House representatives Jim Jordan and Mo Brooks appear on Sunday Morning Futures with Maria Bartiromo to discuss the House challenge to the certification of electors. Within the interview Ms. Bartiromo asks Rep. Brooks to give examples of known ballot fraud and Mr. Brooks walks through known ballot fraud in three states.
The House effort is to challenge the 2020 election ballot issues in key states, and draw attention to the county election offices who violated their own legislative houses.
Representative Mo Brooks transmits a clarion call to ALL AMERICANS for support and reminds everyone to contact their representatives and demand action to deal with this fraud:
…”How it plays out, quite frankly, is dependent on the American people … to the extent they contact their Senators and Congressman and demand honest and accurate elections, then we are going to win this fight on January 6th. But if the American people do not rise up; if they don’t contact their senators; if they do not contact their congressman; demanding that their congressmen and senators do the right thing for our republic, then we are not going to win on January 6th”…
Senator Ted Cruz appears on Sunday morning to discuss the process of challenging the electoral college certification with Maria Bartiromo (CFR). Senator Cruz (TX) discusses his recent decision to assemble with several GOP Senators after Senator Josh Hawley (MO) announced his intent to challenge the certification.
Within the interview Senator Cruz notes the Supreme Court has deferred any election challenge to the legislative branch; which -in his view- should have been permitted to be argued in the court.
However, setting aside political motives for a moment, the two legal and legislative issues discussed within the conversation (Guarantee Clause and Electoral Count Act) highlight a constitutional framework that does sit outside the judicial branch for resolution.
The main question is… does the legislative branch still have enough strength within the institution to follow the constitutional process? THAT is the element where the unknowns exist.
On one-hand we see a corrupted DC body, infecting all institutional processes – across all branches of government, that has allowed severe corruption to take hold. On the other hand, thanks to the foresight of our founding fathers, the process for rectifying that corruption still exists.
[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; and VP Mike Pence then deciding which electors would be certified or nullified; that seems to be the main argument.
Support for this approach would be enhanced if the Ratcliffe report was published prior to the January 6th assembly. Which begs the question: why is DNI John Ratcliffe 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 have surfaced. Remember, we all want the best outcome for our nation and nerves are frayed…. let us be kind to each-other in fellowship.
QUESTION: You never said that the Republicans would split only the Democrats. Has something changed?
SD
ANSWER: No. The Democratic split is different. That is a party of highly diverse beliefs. You have the middle-of-the-road Democrats who want Pelosi gone. She represents to them the radical California contingent – as the call it. There are members in the Democratic Party who would toast if California split and say good riddance. There is the Communist contingent intermixed with the Socialists hiding within the Democrats. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is a member of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) which is a socialist and labor-oriented party with a diverse range of ideas but it is the Socialist Party of America (SPA) renamed and incorporated in the Democrats much like the Tea Party was inside the Republicans. Then you have various ethnic groups, women’s groups, and the LGBT or GLBT which stands for the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender groups. All of these groups share only a common bond of hating Republicans. Beyond that, they disagree on just about everything else from the environment to taxation.
In the case of the Republicans, there are really the elements of the Tea Party which are anti-corruption/establishment and the core of the GOP being the traditional country-club establishment. There are not so many diverse groups as there are in the Democrats. We are not looking at the Republicans “splitting” as is the case in the Democrats.
What the Republicans fail to recognize is that Trump has even beaten Obama as the most admired president in the Gallup Polls. He expanded the party and they got the largest share of black and Hispanic votes in history. Trump did more for the middle class and the working man than any other president. He expanded the economy and black unemployment reached its lowest in history.
“Trumpism”, if you want to call it that, did not begin with Trump. It really began with the Tea Party most recently which forced Speaker John Boehner out because he could not deliver the Republican vote. This “Trumpism” will not end with being driven out of office. This has been a major coup but by the Democrats, Republicans, and the Deep State. They all wanted a non-politician out. I wrote back in 2017: “There is a very REAL plot to overthrow Trump led by the political establishment and aided by the mainstream press.” All I heard from my sources was that they thought Trump won because the media focused on him ignoring all other Republicans in an attempt to pave the way for Hillary. They never expected Trump to win and that set in motion the media hatred of Trump for they believe he was their mistake – CNN especially. Right now, not even Fox News supports Trump. They too are making a very serious mistake. Go back to 2017 and you will find Lindsey Grahm smashing his phone and disliked Trump immensely. Then he started to warm up to Trump.
This “Trumpism” is not entirely confined to the Republican Party. It offers something of tremendous value to the growing level of discontent that the Democrats and world leaders look down on as “populism”. The lesson Republicans have failed to grasp is that the people did not vote for Trump because he is such a tremendous guy. They voted for Trump in 2016 because they hated everyone else in Washington. Both the Democrats and Republicans are fools. They think getting rid of Trump will get everything back to normal – I won’t tell on you and you don’t tell on me, and we all get rich!
But Trump had tremendous support outside the USA for the very same reason. They saw him as standing against their own corrupt governments. It is an anti-establishment sentiment and Trump just happened to be at the right place at the right time. The political class, worldwide, saw Trump as a threat and recognized that “populism” was growing and how to stop it was debated at the World Econo0mic Forum with the result to end voting because the people are too stupid.
The overthrow of Trump will only solidify that “Trumpism” which is growing within the nation and the world. The appeal of socialism always presented by Democrats, liberals, progressives, is far less than the view that Washington is just too corrupt. The Gallup Poll of 2 years ago had Congress still above car salesmen. In the new December 17, 2020 poll, Congress is now officially the worst career in ethics and trustworthiness. They defeated Trump with corruption, but they confirmed they are the worst people on the planet. I reported back in 2019 that 35% of Americans believe the government is the problem according to a Gallup Poll. What they have done to Trump and as soon as the people realize that what the Democrats will do is nothing that they promised, this number will test the 50% level.
One of the reasons the conservative Democrats want Pelosi gone is they view that she had disgraced the nation when she tore up Trump’s State of the Union speech. Even the Gallup Poll shows that the respect for those in the House is the lowest.l Senators are more respected than a Congressman.
The Democrats succeeded in getting votes not for a policy, but by getting people to hate Trump as a person. It may have been a brilliant strategy, but they did not attack the reason people voted for Trump from the start. Trumpism is a philosophy that is not really nationalism, but America first. It is something more like a group that sees themselves as disenfranchised for they are not the influential rich bankers nor the left-wing socialists who expect the government to take care of them like Santa Claus. They are the silent majority that politicians have lied to and look down upon for a very long time.
What the Republicans fail to recognize is that Trump has even beaten Obama as the most admired president in the Gallup Polls. He expanded the party and they got the largest share of black and Hispanic votes in history. Trump did more for the middle class and the working man than any other president. He expanded the economy and black unemployment reached its lowest in history.
“Trumpism”, if you want to call it that, did not begin with Trump. It really began with the Tea Party most recently which forced Speaker John Boehner out because he could not deliver the Republican vote. This “Trumpism” will not end with being driven out of office. This has been a major coup but by the Democrats, Republicans, and the Deep State. They all wanted a non-politician out. I wrote back in 2017: “There is a very REAL plot to overthrow Trump led by the political establishment and aided by the mainstream press.” All I heard from my sources was that they thought Trump won because the media focused on him ignoring all other Republicans in an attempt to pave the way for Hillary. They never expected Trump to win and that set in motion the media hatred of Trump for they believe he was their mistake – CNN especially. Right now, not even Fox News supports Trump. They too are making a very serious mistake. Go back to 2017 and you will find Lindsey Grahm smashing his phone and disliked Trump immensely. Then he started to warm up to Trump.
This “Trumpism” is not entirely confined to the Republican Party. It offers something of tremendous value to the growing level of discontent that the Democrats and world leaders look down on as “populism”. The lesson Republicans have failed to grasp is that the people did not vote for Trump because he is such a tremendous guy. They voted for Trump in 2016 because they hated everyone else in Washington. Both the Democrats and Republicans are fools. They think getting rid of Trump will get everything back to normal – I won’t tell on you and you don’t tell on me, and we all get rich!
But Trump had tremendous support outside the USA for the very same reason. They saw him as standing against their own corrupt governments. It is an anti-establishment sentiment and Trump just happened to be at the right place at the right time. The political class, worldwide, saw Trump as a threat and recognized that “populism” was growing and how to stop it was debated at the World Econo0mic Forum with the result to end voting because the people are too stupid.
The overthrow of Trump will only solidify that “Trumpism” which is growing within the nation and the world. The appeal of socialism always presented by Democrats, liberals, progressives, is far less than the view that Washington is just too corrupt. The Gallup Poll of 2 years ago had Congress still above car salesmen. In the new December 17, 2020 poll, Congress is now officially the worst career in ethics and trustworthiness. They defeated Trump with corruption, but they confirmed they are the worst people on the planet. I reported back in 2019 that 35% of Americans believe the government is the problem according to a Gallup Poll. What they have done to Trump and as soon as the people realize that what the Democrats will do is nothing that they promised, this number will test the 50% level.
One of the reasons the conservative Democrats want Pelosi gone is they view that she had disgraced the nation when she tore up Trump’s State of the Union speech. Even the Gallup Poll shows that the respect for those in the House is the lowest.l Senators are more respected than a Congressman.
The Democrats succeeded in getting votes not for a policy, but by getting people to hate Trump as a person. It may have been a brilliant strategy, but they did not attack the reason people voted for Trump from the start. Trumpism is a philosophy that is not really nationalism, but America first. It is something more like a group that sees themselves as disenfranchised for they are not the influential rich bankers nor the left-wing socialists who expect the government to take care of them like Santa Claus. They are the silent majority that politicians have lied to and look down upon for a very long time.
Trumpism is not really new. It has been a growing philosophy of distrust and discontent which over the course of years has manifested a bipartisan populist undercurrent that stretches back through Pat Buchanan, Ross Perot, Barry Goldwater, George Wallace, Huey Long, William Jennings Bryan, and even Andrew Jackson – the people against the establishment. The London FT did a piece on “populism” and how all the politicians were frightened that they could be thrown out after Trump won in 2016. As the FT said, populism “horrified” the global political elite because they feared losing power! They hate democracy for why should these uneducated stupid people be able to vote them out of office – God forbid!Video Player00:0000:57
John Kerry has come out against “populism” which is Trumpism. Kerry is 100% on board with DAVOS and Agenda 2030. They think they defeated Trump, and they will steer the Great Unwashed morons (us) to the promised land where they eliminate the right to vote so never again do they have to risk their careers with a non-politician in charge.
There are rumblings that among this despised group of populists who were stupid enough to vote for Trump, are the overwhelming truckers who the Democrats hate because they contribute to Global Warming driving their trucks around instead of delivering things on bicycles or by horse and buggy. The truckers are very pissed off on all levels and they deeply resent Washington and the endless corruption. The talk is that they are considering a strike for a month or so which will bring all food deliveries to a halt and most other things right down to new cars. The image of truckers among the Democrats is dirty, disgusting, uneducated, racist good old boys.
A Biden victory may end up as a Pyrrhic Victory. They may stall his Agenda 2030 being put in place by John Kerry probably to his own dismay. Their idea of ending fossil fuels and meat production is just off the wall. The radical left sees it as their object to force the rest of society to comply with their demands. This is so against the idea of a free democratic society it will only provoke internal war.
They are already surrounding Biden with people are for the swamp as usual. And as for the claims that Trump pardon criminals, let us put that record straight. Those people were prosecuted ONLY because they supported Trump. McCain, Hillary, and Biden all took money from foreign governments, and never is anyone prosecuted. They were all political prosecutions under selective prosecution which is part of the entire corruption game.
The Republican Party will not “split” apart like the Democrats. The factions are just black and white as opposed to the multicolored Democrats of many factions. But the populist element which once supported the Republicans will move to a new 3rd Party. In this, we will see even conservative Democrats join its ranks. What both parties forget is that “populism” is We the People – not the aristocratic political class.
John Kerry has come out against “populism” which is Trumpism. Kerry is 100% on board with DAVOS and Agenda 2030. They think they defeated Trump, and they will steer the Great Unwashed morons (us) to the promised land where they eliminate the right to vote so never again do they have to risk their careers with a non-politician in charge.
There are rumblings that among this despised group of populists who were stupid enough to vote for Trump, are the overwhelming truckers who the Democrats hate because they contribute to Global Warming driving their trucks around instead of delivering things on bicycles or by horse and buggy. The truckers are very pissed off on all levels and they deeply resent Washington and the endless corruption. The talk is that they are considering a strike for a month or so which will bring all food deliveries to a halt and most other things right down to new cars. The image of truckers among the Democrats is dirty, disgusting, uneducated, racist good old boys.
A Biden victory may end up as a Pyrrhic Victory. They may stall his Agenda 2030 being put in place by John Kerry probably to his own dismay. Their idea of ending fossil fuels and meat production is just off the wall. The radical left sees it as their object to force the rest of society to comply with their demands. This is so against the idea of a free democratic society it will only provoke internal war.
They are already surrounding Biden with people are for the swamp as usual. And as for the claims that Trump pardon criminals, let us put that record straight. Those people were prosecuted ONLY because they supported Trump. McCain, Hillary, and Biden all took money from foreign governments, and never is anyone prosecuted. They were all political prosecutions under selective prosecution which is part of the entire corruption game.
The Republican Party will not “split” apart like the Democrats. The factions are just black and white as opposed to the multicolored Democrats of many factions. But the populist element which once supported the Republicans will move to a new 3rd Party. In this, we will see even conservative Democrats join its ranks. What both parties forget is that “populism” is We the People – not the aristocratic political class.
QUESTION: You are not optimistic that Pence will defend Trump and the country?
DK
ANSWER: No. Pence was a member of Congress. Trump’s fatal flaw was that he accepted people from the establishment because he was told they knew all the details as to how the government ran. Every single one stabbed Trump in the back. I do not expect Pence will defend the country. I hope I am wrong.
Mayor Ted Wheeler has allowed wholesale anarchy to run amok in the streets of Portland, Oregon, while using the attempts by President Trump to stop the violence as an excuse to call Trump an authoritarian dictator.
However, with the possibility of a change in administration it is no longer in the interests of the totalitarian state for random acts of violence to be associated with the severe-leftist cause. As a result, Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler now says Antifa violence cannot be tolerated any longer. WATCH:
As Mamet said: “in order for the far-left to advance their ideology they must pretend not to know things”… As soon as their ability to deflect the pretense ends, they shift strategies and then deny they ever supported them in the first place.
All of that said, we know the real reason why Portland is changing direction.
U.S. Senator Ted Cruz has one of those rare opportunities to redeem his entire political career by supporting President Trump on January 6, 2021. This is a rare second-chance; let us hope Ted Cruz has the grace, humility and strength to see it.
The collapse was so catastrophic when Cruz attempted to return to the convention donor suite in the Cleveland auditorium he was kicked out by Cruz’s main financial backers, Robert and Rebekah Mercer. Senator Cruz never recovered.
Two years later, having lost the base of support from a MAGA community that did not forget, Senator Ted Cruz was on his back facing a Senate challenge from democrat Beto O’Rourke and he needed President Trump to rally in Texas on his behalf. Trump came to Texas in 2018 and lifted Cruz to a narrow victory.
Two years later, with the electoral challenge now established for January 6, Ted Cruz has the rare opportunity, a second-chance, to elevate himself back to a political position of influence… While we await the outcome, here is the 2016 reminder.
Before Ted Cruz walked onto the 2016 convention stage in Cleveland, Donald Trump had a very good idea what was about to happen. Without pre-planning, or staged set-ups, Trump knew what to expect because Donald Trump has an exceptional political sense; he knows how to read his adversaries.
Throughout his life, Ted Cruz has exhibited a character of division; entirely tone-deaf to the people he encounters and leaves in his wake. Those who knew Cruz in grade school and college have talked about how Cruz’s abrasive personality made him a lonely person despite his intellect.
Toxic abrasiveness is the same reason why President George W Bush would not elevate Ted Cruz in the White House 2001-2005. Attorney Cruz was 30-years-old and arrogantly thought he should have been a candidate for Attorney General; unfortunately, no-one else did.
Years later it was toxic abrasiveness that drove candidate Ted Cruz to run for Senate in 2011 – to show those same political voices he carried a stronger political tool box than he was ever given credit for.
That same toxic abrasiveness in 2013 is what created a lonely, divisive and ineffective Senator -with zero legislative accomplishment- who announced a presidential bid only 2 years after election to the Senate. And it’s that same personality issue that creates a need for a disguise to be successful.
Apologies to baseball fans, but Ted Cruz is the political equivalent of Ty Cobb. Despite skills, no teammate could get along with either S.O.B.
Donald Trump can sense these things the way most of us can sense the same given enough time around similar characters. As a consequence when Trump invited Ted Cruz to speak at the RNC Convention, he knew what was most likely going to happen. After all, it was entirely predictable.
The only risk to Donald Trump was if Cruz broke character and came to Cleveland to deliver a unity speech. That would have elevated Cruz. However, by mid-afternoon yesterday any doubts about what direction Cruz was going to take were easily dispatched by looking at his actual engagements.
Senator Ted Cruz returned to the national political scene exactly where he left off after losing Indiana. A review of Cruz twitter feed merely confirmed the same cast of characters, the same tone, the same delivery and the same predictable approach heading into the evening.
The only thing that remained last night was for Trump to see how far Cruz was willing to expose himself, to display his toxic abrasiveness on a national stage.
One can only imagine candidate Trump standing out of sight at the back of the auditorium listening to the delivery. Trump listening as Cruz began to describe how divided we are as a nation. Listening to Cruz explain how the values of each state have no commonality.
Yep, exactly as anticipated – After the proselytizing introduction about the police officer’s families killed in Dallas and Baton Rouge, Senator Ted Cruz was delivering a self-absorbed disunity speech at a Republican National Convention and referencing his own campaign: “our campaign”.
The building division was only moderately interrupted when Cruz looked directly into the 12 o’clock camera nineteen minutes later and said:
[19:00] …”and to those listening, please, don’t stay home in November”…
APPLAUSE (audience thinks he’s messaging the #NeverTrumpers to not sit out) – But, wait for it….
APPLAUSE CONTINUES (audience still thinking he’s messaging the #NeverTrump)… But, wait for it…..
Boom, there it is:
….”if you love our country, and you love our children as much as I know that you do, stand and speak and vote your conscience – vote for candidates up and down the ticket, who you trust to defend our freedom and to defend the constitution”….
Wait, wut?
The divisive, too-cute-by-half “vote your conscience, up and down the ticket” commentary came out exactly as Trump thought it would three weeks earlier when he offered the speaking engagement.
That’s the moment toxic Cruz lost the audience, and abrasive Ted self-detonated.
The audience chants: “we want Trump, we want Trump, we want Trump”!
But it wasn’t until Cruz gave the snarky response..:
“I appreciate the enthusiasm of the New York delegation”
..that visible loud BOOS commenced.
And they grew louder, and louder, and louder. As the entire audience began to recognize the arrogance of slighting the home-team delegation for the Republican Nominee for President, at his own convention.
From that moment, Cruz lost the entire convention floor. Chaos began as the pontificating abrasiveness continued with few paying attention to the speaker’s remarks.
It was the snarky slight to the New York delegation that affirmed everything Trump thought would possibly happen.
It was also the arrogant poke in the eye to the audience that finally brought Spartacus Trump into visibility within the auditorium as the audience shouted “Endorse Trump”.
Toxic Ted Cruz left the stage amid a thunderous chorus of boos, having diminished himself spectacularly on the grandest political stage of them all.
The entire audience, and millions of people around the world saw first hand the toxic and abrasive nature that is Ted Cruz unmasked. WATCH – Prompted
The rest, as they say, IS HISTORY.
Only Cruz sycophants were left believing Ted Cruz had any political viability left at all.
Much like the White House in 2001, the republican base won’t forget the sheer audacity and arrogance. Worse yet, donors could never trust a candidate willing to expose his own conceited nature on such a large scale.
Senator Ted Cruz ended his political career the same way he came into it, all alone.
Before going deep into the motives surrounding this announcement from Senator Ted Cruz, let’s first just focus on the statement.
Senator Ted Cruz (R-Tx) now leads a group of republican senators in an effort to support the January 6th challenge to the electoral college certification in the senate. The senate republicans include: Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), James Lankford (R-Okla.), Steve Daines (R-Mont.), John Kennedy (R-La.), Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), and Mike Braun (R-Ind.), as well as Sens.-elect Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyo.), Roger Marshall (R-Kan.), Bill Hagerty (R-Tenn.) and Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.).
The group is proposing that “[c]ongress should immediately appoint an Electoral Commission, with full investigatory and fact-finding authority, to conduct an emergency 10-day audit of the election returns in the disputed states. Once completed, individual states would evaluate the Commission’s findings and could convene a special legislative session to certify a change in their vote, if needed.”
The group noted a similar commission – made of five representatives, five senators and five Supreme Court justices – reviewed allegations of fraud in the 1876 election.
The statement continues, “[a]ccordingly, we intend to vote on Jan. 6 to reject the electors from disputed states as not ‘regularly given’ and ‘lawfully certified’ (the statutory requisite), unless and until that emergency 10-day audit is completed.” (full statement)
The approach is in general alignment with a request to congress made by President Donald Trump and weakly, politically, initiated by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. However, it is worth noting the change in position amid the GOP(e) only comes after Senator Josh Hawley formerly announced he would challenge the certification; and, as a consequence, there is going to be a recorded roll-call vote in the Senate.
Let us not be obtuse in our honest discussion of what the actual background of these participants -and their connection to the developments- actually means.
As a result of Senator Hawley the republican senate is in an uncomfortable position. None of the aforementioned senators would participate in an electoral challenge without the authorization of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, the ultimate DeceptiCon.
McConnell knows that Hawley’s action is going to initiate a roll-call vote. In order for McConnell to survive the backlash of We The People showing up en masse at the same time as the Senate certification is taking place, Mitch is positioning his upper chamber to give the impression of support. The action by Ted Cruz et al is politically motivated; consider it bandwaggoning as an outcome of what Hawley is forcing upon the chamber.
If Hawley never announced his intent, this effort by Ted Cruz et al would never have been initiated. However, that said, once you accept the politics and motives involved – it becomes possible to use the DeceptiCon weakness, strategically, against them.
The upper-chamber wants to give the illusion of support to the massive MAGA audience. This means We The People who support President Donald J Trump can now define the rules of that support…. this is the power we rarely exhibit because we -mistakenly- accept their false-face and give them benefit-of-doubt. Do not do this again, not now.
Accept the GOPe are doing an exercise in-name-only and push them into proving they are genuine in their demands. Send emails, call your senators, and give support to those who are positioned to raise objection, while demanding the constitutional fulfillment of those expectations (promises) regardless of support from the Democrat wing of the UniParty bird. DO NOT let them deflect inaction to parliamentary processes.
♦Second, call and email the Senators who are not listed in the Cruz contingent, but would normally say they support President Trump. Where is Tim Scott, Marco Rubio, Rick Scott, Chuck Grassley, Thom Tillis etc. Why are they not supporting the effort? These are the direct questions and demands that must be made.
♦Third, we already know the Mitch McConnell, John Barrasso, Jodi Earnest and John Thune leadership group will not publicly support this effort…. However, the remaining DeceptiCons must be forced on the record. Where is Mitt Romney, Ben Sasse, Lisa Murkowski, John Cornyn, etc etc.? Force Mitch McConnell’s DeceptiCon coalition to take a position; DEMAND IT.
♦Fourth, GEORGIA MAGA VOTERS need to get out and support the republican special election. I know it sucks to vote for the lesser of two-evils, but right now strategy demands we align all effort in the best possible way for success. WE NEED the victory on January 5th in order to fuel momentum for the electoral challenge on January 6th.
We accept the spineless nature of the GOPe senate. If you think they are spineless now, think about how feeble their effort will be on January 6th if they know in advance they will be in the minority.
Think strategically. Leader McConnell would not be adverse to a minority position, do not give it to him (them). Force them to take action by forcing them to actually deliver on what ‘they claim’ publicly to want….
…Use the public face of the republican apparatus, despite it being false, against them, to achieve a strategic objective….
…Read that again slowly if needed.
Learn from the mistakes of the past….
Take your @SenTedCruz apologist, Heritage Foundation bullsh!t the hell out of my timeline and go sell your DeceptiCon crazy somewhere else now. We're full-up with a decade plus of evidence. It's 2021, WE The People are immune to that CPAC battered conservative nonsense. https://t.co/M6tXrIh9MI
Many people are praying that Vice President Mike Pence will reject the count from the disputed states for it is his plenary duty to accept or reject those votes. The 1800 and 1824 elections were contingent elections in Congress after no candidate won a majority of electoral college votes, and a special 15-person commission decided the disputed 1876 election. (In 1837, the Senate also decided a vice presidential race in a contingent election.). Most recently, it was the Supreme Court ruling in Bush v Gore in 2000 that settled a controversy over an automatic recount in Florida that gave George Bush a majority of votes heading into the Electoral College proceedings that December. We have clearly a dispute forming in the Congress on 7 states. Pennsylvania is urging McConnel to object. Sidney Powell is urging every Republican to object which will not happen. Meanwhile, Georgia swears the conspiracy claims are unfounded. Nevertheless, reliable sources say there was a meeting at the White House to discuss what to do on January 6th between Trump, Pence, and conservative Republicans from the hill.
There is talk that there is a conflict between the 12th Amendment and the 1887 Statute on counting electoral votes. Neither of these sources takes into account the scenario of disputed electors at a state level. Moreover, there were disagreements about even how the dispute would be settled within Congress. During the 1876 election, the threat of violence existed as it does today. Congress passed the Electoral Commission Act in January 1877 to establish a special commission of 15 people to decide the election, with five members of the Senate, the House, and the Supreme Court on the panel.Back then, the commission awarded all 20 disputed electoral votes to Hayes who thereby won the general election by one electoral vote just one day before he took his oath of office. In 1887, Congress then passed the Electoral Count Act to deal with a future scenario of a rival or contested electoral votes presented at the joint session of Congress required under the 12th Amendment to certify election results.
The previously obscure Electoral Count Act of 1887 could be a factor under certain conditions in the 2020 election. The contested sets of electors sent to Congress in 7 states is the issue. There is little question that there are inadequacies within the Electoral Count Act in the event that a disputed presidential election reaches the joint session of Congress as required by the 12th Amendment for the receiving and counting of Electoral College votes from the states. The statute is vague and this ambiguity only makes the issue worse.
The Constitution instructs that the state legal system has the power granted by Article 2, Section 1 to decide its electors. This is really a problem because each state then has different rules. Two states allocate votes per candidate while the other created a winner take all. This really is unacceptable under the Equal Protection Clause for it is a violation of an individual’s civil rights if the election is a fraud. For example, California could create a law that allows the governor to pick the electors and certify the loser. Lacking any consistent rules nationally for a federal election only creates ambiguity and certainly not a uniform election.
In a 2016 analysis of presidential election disputes, the Congressional Research Service said that “under the United States Constitution, these elections for presidential electors are administered and regulated in the first instance by the states, and state laws have established the procedures for ballot security, tallying the votes, challenging the vote count, recounts, and election contests within their respective jurisdictions.”
Then if we look at the safe harbor provision under federal law (3 U.S. Code § 5), a state must determine its electors six days before the Electoral College members meet in person. In 2020, that deadline was December 8. Back in 2000, a deeply divided Supreme Court, in a 5-4 vote, wouldn’t allow an extension of the safe harbor deadline proposed by Justice Stephen Breyer in the specific case of Florida’s recount. It is debatable if under the hostile Chief Justice Roberts, that he would allow any review of a challenge from Trump after his questionable treatment of the Texas case.
Federal statutes also require that the states must deliver certified electoral college results to the vice president, serving as President of the Senate (Pence), and other parties by the fourth Wednesday in December which was December 23. The first issue of Newsweek in February 17, 1933, showed a photo of the Electoral College vote count in Congress. If the certificates and documents are not received, the Vice President requests the results shall be sent to Congress by registered mail or messenger. The joint session of Congress required by the 12th Amendment to count the electoral votes and declare the winners of the presidential election is held on January 6, 2021. That is when the Electoral Count Act becomes a factor. When the results from each state are announced, a member of the House and Senate can jointly object. The House and Senate then adjourn for 2 hours to consider the objection. If both bodies agree to uphold the objection, the votes are excluded from the election results under the terms of the Electoral Count Act.
If there is a second slate of electors named by its legislature or a state’s governor refuses to sign the state’s election certificate in a dispute over ballot counting, then procedures for handling a disputed presidential election that reaches Congress seriously deficient. The Electoral Count Act of 1887 ambiguous which leads to conflicting interpretations within Congress which will no doubt be partisan. Clearly, there are parts of the Electoral Count Act of 1887 that are unconstitutional and there could a role for the Supreme Court to settle these disputes before January 20, 2021. The Constitution’s 20th Amendment requires the new President to take the oath of office. If that cannot be accomplished, then the Speak of the House becomes President until it is resolved.
There is even precedent for counting a completely bogus certificate from a state. In 1889, at the first electoral count after the Electoral Count Act’s enactment, the Senate President presented the second set of returns from Oregon that, apparently was a practical joke. It had been sent in by Samuel MacDowell, claiming to be Oregon’s “Governor de jure.” The Senate President then asked for unanimous consent to count the Oregon return that had a certificate from the person recognized as Oregon’s governor. Congress knew Oregon’s governor in 1889 was Sylvester Pennoyer.
In 1797, Vice President John Adams presented Vermont’s electoral votes even though they were highly suspect much like today. Vermont’s four electoral votes were necessary for Adams to have been elected President. Their defect was that the Vermont legislature had appointed the electors without previously enacting a law authorizing themselves to do it. Since the Vermont return was formally correct, the issue was not whether the votes should have been presented, but whether they should have been counted. They were, nonetheless, critical to Adams who accepted them thereby giving himself the Presidency.
Many are looking to the 1800 election when the electoral ballots were opened and counted on February 11, 1801. There too the certificate of election from Georgia was defective. While it was clear that the electors had cast their votes for Jefferson and Burr, the certificate did not comply with the constitutional mandate to “List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each“.
At the time, the Vice President was Thomas Jefferson who was also a candidate for President and had the duty to count the votes for president. That was certainly a conflict of interest. Jefferson, as President of the Senate, counted the votes from Georgia as votes for Jefferson and Burr even though they did not comply with the requirements. There were no objections raised. If Jefferson did not count the votes, he would have lost to Adams. This led to a feud between Jefferson and Adams. On July 4, 1826, at the age of 90, John Adams lay on his deathbed while the country celebrated Independence Day. His last words were, “Thomas Jefferson still survives.” Little did he know, that Thomas Jefferson had died five hours earlier at Monticello at the age of 83.
While Alexander Hamilton was a member of the Federalist Party, and there were problems for the electoral college cast two separate votes for the President and Vice President which was finally under the new rules of the electoral system in the 1804 ratification of the 12th Amendment. Burr and Jefferson tied in the electoral votes and after 35 ballots in Congress, neither could win. Most Federalist Congressmen backed Burr and all Democratic-Republican Congressmen backed Jefferson. It was Alexander Hamilton who favored Jefferson over Burr who managed to swing some Federalists to switch their support to Jefferson making him president on the 36th ballot.
Aaron Burr (1756-1836) received the same number of electoral votes as Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826) and challenged Jefferson’s election to the office. In the end, Jefferson was chosen as the president because of Alexander Hamilton’s influence in the House of Representatives. Aaron Burr was just not well-liked. Burr and Jefferson met in 1791 when Burr became a member of the United States Senate. However, a decade later, Jefferson bluntly wrote that “there never had been an intimacy” between himself and Burr, “and but little association.” Nevertheless, history had permanently entwined their names.
The Bank of New York is often cited as being founded by Hamilton in June 1784. However, there was a group involved which included Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr. They were competing with the Bank of North America in Philadelphia which was paying 14% dividends and had been founded by Robert Morris, Jr. (1734–1806) who financed the Revolution as did Haym Salomon (1740–1785) who was a Jewish businessman in New York and a political financial broker. It was Salomon who helped convert the French loans into ready cash by selling the bills of exchange for Morris.
The Bank of New York never had a charter for the first seven years and its capitalization was $750,000, of which only one-third would be in coin and the balance in preexisting mortgages. After the Real Estate Panic of 1792, the final capitalization was reduced to $500,000 in gold or silver coins exclusively. A conflict of interest took place when Hamilton became the Secretary of the Treasury. The bank then provided the first loan to the new United States government in 1789. On top of that, the bank began to pay all the salaries of federal employees, including President George Washington himself, until the Bank of the United States was charted in 1791.
The Bank of New York shares were the first company to be traded on the New York Stock Exchange when it first opened in 1792. However, foreign investors were speculating on the new bank shares, viewing this as an emerging market opportunity. They brought in coin to the United States but with the Panic of 1792, they were quick to sell and created a shortage of cash as the result of capital outflow.
Hamilton was a Federalist. Burr was a Republican. The men clashed repeatedly in the political arena. However, the first major skirmish was in 1791, when Burr successfully captured a United States Senate seat from Philip Schuyler, Hamilton’s powerful father-in-law. Hamilton was then the Secretary of the Treasury would count on the support of his father-in-law. When Burr won the election, Hamilton’s political power was trimmed to some extent.
The Bank of New York had a monopoly on banking services in the city until the Bank of the Manhattan Company was founded by Aaron Burr in 1799, which was vigorously opposed by Hamilton fearing competition. In 1800 Burr published a private paper written by Hamilton for political influence entitled: “The Public Conduct and Character of John Adams, Esq., President of the United States.,” which was a document highly critical of Adams. Hamilton never intended that to be generally circulated. Its publication proved highly embarrassing to Hamilton and helped widen rifts in the Federalist Party. That very same year, when Aaron Burr and Thomas Jefferson tied in balloting for the presidency, Hamilton lobbied Congress to decide the election in Jefferson’s favor in a pay-back.
It was the New York governor’s race of 1804 that brought their feud to a boil. Burr ran as an independent and was looking to become powerful in New York. That very prospect horrified Hamilton, who despised and mistrusted Burr completely. In early 1804, Hamilton lobbied the New York Federalists not to support Burr and he failed and lost to Morgan Lewis, the Republican candidate. This was the final straw to the deep rivalry between Burr and Hamilton which resulted in their famous 1804 duel on July 11, 1804. Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr met on the dueling grounds at Weehawken, New Jersey, to fight the final skirmish of a long-lived political and personal battle. When the duel was over, Hamilton would be mortally wounded, and Burr was considered a murderer since dueling was illegal.
The dislike of Burr was now overwhelming. Burr turned to the idea of starting a colony in the newly acquired Louisiana Territory, personally invading Mexico, which was still a Spanish colony. It depended on who you asked. There were rival interpretations of his intentions whereby he either was seeking to expand the United States or found a whole new nation of his own. He even proposed to the British ambassador the possibility of bringing the British fleet and British money to assist in separating the Louisiana Territory from the Union. In 1805 he made a journey south to New Orleans to test the idea. Rumors became commonplace about Burr’s intentions. President Jefferson was informed by General Wilkinson, that there was “a deep, dark, wicked and widespread conspiracy” afoot. Wilkinson turned out to be in the pay of the Spanish government, but then so, confusingly enough, so was Burr.
Late in 1806 Burr led a force of sixty followers in boats down the Mississippi, apparently heading for New Orleans. When Burr reached what is now Alabama, he was arrested and sent under guard to Richmond, Virginia. There he came up in the United States Circuit Court before Chief Justice John Marshall, who disliked President Jefferson. When Adams lost the election, he tried to stuff the courts with Federalist judges. In March 1801, just two days before his term as president ended, Adams appointed several dozen Federalist Party supporters to a new circuit judge and justice of the peace positions in an attempt to obstruct Jefferson and the Democratic-Republican Party which was an anti-centralized government championed by the Federalist. The U.S. Senate quickly confirmed Adams’s appointments, but by the time of Jefferson’s inauguration, a few of the new judges’ commissions still had not been delivered. But one which had been was Chief Justice Marshall.
Jefferson took the position that the commissions were void because they had not been delivered in time. Jefferson instructed his new Secretary of State, James Madison, not to deliver them, and one filed suit. William Marbury was a supporter of Adams and a devote Federalist. In late 1801, after Madison refused to deliver his commission, Marbury filed a lawsuit in the Supreme Court asking the Court to issue a writ of mandamus forcing Madison to deliver his commission. Marshall ruled in a partisan manner holding that Madison’s refusal to deliver Marbury’s commission was illegal. He then held that the court had the power to order the government official in question to deliver the commission. However, Marshall held that Congress had expanded the definition of the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction beyond what was originally set down in the U.S. Constitution. Marshall then struck down that section of the law declaring that American courts had the power to invalidate laws that they find to violate the Constitution. Because this meant the Court had no jurisdiction over the case, it could not issue the writ that Marbury had requested. What this reveals is that from the very beginning there was a hostile environment between two parties as we see today.
Hence, it was Marshall who sat on the trial of Burr. The proceedings took months with the charge of a high misdemeanor for planning to attack the dominions of the King of Spain and of treason for trying to seize New Orleans converting American territory into an empire of his own. Burr faced the penalty would be death if found guilty. Burr was a very articulate and clever lawyer who outclassed the prosecutors. Burr’s team spent three days arguing that to be guilty of treason for “levying war” under the Constitution, the accused must have committed an overt act in war. Chief Justice Marshall upheld this argument and in the end, despite the bias of the jury, Burr had to be acquitted.
Burr was generally believed to be guilty all the same and in Baltimore, a mob hanged him in effigy. Aaron Burr fled to Europe, where he tried to interest the British and French governments in creating a new nation in the American Southwest. He returned to the United States in 1812 and spent the rest of a long life in law practice in New York, a disappointed man. He was eighty when he died at Port Richmond on Staten Island in 1836.
2020/2021 CONSPIRACY
One thing that seems to be going around is that Trump has court cases still pending that will go to the Supreme Court and they claim that thanks to Texas, he now knows how to file it under Article 3 and not under Article 2. That is just completely off the wall. Texas had clear standing and that was a direct right to sue in the Supreme Court against another state. They add that Barr has stepped down on the 23rd, so he is now able to be a witness. Barr is part of the Deep State and would never help Trump. Trump is not interested in unconstitutional solutions of sending in the military or anything else. All he can do is count on Pence and the question becomes does Pence also turn around like Barr and stab Trump in the back? He was a Congressman so he knows the game on the Hill.
12th Amendment.
The Electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate;-The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;-The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President-The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.
3 U.S. Code § 15 – Counting electoral votes in Congress
Congress shall be in session on the sixth day of January succeeding every meeting of the electors. The Senate and House of Representatives shall meet in the Hall of the House of Representatives at the hour of 1 o’clock in the afternoon on that day, and the President of the Senate shall be their presiding officer. Two tellers shall be previously appointed on the part of the Senate and two on the part of the House of Representatives, to whom shall be handed, as they are opened by the President of the Senate, all the certificates and papers purporting to be certificates of the electoral votes, which certificates and papers shall be opened, presented, and acted upon in the alphabetical order of the States, beginning with the letter A; and said tellers, having then read the same in the presence and hearing of the two Houses, shall make a list of the votes as they shall appear from the said certificates; and the votes having been ascertained and counted according to the rules in this subchapter provided, the result of the same shall be delivered to the President of the Senate, who shall thereupon announce the state of the vote, which announcement shall be deemed a sufficient declaration of the persons, if any, elected President and Vice President of the United States, and, together with a list of the votes, be entered on the Journals of the two Houses. Upon such reading of any such certificate or paper, the President of the Senate shall call for objections, if any. Every objection shall be made in writing, and shall state clearly and concisely, and without argument, the ground thereof, and shall be signed by at least one Senator and one Member of the House of Representatives before the same shall be received. When all objections so made to any vote or paper from a State shall have been received and read, the Senate shall thereupon withdraw, and such objections shall be submitted to the Senate for its decision; and the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall, in like manner, submit such objections to the House of Representatives for its decision; and no electoral vote or votes from any State which shall have been regularly given by electors whose appointment has been lawfully certified to according to section 6 of this title from which but one return has been received shall be rejected, but the two Houses concurrently may reject the vote or votes when they agree that such vote or votes have not been so regularly given by electors whose appointment has been so certified. If more than one return or paper purporting to be a return from a State shall have been received by the President of the Senate, those votes, and those only, shall be counted which shall have been regularly given by the electors who are shown by the determination mentioned in section 5 of this title to have been appointed, if the determination in said section provided for shall have been made, or by such successors or substitutes, in case of a vacancy in the board of electors so ascertained, as have been appointed to fill such vacancy in the mode provided by the laws of the State; but in case there shall arise the question which of two or more of such State authorities determining what electors have been appointed, as mentioned in section 5 of this title, is the lawful tribunal of such State, the votes regularly given of those electors, and those only, of such State shall be counted whose title as electors the two Houses, acting separately, shall concurrently decide is supported by the decision of such State so authorized by its law; and in such case of more than one return or paper purporting to be a return from a State, if there shall have been no such determination of the question in the State aforesaid, then those votes, and those only, shall be counted which the two Houses shall concurrently decide were cast by lawful electors appointed in accordance with the laws of the State, unless the two Houses, acting separately, shall concurrently decide such votes not to be the lawful votes of the legally appointed electors of such State. But if the two Houses shall disagree in respect of the counting of such votes, then, and in that case, the votes of the electors whose appointment shall have been certified by the executive of the State, under the seal thereof, shall be counted. When the two Houses have voted, they shall immediately again meet, and the presiding officer shall then announce the decision of the questions submitted. No votes or papers from any other State shall be acted upon until the objections previously made to the votes or papers from any State shall have been finally disposed of.
Those who follow DC politics know the democrat party apparatus has been looking for a diplomatic way for a deteriorating Senator Feinstein to gracefully exit the world of politics. A recent report from California outlines a likely possibility:
CALIFORNIA – The California Globe has confirmed with two sources that Richard C Blum, who is married to California’s senior US Senator, Dianne Feinstein, is in talks with the Biden transition committee about an ambassadorship. The understanding is that if such an opportunity were provided to Blum, an investor and philanthropist, Feinstein would exit the US Senate.
Feinstein has served in the US Senate for 28 years, having first been elected in a 1992 special election to fill the seat of Senator Pete Wilson, who resigned to become California’s governor. Democrats have been searching for a gentle way to ease the 87-year-old Feinstein out of office. That push assumed greater urgency with the publication of a devastating article in the New Yorker earlier this month. (read more)
Feinstein is as cognitively capable as Joe Biden, which is to say: she ain’t. Additionally, the political life of Feinstein has provided her entire family a large amount of affluence. Her husband, Richard Blum, has made hundreds of millions from her position.
[…] Blum has also been scrutinized in the past for his ownership stakes in companies that have business before the US Senate. In 2018, for example, Feinstein failed to disclose that Blum “owned more than $100,000 in Facebook shares until after Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg testified to the Senate.” The Senator corrected the oversight after Blum’s stake was reported.
Blum’s firm also held a majority stake in California military contractor Tutor Perini, which was awarded billions in contracts during the wars and occupations in Iraq and Afghanistan, with some government watchdogs opining that the position provided a fatal conflict of interest for Sen. Feinstein, who voted to authorize the use of military force in Iraq in 2002.
During the financial crisis, Feinstein sponsored legislation to provide $25 billion in public money to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp, which awarded CB Richard Ellis what the Washington Times characterized as “a lucrative contract to sell foreclosed properties at compensation rates higher than the industry norms.” (link)
In the insider game of selling influence for personal affluence Senator Feinstein was an apex player in her prime. However, she is no longer of value to the tribe as the more totalitarian crew are waiting in the wings to push a more extreme ideological effort.
The move would also place a safety net under the current California governor Gavin Newsom in the event any recall effort was successful.
I have created this site to help people have fun in the kitchen. I write about enjoying life both in and out of my kitchen. Life is short! Make the most of it and enjoy!
This is a library of News Events not reported by the Main Stream Media documenting & connecting the dots on How the Obama Marxist Liberal agenda is destroying America
Centinel2012 