Posted originally on The Conservative Tree house on December 28, 2020 by Sundance

63-year-old Anthony Quinn Warner has been identified by federal and state officials as the suspect who detonated a bomb in downtown Nashville on Christmas morning. The explosion took place when downtown streets were essentially empty of people and activity.

Prior to the blast there was a recorded announcement warning anyone nearby that a bomb would soon detonate. Then, for reasons that may never be known, the broadcast audio switched to a recording of Petula Clark’s 1964 hit “Downtown” shortly before the blast.

Officials now say Anthony Warner was killed in the blast. “We hope to get an answer. Sometimes, it’s just not possible,” David Rausch, the director of the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation, said Monday in an interview on NBC’s “Today” show. “The best way to find motive is to talk to the individual. We will not be able to do that in this case.”

Warner’s only arrest was for a 1978 marijuana-related charge.

According to the Daily Mail – “A Sunday report from the New York Times details preparations Warner made in the weeks prior to his suicide attack, including telling his ex-girlfriend that he had cancer and giving her his car.

On December 5, he also told a real estate agent that he worked for as a tech consultant that he planned to retire, according to the newspaper.

A month before the bombing, Warner gave away the $160,000 home he lived in to a woman in California whose link to him remains unclear, DailyMail.com first reported Saturday.

[…] Warner’s actions leading up to the bombing are now under scrutiny as investigators try to piece together his motive in the unusual attack.

The freelance IT consultant, whom neighbors described as an ‘oddball’, was ‘heavily into conspiracy theories’, a source close to the investigation told DailyMail.com.

Warner believed 5G cellular technology was killing people, and may have been spurred on in the conspiracy theory by the 2011 death of his father, who worked for telecom BellSouth, which later merged with AT&T. (read more)

Posted originally on The Conservative tree house on December 28, 2020 by Sundance

Amid our national discussion and evidence of wide-spread mail-in ballot vote fraud; and considering the January 6th role of the Senate to certify the 2020 presidential election; and considering a report from Director of National Intelligence, John Ratcliffe, is forthcoming with previous assertions of “foreign interference”; and considering five states are sending dual sets of electors; there has been some discussion about “The Guarantee Clause” within the constitution and how it might uniquely apply to 2020.

Here’s the discussion as best I can explain it:

[Article IV – Sec.4] The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

“The Guarantee Clause” – “At its core, the Guarantee Clause provides for majority rule. A republican government is one in which the people govern through elections. This is the constant refrain of the Federalist Papers. Alexander Hamilton, for example, put it this way in The Federalist No. 57: “The elective mode of obtaining rulers is the characteristic policy of republican government.” [citation]  “The Clause requires the United States to prevent any state from imposing rule by monarchy, dictatorship, aristocracy, or permanent military rule, even through majority vote. Instead, governing by electoral processes is constitutionally required.”

Additionally, The Electoral Count Act or the Electoral Count Act of 1887 is a US federal law stating procedures for the counting of electoral votes by Congress following a presidential election. It was enacted in the aftermath of the disputed 1876 presidential election between Rutherford B Hayes and Samuel J Tilden. In that election, several states submitted competing slates of electors and a divided Congress was unable to resolve the deadlock. [citation]

Essentially, the Electoral Count Act (1887) requires states to complete their certification of electors to congress by a certain date.  The conversation prior to the November 2020 election surrounded whether the COVID pandemic would interfere with the deadlines for state elector certification given the massive numbers of ‘mail-in’ ballots; and whether the counting of them would break through the deadlines imposed by the Act.

A combination of The Guarantee Clause (constitution) and the Electoral Count Act of 1887 (law), establishes the framework for some to argue a fraudulent 2020 election result can successfully be challenged during congressional certification on January 6, 2021.  Thus five state legislatures -under Republican control- have sent dual-sets of electors to congress: Arizona, Nevada, Wisconsin, Georgia and Pennsylvania.

Let us be clear… There is little framework for this type of constitutional issue. This is  uncharted territory, and consequently there is no body of law or case study upon which to apply a historic reference.   However, that said, the issue of Director of National Intelligence, John Ratcliffe, producing a report about foreign election interference could be a fulcrum issue upon which “The Guarantee Clause” of the constitution may apply.

Here’s where it gets interesting….  The Guarantee Clause puts the jurisdiction in the hands of the political bodies, executive branch and legislative branch, to decide the merit of any state vulnerability in their election outcome.   There is little, if any, place for the judicial branch to play a role.

In Luther v. Borden (1849), the Supreme Court held questions involving the Guarantee Clause nonjusticiable, meaning that any remedy for a violation would lie with Congress or the President, not the federal judiciary. Nearly one hundred years later, the Court sweepingly declared that the guarantee of a republican form of government cannot be challenged in court. Colegrove v. Green (1946). (citation)

The federal government, not the state government, ultimately holds the responsibility to protect the entire United States from foreign interference within the Guarantee Clause. This would seem to apply to foreign election interference.  “[B]ecause protection against invasion or domestic violence is normally available only from Congress and the President, the structure of this section suggests that the political branches have at least the primary duty to carry out its obligations.”

If DNI Ratcliffe produces a report (prior to January 6th) that outlines foreign interference in the election; and if the argument can be made the states with the contested (dual sets) of electors were subjects/targets of that interference; then a foundation to nullify the electors from the contested states is laid in congress.

In this approach the electoral nullification argument would appear to rest on The Guarantee Clause; where the state election outcome was not valid – as it is not representative of a republican form of government, and the majority vote requirement was manipulated.

If this type of legislative challenge was to take place, there is little precedent for the judicial branch to be involved except to qualify what role The Guarantee Clause would/could play and to what extent the nullification arguments are constitutionally valid.

Again, this is all uncharted territory.  However, there are people claiming this process could work to keep President Trump in office.   The disqualification of the contested state electors under this argument would ultimately fall upon Vice President Mike Pence who is also President of the Senate and in charge of the January 6th electoral vote certification.

There is a lot of “if-this-then” etc within this framework, and all of it ultimately is predicated on congress challenging the election (still unknown); and VP Mike Pence then deciding which electors would be certified or nullified (long-shot); but that seems to be the argument some are making.

I wonder why DNI John Ratcliffe is taking so long to produce his report?

Last thought… I have absolutely no idea if this can work, I am just summarizing a set of theoretical arguments that appear to be surfacing.  Remember, we all want the best outcome for our nation and nerves are frayed…. let us be kind to each-other in fellowship.

“One nation, under GOD“…

.

RePosted from GrrrGraphics.com DEC 27, 2020 AT 11:27 AM High Noon

I was very disappointed when Jeff Sessions recused himself, so naturally I was happy when Bill Barr replaced him as Attorney General.  John Durham was then appointed as special counsel. I expected to see some long-awaited justice meted out against those who attempted a coup against our lawfully-elected president.

I even penned a cartoon showing “Bull Durham” collaring all the evil-doers and they were all lined up and hanging on his long horns of justice.

It never happened. Barr and Durham cornered a low-level FBI man for doctoring an email. That was it. Brennan, Comey, Hillary, Obama, Clapper, Schiff, and many others skated. We now know that Barr was most likely protecting his Deep State colleagues. After all, he was a Bush man and a member of the Swamp. He underlined that fact when he refused to go after Hunter Biden. He knew about the laptop well in advance of the election. He did nothing.

Many of us were expecting a ‘High Noon” showdown. We instead got a letdown. Barr did not take action. Instead, he dragged his feet and ran out the clock before riding out early into the sunset.

What a sorry show.

—Ben Garrison

Re-Posted from the Canada Free Press By News on the Net —— Bio and Archives—December 27, 2020

The Battle of Athens was an armed rebellion led by WWII veterans and citizens in Athens and Etowah, Tennessee, United States, against the tyrannical local government in August 1946.

There is nothing new about corruption in the Government!

Posted on December 27, 2020 by Sundance

Sunday night President Trump signs HR 133 the $900 billion COVID-19 relief bill and Omnibus spending bill to fund government through September 2021.

According to released press reports, President Trump is signing the bill with rescission requests demanding that portions of the bill be struck from final implementation by the Senate. The President is redlining the bill and providing line-by-line instructions to congress on the provisions within the bill that need to be modified and removed.

The signing of the bill carries a statement from President Trump: ““As President, I have told Congress that I want far less wasteful spending and more money going to the American people in the form of $2,000 checks per adult and $600 per child.”

The statement continues: “The senate will start the process for a vote that will increase checks to $2,000, repeals Section 230, and starts and investigation into voter fraud.”

Will the House and Senate support the rescission requests? 

You decide….

The bill, containing all the pork, already carried a large veto-proof majority by those in the House and Senate who loaded it up with their special interest spending.  I doubt a veto-proof bill will be modified by congress.

However, that veto-proof majority also made any veto effort by President Trump moot… so, considering the structure, the best he could do would be to take the rescission route and make the request.