01/11/21

Fact Checkers Should Investigate the Murder of Ashli Babbitt

By: Cliff Kincaid

On top of liberal media bias that has become outright dishonest journalism and propaganda, so-called “fact-checkers” on the right have emerged, attacking other conservatives. A so-called fact-checker with The Dispatch is Alec Dent, a graduate of the Hussman School of Journalism and Media at UNC-Chapel Hill who is apparently pictured above his name on the site in front of what appear to be bottles of hard liquor.

He claims there were no credible accounts of left-wing Antifa agitators having infiltrated the pro-Trump rally on January 6 in Washington, D.C. One story alleging that facial recognition software identified Antifa members among rioters who stormed the Capitol was retracted. But there are other credible accounts.

I sent these “fact-checkers” my own video interview of a person who was at the rally and saw Antifa-like people with skeleton masks and smelled the dope they were smoking. Antonio Chaves told me what he saw and encountered at the rally. These people didn’t seem to be Trump supporters. He saw a member of Antifa trying to break a window and Trump supporters trying to stop him.

He believes some Antifa people were trying to pass themselves off as Trump supporters.

Were a few Trump supporters in the group that went into the Capitol, some with a police escort? No question about it. One of them, Ashli Babbitt, a military veteran, was murdered by the Capitol police. That’s a fact.

Although technically closed because of Covid-19, the Capitol is usually not a closed building. The Senate and House galleries are specifically designed for the public to enter the Capitol at will to watch their Senators and Congressmen at work.

The Capitol Police claimed, “As protesters were forcing their way toward the House Chamber where Members of Congress were sheltering in place, a sworn USCP [US Capitol Police] employee discharged their service weapon, striking an adult female.  Medical assistance was rendered immediately, and the female was transported to the hospital where she later succumbed to her injuries.  She has been identified as Ashli Babbitt.”

Jonathon Moseley, an attorney, concludes that the shooting of Ashli Babbitt inside the Capitol qualifies as murder, or more precisely an unjustified killing.

Moseley notes that the reports are clear that the massive, bank-vault-strong doors into the Capitol were open and pro-Trump protesters (and others) were able to just walk in.  He notes some reports indicate that police gestured Trump supporters inside the building through the open doors. Trump had called on anybody going to the Capitol to be peaceful.

Reports are not completely clear. But he notes that it may be the case that Ashli Babbitt climbed up on top of the window opening in the interior wall where someone had broken out the window and was therefore likely committing the crime of trespass. But he notes that under D.C. law trespass alone would not justify the use of deadly force.  It would justify an arrest by other means, such as a taser.

Did the Capitol Police shooter reasonably believe he was in danger? Not likely. The presence of police officers near where Babbitt was shot must also be examined. Did they think standing there was a threat?  Why didn’t they arrest her?

The Capitol Police say she was rendered medical assistance “immediately.” So she must have been very close to the officers or other Capitol Hill employees.

Ignoring all of this, choosing not to fact check the Capitol Police,  Alec Dent of The Dispatch wants instead to discredit reports of Antifa being part of the mob.

The Dispatch claims, “We are a digital media company providing engaged citizens with fact-based reporting and commentary on politics, policy, and culture—informed by conservative principles.”

Conservative principles like the Mitt Romney variety? Biden says Romney has integrity. Romney turned on Trump after Trump turned Romney down for the Secretary of State job.

I previously tried to correct Jonah Goldberg of The Dispatch about his sweeping claims about Joe McCarthy failing to uncover real communists. You can read my findings in my column, “A Battle Against Lies.”

Here’s what I wrote to him:

Mr. Goldberg:

You claim [in your New York Post column] that Sen. Joseph McCarthy liked to insist he had evidence of Communists in the government, but he couldn’t show you the names right now. The number of Communist infiltrators on his secret list changed from speech to speech.

In fact, McCarthy had actually cited 59 suspected communists in the State Department, and he produced that list, plus 22 others. McCarthy helped uncover a communist spy ring involving foreign service officer John Stewart Service and Phil Jaffe, the editor of a pro-communist magazine. He targeted Owen Lattimore, a key State Department adviser, and communist. McCarthy’s charge against Mary Jane Keeney, a State Department, U.N. employee, and Soviet agent, was proven correct. McCarthy was right about Annie Lee Moss, an Army Code Clerk who was a member of the Communist Party.

The John Stewart Service spy ring also involved Laughlin Currie, an adviser to President Franklin Roosevelt, and they succeeded in manipulating U.S. foreign policy to enable the communists to seize China. Other top communists in government included Harry Dexter White at the Department of the Treasury and, of course, Alger Hiss of the State Department, a founder of the U.N.

The JC Hawkins book on McCarthy and others, Betrayal at Bethesda, includes an Appendix B and 224 Communists identified by McCarthy and other investigations.

Please correct the record.

I never heard back.

Goldberg achieved prominence because of his mother’s role in the Monica Lewinsky/Bill Clinton scandal. His mother was Lucianne Goldberg, whose notoriety got him a job at Fox News.

Author J.C. Hawkins discussed Goldberg’s strange views during a recent episode of America’s Survival TV.

Returning to Dent’s big fact-checking “story,” another “journalist” at The Dispatch, former conservative Stephen Hayes, says, “It’s scary how deeply the Antifa-did-it conspiracy has penetrated the right, aided by desperate Republican politicians and irresponsible media-entertainment provocateurs.”

Promoting his own story, Dent claimed, “I’ve done a comprehensive fact check on claims that the attack on Congress was an Antifa false flag. Rioters IDed as Anfita [sic] weren’t Antifa, Trump supporters IDed themselves at the riot, and the attack had been planned on pro-Trump discussion boards.”

Comprehensive? So what if some of the demonstrators were in fact Trump supporters? The issue is that eyewitnesses also saw Antifa agitators and detected the smell of marijuana from several participants. That’s not the usual mark of a MAGA rally.

The New York Post ran a video of pot smokers inside the Capitol on January 6.

In his American Thinker article about the rally that got my attention, Chaves reports:

  • My group boarded a D.C. Metro train at 10:30 am. Upon arrival at the next station, I saw three young white men board the train with dark clothes and skeleton face masks.
  • The main difference that struck me as unusual during this rally (apart from the three young men who boarded the train) was the frequent smell of marijuana…
  • Suddenly the three young men I saw earlier on the train with scary masks in front (but pro-America symbols on their backs) made sense to me, as did the widespread smell of marijuana.
  • Based on what I saw and read, I have no doubt that dozens and possibly even hundreds of Antifa and/or other provocateurs had infiltrated the rally in order to carry out violent acts and suck impressionable Trump supporters into their antics.

Alec Dent also claims to have fact-checked the report that one John Roberts vacationed on Jeffrey Epstein’s Island. The name of John Roberts was on a list of passengers.

We don’t know which John Roberts this is.  Somebody claimed it was Chief Justice Roberts and ran a picture of someone with black hair in the water near Epstein’s island and supposedly on a trip that included Bill Clinton. This picture has now been labeled “false information” and taken down from Instagram.

Dent disputes this was THE John Roberts by reporting, “The individual identified as Roberts was not identified in reporting on Clinton’s vacation, but photos of Roberts at Trump’s inauguration, which also occurred in January 2017, show that his head of hair, with all respect to the chief justice, is grayer and not quite as full.”

So this is how the initial report is disputed? By photos showing a different head of hair?

Why not get hold of Roberts and get a statement on the record? Dent fact-checks articles without getting facts.

If someone claimed Bill Gates appeared with Jeffrey Epstein, we know that’s true, since the New York Times published a photo of them together. Check out the article, “Bill Gates Met With Jeffrey Epstein Many Times, Despite His Past.” Read it and weep, Mr. Dent.

The fact is that many prominent people did associate with Epstein. It would be nice to know who they were.

By the way, on his LinkedIn page, Dent is identified as having been an intern in the Office of Jonah Goldberg at the American Enterprise Institute and an intern at the Washington Free Beacon.

The AEI and Washington Free Beacon are supposed to be “conservative” organizations.

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

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

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].