07/18/21

The Downing of TWA Flight 800: 25 Years Ago Today

By: Roger Aronoff | CCNS

July 17 marks the 25th anniversary of the downing of TWA Flight 800, in which 230 people were killed when the Boeing 747 blew up off the coast of Long Island, New York just 12 minutes into a flight from New York to Paris. Last week in Ashburn, Va., not far from the nation’s capital, the reconstructed fuselage of the plane was set to be scrapped, as if to wipe that memory from the nation’s memory bank.

Earlier this month James Kallstrom died. He was the FBI’s headman in New York, and he led the FBI’s criminal investigation into the explosion that brought the plane down. I was set to meet with Kallstrom, along with my correspondent Reid Collins while working on a documentary on the subject in 2001, but less than an hour before our scheduled meeting, he called me to reschedule, which never came about.

This was a story that I was intimately involved with, having participated in the investigations into the cause of the disaster, and having written and produced a documentary laying out the case at the time for the three leading theories as to what brought the plane down: a naval exercise gone wrong; a terrorist attack on the plane; or a mechanical and electrical failure, which is the official version of what happened.

On July 2nd, 2013, I saw the reconstructed fuselage of TWA Flight 800 at a press briefing put on by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), shortly after the wreckage was brought to the NTSB Academy in Ashburn, about 45 minutes outside of D.C.

Continue reading

06/29/21

John Wayne: The Forgotten History of “The Duke”

By: Sam Jacobs | Ammo.com

john wayne

John Wayne is an American Hollywood icon every bit the equal of James Dean or Marilyn Monroe. He is also a man from another era, a man whose conservatism came as naturally as walking down the street. Affectionately known as “The Duke,” he spent three decades as a top box office draw with 179 film and television credits to his name

Before The Duke: Marion Robert Morrison

His story is as American as his values. Born Marion Robert Morrison in Iowa at a whopping 13 pounds, his family relocated to Southern California. His family first arrived in America from Ireland in 1799 and his grandfather was a Civil War veteran. His nickname was bestowed upon him in childhood (“Little Duke” at the time) by a milkman amused by the omnipresence of Wayne’s Airdale Terrier, Duke.

Wayne attended the University of Southern California where he studied pre-law and played football for the Trojans before a broken collarbone from a bodysurfing accident ended his college athletic career. Losing his athletic scholarship forced Wayne to drop out of school.

He was first hired by the legendary Western director, John Ford, and silent Western star, Tom Mix. It was Mix who then introduced him to Wyatt Earp, who Wayne credited with his on-screen mannerisms.

Becoming the Duke: John Wayne’s Early Film Career

Wayne was hired as a favor to the equally legendary USC coach, Howard Jones, who later portrayed himself in Knute Rockne, All American, the famous Ronald Reagan film. Wayne soon graduated from an extra and prop boy to bigger parts – this began his life-long working relationship with director Ford. Director Raoul Walsh renamed Marion Robert Morrison “John Wayne,” though Wayne would keep his birth name for the rest of his life. Wayne was not present at the meeting where his stage name was crafted.

Continue reading

06/21/21

Outside View: Specter of Tuskegee Returns

By: Rand H. Fishbein, Ph.D. | CCNS

Editor’s Note: This article was originally published in 2005 by CCNS member, Rand H. Fishbein, Ph.D.

It has been more than 70 years since the U.S. Public Health Service began its study into the effects of syphilis on 399 human test subjects — all of them black, all of them poor and most of them illiterate. When the infamous Tuskegee experiments finally came to light in 1972, the public, at last, learned the horrible truth.

The men in the Tuskegee study were never told they had syphilis, nor were they told the real purpose behind their participation in the experiment. Worse, they were systematically denied treatments that would have eased their suffering. In the annals of U.S. medical history, the Tuskegee experiments have become synonymous with ethical misconduct at its worst. The federal government assured the public that malpractice of this sort would never happen again. Sadly, however, it has.

Beginning in 1997, a team of researchers from The Johns Hopkins University, generously sponsored by the National Institutes of Health, conducted a clinical trial of the drug nevirapine in Uganda. Known as HIVNET 012, the researchers sought to prove that the anti-retroviral drug was safe and effective in preventing the transmission of the deadly AIDS virus from pregnant mothers to their newborn babies. According to the NIH, approximately 800,000 children worldwide became infected with the human immunodeficiency virus — the organism that causes AIDS — through mother-to-child transmission in 2002.

In 1999, the researchers published their findings: One dose of the drug nevirapine, given to a mother shortly before delivery, and once to her newborn, significantly reduced the incidence of HIV transmission to the child. The World Health Organization affirmed its support of this simple and inexpensive regimen. The medical community quickly adopted nevirapine as the drug of choice for pregnant HIV-infected women in resource-poor countries.

Yet, as with the Tuskegee experiments, something went horribly wrong. In 2002, an audit of the HIVNET 012 trial raised questions about the validity of the study data. According to independent auditors, medical records of study participants could not support the published results, and numerous violations of the study protocol occurred without written explanation.

Continue reading

06/7/21

ATF Nominee And Waco Special Agent Chipman Lied In Pushing For Massacre

By: Daniel John Sobieski

No, that is not David Chipman standing in the ruins of the burnt-out Waco compound, site of the 1993 slaughter of members of the Branch Davidian religious group led by David Koresh. He was too busy back at the office helping to manufacture and disseminate lies about what went on at the compound to justify a brutal, murderous, and unnecessary assault.

The animus he exhibited in his tenure at ATF towards gun owners and gun rights, to the point of using violence as a gun-control tactic, reflects a view he holds today and shares with the likes of Biden “gun czar” Beto O’Rourke, and includes gun confiscation by armed agents of legally purchased guns owned by law-abiding citizens. His definition of an assault rifle is so broad as to include virtually all rifles owned by lawful gun owners.

He is no fan of the Second Amendment which was put in the Bill of Rights to protect the other nine; put there by Founding Fathers as an ultimate bulwark against tyrants and tyranny. It was written to protect individual gun ownership because the British were coming, not because deer were in season. It was written to prevent such tyranny as David Chipman envisions,

The Branch Davidians could be described as an earlier version of Obama’s despised “bitter clingers,” clinging to their guns and their interpretation of the Bible but basically just wanting to be left alone. You might call their compound an early “autonomous zone,” but not set up by the genuinely violent and dangerous Antifa and BLM protesters that looted, burned, and killed at will while law enforcement pursued the law-abiding gun owners of America. As it was, the Branch Davidians could have been dealt with non-violently. Chipman felt otherwise, making up false horror stories to justify a violent assault. As Tiana Lowe notes in the Washington Examiner:

Chipman was indeed a case agent in the Waco siege of the Branch Davidian compound. The incident was a massacre of civil liberties and the rule of law, in addition to the 82 lives, it ended unnecessarily. Rather than bring up credible sexual assault charges against cult leader David Koresh, who could easily have been arrested during his jogs around the compound and jaunts into town, the ATF staged a militarized and performative military action against American citizens.   

The Waco stunt, endorsed by the Clinton administration as a part of its crackdown against the Second Amendment, also found a quiet defender in then-Sen. Biden. Even after evidence emerged that the ATF had whipped up baseless charges about a meth lab in order to secure helicopters and charge firearms violations, Biden proved a partisan, opposing oversight hearings that were certain to damage the Clinton administration.

Continue reading

05/24/21

Nicaragua’s Battle against Communism

By: Terresa Monroe-Hamilton

For several decades now, Michael Johns and J. Michael Waller have ranked among the conservative movement’s most high-profile and influential foreign policy and national security experts, helping shape high-level American positions on some of the most complex and challenging threats confronting the United States both during and following the end of the Cold War.

Until recently, however, both Johns and Waller remained largely silent about their incredibly bold and intriguing experience as college students when, together, they were among only a very few Americans to visit the frontlines of Nicaragua’s civil war, where the Soviet Union, Cuba, and Nicaragua’s communist regime were facing growing military opposition from the U.S.-backed anti-communist resistance forces, known as the contras, in one of the Reagan Doctrine’s highest-profile and most consequential Cold War conflicts.

In January 1984, Johns, then a University of Miami student, and Waller, a George Washington University student, were granted access to the contras’ primary base camp on the frontlines of this now historic Cold War conflict.

Appearing on One America News (OAN) a few weeks ago, Johns and Waller both opened up to OAN prime time host Kara McKinney about the historic 1984 visit. The segment is hugely compelling and can be seen here in its entirety: “Contras in Nicaragua with J. Michael Waller and Michael Johns,” One America News, March 25, 2021.

Michael Johns on visiting the contras:

“We were intrigued by geopolitics, very committed to the Reagan vision of a strong America in the world and also anti-communism and sympathy and support for those who were rising up globally against it. That ultimately came to formulate what was known as the Reagan Doctrine, which was a centerpiece of American foreign policy from the mid-1980s until the end of the Cold War in 1991. The operating thesis—which was widely embraced by conservatives and Republicans and widely resisted by progressives at the time–was that the U.S. should be supporting those individuals who rise up against repressive communist regimes as part of our Cold War struggle…Nicaragua was the centerpiece to that. It was probably the most contentious and high profile of all those conflicts, and we had the opportunity to be one of the few Americans who got out into the base camps of the contras. We heard their stories individually and from a leadership standpoint, and we both went on to champion support for the contras and the broader Reagan Doctrine policy,” Johns said in the OAN segment.

Michael Waller on visiting the contras:

“We were supporting President Reagan. I was working here in Washington, D.C., and Mike was down at Miami. The left was very strong back then supporting the communists in Nicaragua and doing everything possible to prevent President Reagan from resisting them. The Soviet Union was expanding its presence around the world to choke us off, to cut off our supply lines, our sea lines of communication, and in our own hemisphere it had expanded its nuclear bomber base in Cuba, which it still uses today, flying its Tu-95 bombers off our Atlantic Coast, and its intelligence station there that the Chinese have now and supporting third world insurgencies; these were communist guerrilla and terrorist movements and subversive political movements that were working with them in an extremely well-run intelligence operation that was run by the Cubans under Soviet control. To get a Soviet foothold on the mainland of the Americas would be a mortal blow to our country…so supporting the Nicaraguan contras was key…,” Waller added in this OAN segment.

In the many years since their largely untold collegiate visit to this vital Cold War conflict, both Johns and Waller have gone on to prominent and influential roles in public policy, academia, government, and the private sector.

Biography: Michael Johns

As a foreign policy analyst at The Heritage Foundation, Johns led the foundation’s Reagan Doctrine initiatives and spent time on the frontlines of most of the world’s anti-communist resistance movements aided under the Reagan Doctrine. He returned to Central America in 1988 to assist contra military commander Enrique Bermudez in authoring his autobiographical essay, “The Contras’ Valley Forge: How I View the Nicaragua Crisis.” (Bermudez was later assassinated in February 1991 in Managua).

Johns also supported and visited Jonas Savimbi’s UNITA forces in Angola (Savimbi was killed in a firefight with Angola’s communist forces in 2002) and with the coalition forces in Cambodia that were engaged in opposing both Khmer Rouge forces and the Vietnamese-back government.

Johns went on to direct global programming at the International Republican Institute (IRI) and to serve as a senior aide to a Republican governor and senator, a White House presidential speechwriter, and one of the February 2009 co-founders and strategists in the immensely influential U.S. Tea Party movement, widely credited with the Republican victories in the U.S. House in 2010, the U.S. Senate in 2014, and in paving the way for former President Trump’s populist campaign victory in 2016. He has written for The Wall Street Journal, The Christian Science Monitor, National Review, and other global and national media.

Biography: J. Michael Waller

Waller is a senior analyst at the Center for Security Policy and a former professor and instructor at the Institute of World Politics, the Naval Postgraduate School, and the John F. Kennedy Special Warfare Center and School at Fort Bragg. He holds a Ph.D. in international security affairs from Boston University and has written for The Wall Street Journal, USA Today, The Los Angeles Times, and other global and national media.

05/22/21

How Totalitarianism Rhymes Throughout History: Czechoslovakia, China, & Venezuela

By: Sam Jacobs | Ammo.com

what is totalitarianism“It can’t happen here” is a political cliche in the United States. Regardless of your personal viewpoint, there is a vast swath of the American population who simply do not believe in the possibility of any kind of totalitarianism in the United States.

It’s worth noting that throughout history, in virtually every place that totalitarian regimes have arisen, the residents of these countries felt the same way. Russia was seen as too traditional and backward, the power of the Czar too entrenched to be defeated. Germany had been viewed throughout most of the modern period as the home of GoetheSchiller, and Mozart, a place where the local Jewish population had largely assimilated.

Because totalitarianism emerges differently throughout history in different countries, it’s crucial to take a broader view of how totalitarian regimes arise. For example, when we’re discussing the rise of communism or the rise of fascism, we see different trends in Russia than we do in China, different trends in Italy than we do in Germany. When we examine multiple, somewhat lesser-known examples of the rise of socialism throughout the world, we paint a picture of the different ways in which socialism originated and its possible resurgence.

This case study of terror analyses three examples of totalitarianism throughout history. In Czechoslovakia, the Communist Party was able to establish the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic by leveraging little more than a strong showing – but not a victory – in the parliamentary elections. During the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution of Communist China in the 1960s, Chairman Mao came out of relative isolation to radically remake an already communist country. Lastly, we will look right in America’s backyard at the rise of Hugo Chavez in Venezuela.

More than perhaps anywhere else, the rise of totalitarianism throughout the world is an excellent example of the quote often attributed to Mark Twain, “history doesn’t repeat itself, but it does rhyme.” If you are looking for a mechanical repeat of the past, you are looking in the wrong place. Our point is not to show you that the exact same things are currently happening here in the United States, but to highlight similarities.

The Czechoslovak Coup d’Etat of 1948

Czechoslovak flag

Standing on this side of history, it’s easy to take Soviet domination over Eastern Europe as a given. However, at no point during the early transition from Nazi domination to the post-war period was it a fait accompli that the formerly occupied nations of Eastern Europe wouldn’t go back to being free and independent nations. Czechoslovakia is perhaps one of the best examples we have of a country that was by no means “destined” to go communist.

Continue reading

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.

01/4/21

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].

12/12/20

A Republic If We Can Keep It

By: T.F. Stern | Self-Educated American

(Image of Ben Franklin courtesy of factfile.org)

This past month has been a roller coaster ride for anyone trying to figure out which candidate actually won the election. I was tempted to use the term ‘earned’ rather than won; but that would give away my feelings about cheaters, swindlers, liars, and the rest of the Democrat Party.

Ben Franklin has been quoted when asked if we had a monarchy or a republic, “A Republic if you can keep it.” He may or may not have actually said those words exactly as history has claimed. Rather than share without having done my homework, I looked it up. The first reference that came up on Google was from the Washington Post’s coverage of last year’s phony impeachment hearings, a treasonous coup attempt to remove President Donald Trump.

The inclusion of Ben Franklin’s quote in that particular article is… interesting, well, actually far beyond interesting; but I can’t print my actual thought as it violates decency in many ways.

There was a coup attempt, masquerading as an impeachment hearing by the Democrat Party to remove the sitting President of our Constitutional Republic and they’re quoting Ben Franklin… un-bye-god-believable!

I can say it was a phony impeachment hearing because evidence has since come to light; the entire investigation into Trump’s dealings with Russia was in fact a creation, a fabrication, or a scheme cooked up by Hillary Clinton to take her out of the spotlight for her illegal private server, a felony.

An article by Steve Nelson in the New York Post dated October 6, 2020, explained the timing. That story didn’t make the rounds of the major news networks, gee-whiz; is anyone surprised?

“Ratcliffe’s initial disclosure said that, according to Brennan’s notes, Clinton allegedly approved the scheme on July 26. The minor inaccuracy shortens the window of time between Clinton’s alleged approval of the plot and the FBI opening its investigation of possible Trump-Russia collusion on July 31, 2016.”

Amazingly, the FBI and DOJ didn’t see any wrongdoing and Hillary Clinton walked away, free to continue as if nothing ever happened. I haven’t done the research; but somewhere down the line, the folks who didn’t see anything wrong with Hillary Clinton’s criminal behavior must have ties to the deaf, dumb and blind Justices on our Supreme Court.

This past week the Supreme Court of the United States declined to hear a lawsuit contesting corrupt and fraudulent elections that affect all other states. Only two of the sitting Justices were willing to hear the evidence while the others did absolutely nothing to uphold the integrity of the election process which determines who will be President.

Saddened would be a mild description of how many American citizens feel at this time.

Here’s Allen West’s statement dated December 11, 2020, as Chairman of the Texas Republican Party’s official response:

“The Supreme Court, in tossing the Texas lawsuit that was joined by seventeen states and 106 US congressman, has decreed that a state can take unconstitutional actions and violate its own election law. Resulting in damaging effects on other states that abide by the law, while the guilty state suffers no consequences. This decision establishes a precedent that says states can violate the US constitution and not be held accountable. This decision will have far-reaching ramifications for the future of our constitutional republic. Perhaps law-abiding states should bond together and form a Union of states that will abide by the constitution.”

Where does that leave us?

Some have suggested forming a new nation, one that actually follows the Constitution while the remaining nation of criminals, liars, and thieves go on doing business as usual.  Perhaps that would work, but a nation divided cannot stand.

My thoughts turned to Captain Moroni, the last prophet in the Book of Mormon in charge of the sacred plates around 400 AD (you’ll notice I refuse to refer to it as CE for Common Era). He was instructed by the Lord to bury the sacred records in the Hill Cumorah near Palmyra, New York, so they could come forth in our day. Moroni witnessed the destruction of his people because of their iniquity and their refusal to repent, to follow the commandments, and come unto the Lord, Jesus Christ… and yet, he remained faithful, even joyful in his mortal life.

The honest hard-working individuals who try to do their best each day… have had the rug pulled out from under them, but will eventually understand what has happened. It is my hope we will endure in spite of the corruption that’s taken over, the attacks to destroy liberties that God has provided. Do we have the courage to be as Captain Moroni, to have hope, faith, and charity in spite of all that is going on around us? Ahhh, that’s a true test that we’ve been given.

With all that is happening, it makes me admire the wisdom of our founders, individuals like Ben Franklin who recognized the wondrous miracle of our newly formed Republic; that and his warning… if we can keep it.


t-f-stern-1Self-Educated American, Senior Edi­tor, T.F. Stern is both a retired City of Hous­ton police offi­cer and, most recently, a retired self-employed lock­smith (after serving that industry for 40 plus years). He is also a gifted polit­i­cal and social com­men­ta­tor. His pop­u­lar and insight­ful blog, T.F. Sterns Rant­i­ngs, has been up and at it since January of 2005.