn and other members of the Weather Underground bombed property, not people, in order to protest the Vietnam War. That’s how the media excused their violence. But that’s actually two lies in one. First, they specialized in anti-personnel bombs using heavy metal staples. Second, Ayers and Dohrn were not opposed to the war, only to a U.S. victory.

During the 2008 presidential campaign, when Obama tried to distance himself (with help from the media) from Ayers and Dohrn, who had sponsored his political career, we told the truth in a series of press conferences. Larry Grathwohl, an FBI informant in the Weather Underground, had testified that Ayers told him personally that fellow Weather Underground member and future wife Bernadine Dohrn set the bomb that killed San Francisco Park Police Sergeant Brian McDonnell in 1970.

In terms of what happened on Wednesday, a pro-Trump activist on the scene of the Save America rally reported, “All the protestors I saw were very peaceful. The Capitol police let them in and even escorted some through the building. I know something got out of hand, but I do feel like there were agitators in the crowd that were Antifa. They were heavy in the streets the night prior.”

Based on what she and others say, it is apparent that some peaceful Trump supporters were allowed into the Capitol and were then caught up in the violence instigated by others unknown.

Video of the protesters showed some of them in genuine amazement over being allowed into the Capitol. Hence, stories about a so-called “breach” of the Capitol by protesters is very misleading.

Columnist J.C. Hawkins believes the “invasion and disruption in the Capitol was pre-planned” by elements of the Deep State with the following three objectives in mind:

  • Discredit Trump supporters and in turn, President Trump.
  • Disrupt the process by which the president’s supporters could challenge electors in various states in dispute.
  • Intimidate those thinking of following Texas Senator Ted Cruz in the challenging process from continuing to do so.

“It succeeded on all three levels, just as planned,” he notes. “It was able to happen with the cooperation of the Capitol Police, who in some circumstances permitted and facilitated access into the building by moving barricades and directing the protestors inside the building.  Those actions have been filmed on phones and released on the Internet.”

What is clear is that Trump did not encourage violence. Trump actually said to the Save America rally that, “We have come to demand that Congress do the right thing and only count the electors who have been lawfully slated, lawfully slated. I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard. Today we will see whether Republicans stand strong for integrity of our elections, but whether or not they stand strong for our country, our country. Our country has been under siege for a long time, far longer than this four-year period.”

A so-called “conservative,” with big backing from various “conservative” foundations,  denounced President Trump, saying that he “incited” the “thugs” trying to “disrupt the peaceful transfer of power…”

In a press release, Jeanne Allen, CEO and founder of the Center for Education Reform, said, “He has failed in every respect to govern this nation in its most trying times. He nearly toppled the checks and balances that are the hallmark of the United States; he has seeded distrust in the workings of this the best nation on earth. This is a terrible lesson for our children.”

She ignores the evidence of election fraud that drew hundreds of thousands of people to Washington, D.C.

You can find a list of her supporters here.

The rush to frame Trump for the violence ignores the role of the Capitol police in letting people inside the building and then overreacting when things got out of hand by shooting a U.S. military veteran.

Hawkins adds, “What remains at issue is what possessed police to shoot an unarmed woman inside the Capitol.  She turned out to be an Air Force veteran and staunch Trump supporter named Ashli Babbitt.  The major media have shown absolutely no curiosity or outrage over who shot her and why. Maybe if she had been an armed minority drug dealer they would be all up in arms.”

It’s absolutely necessary to identify the “others unknown.” This was a set-up.

*Cliff Kincaid is president of America’s Survival, Inc. www.usasurvival.org

01/7/21

Was Lack of Security at the DC Rally on Purpose?

By: Denise Simon | Founders Code

Anyone remember when Washington DC Mayor, Muriel Bowser put out a declaration prior to the January 6th rally about what attendees can do and cannot do? Remember when there was a call for 340 National Guard?

Why was there no plan to install a security perimeter around the Capitol building and other government buildings given the congressional work underway? Was it a set up given the prior intelligence gathered by DHS, the Mayor’s office, the United States Secret Service, and the Capitol Police along with Metro Police? Heck, even Facebook blocked the Stop the Steal group.

Trump rally DC: Clashes at Washington protest lead to stabbings, nearly 30 arrests - ABC11 Raleigh-Durham

This was purposeful and a gamble to ridicule Trump supporters and to minimize the challenges to the election results. It worked. It is being called a historic invasion and insurrection.
Yes… it worked.

.Trump supporters gather in DC for 'stop the steal' rally Video - ABC News

It was an open secret… but there are more facts to be known.

The invasion of the U.S. Capitol on Wednesday was stoked in plain sight. For weeks, the far-right supporters of President Donald Trump railed on social media that the election had been stolen. They openly discussed the idea of violent protest on the day Congress met to certify the result.

“We came up with the idea to occupy just outside the CAPITOL on Jan 6th,” leaders of the Stop the Steal movement wrote on Dec. 23. They called their Wednesday demonstration the Wild Protest, a name taken from a tweet by Trump that encouraged his supporters to take their grievances to the streets of Washington. “Will be wild,” the president tweeted.

Ali Alexander, the founder of the movement, encouraged people to bring tents and sleeping bags and avoid wearing masks for the event. “If D.C. escalates… so do we,” Alexander wrote on Parler last week — one of the scores of social media posts welcoming violence that were reviewed by ProPublica in the weeks leading up to Wednesday’s attack on the capitol.

Thousands of people heeded that call.

For reasons that remain unclear Wednesday night, the law enforcement authorities charged with protecting the nation’s entire legislative branch — nearly all of the 535 members of Congress gathered in a joint session, along with Vice President Mike Pence — were ill-prepared to contain the forces massed against them.

On Wednesday afternoon, a thin line of U.S. Capitol Police, with only a few riot shields between them and a knot of angry protesters, engaged in hand-to-hand combat with rioters on the steps of the West Front. They struggled with a flimsy set of barricades as a mob in helmets and bulletproof vests pushed its way toward the Capitol entrance. Videos showed officers stepping aside, and sometimes taking selfies as if to usher Trump’s supporters into the building they were supposed to guard.

A former Capitol policeman well-versed in his agency’s procedures was mystified by the scene he watched unfold on live television. Larry Schaefer, a 34-year Capitol Police veteran who retired in December 2019, said his former colleagues were experienced in dealing with aggressive crowds.

“It’s not a spur-of-the-moment demonstration that just popped up,” Schaefer said. “We have a planned, known demonstration that has a propensity for violence in the past and threats to carry weapons — why would you not prepare yourself as we have done in the past?”

A spokesperson for the Capitol Police did not respond to a request for comment.

In recent years, federal law enforcement agencies have stepped up their focus on far-right groups, resulting in a spate of arrests. In October, the FBI arrested a group of Michigan extremists and charged them with plotting to kidnap the state’s governor. On Monday, Washington police arrested Enrique Tarrio, the leader of the far-right group the Proud Boys, on charges of burning a Black Lives Matter banner.

Conversations on right-wing platforms are monitored closely by federal intelligence. In September, a draft report by the Department of Homeland Security surfaced, identifying white supremacists as the biggest threat to national security.

The warnings of Wednesday’s assault on the Capitol were everywhere — perhaps not entirely specific about the planned time and exact location of an assault on the Capitol, but enough to clue in law enforcement about the potential for civil unrest.

On Dec. 12, a poster on the website MyMilitia.com urged violence if senators made official the victory of President-elect Joe Biden.

“If this does not change, then I advocate, Revolution and adherence to the rules of war,” wrote someone identifying themselves as I3DI. “I say, take the hill or die trying.”

Wrote another person: “It’s already apparent that literally millions of Americans are on the verge of activating their Second Amendment duty to defeat tyranny and save the republic.”

The easily overpowered police force guarding the Capitol on Wednesday posed a stark contrast to the tactics deployed by local police during this summer’s Black Lives Matter protests. Then, the city felt besieged by law enforcement.

More from Frontline:

On June 1, following a few days of mostly peaceful protests, the National Guard, the Secret Service and the U.S. Park Police fired tear gas and rubber bullets to disperse a nonviolent crowd in Lafayette Square outside the White House to allow Trump to pose with a Bible in front of a nearby church.

“We need to dominate the battlespace,” then-Secretary of Defense Mark Esper said on a call with dozens of governors, asking them to send their National Guard forces to the capital.

On June 2 — the day of the primary election in Washington — law enforcement officers appeared on every corner, heavily armed in fatigues and body armor. Humvees blocked intersections. Buses full of troops deployed into military columns and marshaled in front of the Lincoln Memorial in a raw show of force. Police kettled protesters in alleys. Choppers thudded overhead for days and sank low enough over protesters to generate gale-force winds.

Such dominance was nowhere in evidence Wednesday, despite a near-lockdown of the downtown area on Tuesday night. Trump supporters drove to the Capitol and parked in spaces normally reserved for congressional staff. Some vehicles stopped on the lawns near the Tidal Basin.

The contrast shook Washington’s attorney general, Karl Racine, who seemed to be almost in disbelief on CNN Wednesday evening.

“There was zero intelligence that the Black Lives Matter protesters were going to ‘storm the capitol,’” he remembered, after ticking down the many police forces present in June. “Juxtapose that with what we saw today, with hate groups, militia and other groups that have no respect for the rule of law go into the capitol. … That dichotomy is shocking.”

The question of how law enforcement and the national security establishment failed so spectacularly will likely be the subject of intense focus in coming days.

David Carter, director of the Intelligence Program at Michigan State University, said that sometimes, the best intelligence in the world doesn’t translate into adequate preparedness. Perhaps the security officials responsible for protecting the Capitol simply could not envision that a crowd of Americans would charge through a police line and shatter the glass windows that stood as the only physical barrier to entering the building.

“I go back to the 9/11 commission report,” Carter said. “It was a failure of imagination. They didn’t imagine something like this. Would you imagine people were going to break into the Capitol and go into the chambers? That failure of imagination sometimes makes us drop the ball.”

01/7/21

U.S. Capitol Police Murder Trump Supporter

By: Cliff Kincaid

The Daily Caller, co-founded by Tucker Carlson and still associated with him through fundraising devices (selling Tucker Carlson coffee mugs) , has run an “editorial” from its “editorial board,” entitled, “Patriots Do Not Storm Their Nation’s Capitol.” This is their way of rising above the pro-Trump deplorables who assembled in Washington on Wednesday. But the editorial failed to emphasize the significance of the U.S. Capitol Police murdering a U.S. military veteran and Trump supporter in cold blood.

The editorial from this “conservative” publication said that “thousands of protestors whipped themselves into a #stopthesteal frenzy” and, “Eventually, many of them descended on the Capitol building, hellbent on disrupting the American constitutional process.”

Actually, it was not “many.” Very few stormed the Capitol. These protesters were outraged over a national election being stolen, in the wake of news reports released at that time by the media that Vice President Mike Pence had announced that he would NOT stop the steal.

The “editorial board” thundered, “Every single one of the people who stormed that building and participated in that rank, un-American lawlessness should be in jail. There are prodigious photos and video evidence. Law enforcement officials should find them and prosecute them, all of them, no exceptions.”

Well, law enforcement did find one of them, unarmed and protesting inside the Capitol, and shot her to death. She was a 35-year-old California woman, Ashli Babbitt, a military veteran, and a Trump supporter.

A local TV station reported, “Babbitt was an Air Force veteran who served on multiple tours in the Middle East. Her Twitter feed includes several pro-Trump posts and pictures of her at local pro-Trump rallies.”

Tucker Carlson is still listed as a co-founder of the publication on its website. On his Fox show, he described the scene: “Footage, which can easily be found online, shows Babbitt standing in a hallway right off the House floor with an American flag tied around her neck. The scene around her is chaotic. People are bumping into each other, yelling, trying to get through the door into the chamber. Suddenly, with no warning, there is gunfire. You hear a shot and Babbitt falls. People in the hallway scream. The camera closes in on her face. Babbitt looks stunned. She’s staring straight ahead. You can see that she knows she’s about to die, which she did.”

Vince Coglianese is listed as Editorial Director of the Daily Caller and is also the host of WMAL’s “Mornings On The Mall” in Washington, D.C. I have requested an interview so he can explain the editorial direction of this publication.

At the Save America Rally, President Trump asked for peaceful protest, saying:

“We have come to demand that Congress do the right thing and only count the electors who have been lawfully slated, lawfully slated. I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard. Today we will see whether Republicans stand strong for integrity of our elections, but whether or not they stand strong for our country, our country. Our country has been under siege for a long time, far longer than this four-year period.”

Referring to China Joe Biden, he said that, if the fraud is allowed to stand, “You will have an illegitimate president, that’s what you’ll have. And we can’t let that happen.”

The Daily Caller asserted that “The president’s repeated claims that Pence can overturn the results are false.”

At the rally, Trump cited John Eastman, a constitutional attorney, as saying that Pence could send the elections back to the various states disputing the “certified” results. In this way, Pence would follow the constitutional requirement.

Trump noted, “John is one of the most brilliant lawyers in the country, and he looked at this and he said, ‘What an absolute disgrace, that this could be happening to our constitution.’”

Trump added, “I hope Mike is going to do the right thing…I hope so. I hope so because if Mike Pence does the right thing, we win the election. All he has to do. This is from the number one or certainly one of the top constitutional lawyers in our country. He has the absolute right to do it.”

Trump had declared, in a statement, “States want to correct their votes, which they now know were based on irregularities and fraud, plus corrupt process never received legislative approval. All Mike Pence has to do is send them back to the States, AND WE WIN. Do it, Mike, this is a time for extreme courage!”

He was referring to hearings held by the states into election fraud. The issue was the constitutional authority given to the state legislatures.

The Daily Caller asserted, as fact, “The vice president does not have the power to object to any of the state electors’ votes. Congress alone was granted the ability to contest results by the Electoral Count Act of 1887.”

John Eastman, a Constitutional law professor and scholar at the Claremont Institute, says Pence could send the matter back to the states for resolution.

As the president was finishing, speaking to the Save America Rally, Pence issued a letter basically saying that he was going to let the illegal and unconstitutional electoral votes stand. The news traveled fast and obviously incited some of the protesters. Plus, there were reports of some Antifa members having infiltrated the gathering.

Incredibly, Pence admitted in his letter that was released that voting irregularities took place in our November elections and there was disregard of state election statutes by some officials.

Pence failed in his duty to the people and this incited some of the protesters.

A Trump supporter was murdered in cold blood in the aftermath.

“The peaceful transfer of power is a hallmark of western democracy,” said the Daily Caller. “It is the cornerstone of everything we love. It is apple pie.”

Free and fair elections were also supposed to be apple pie.

Tucker Carlson asked people to consider why Ashli Babbitt went to the rally in the first place. He noted, “She bore no resemblance to the angry children we have seen wrecking our cities in recent months — pasty, entitled nihilists dressed in black, setting fires and spray-painting slogans on statues. She looked pretty much like everyone else. So why was she there? We ought to think about that. If you want to fix it, you have to think about that.”

Instead of addressing these issues, the Big Media and Big Tech are resorting, once again, to massive censorship. Conservative publications like the Daily Caller are playing along, censoring the truth.

There is a lesson here for conservatives desperate for truthful information. Don’t count on those who claim to be “conservatives.” They can be frauds, too.

01/5/21

Corruption, Treason, and the CIA

By: Cliff Kincaid | America’s Survival

Former CIA operations officer and CIA station chief Bradley Johnson offers his theory of a CIA role in the 2020 election fraud and explains why the agency has been trying to take out Trump. He says Trump personnel, including former CIA director Mike Pompeo (the current Secretary of State), failed to clean out the agency of Obama holdovers, such as Gina Haspel, the current director linked to the Russia-gate hoax. Johnson now runs Americans for Intelligence Reform (www.intelreform.org).

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].