Category: US Politics

Via Dailywire:

The Republican Party of Arizona sued the state on Thursday to force a “hand count” of ballots after several media outlets joined Fox News and the Associated Press in calling the state for Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden.

President Donald Trump has narrowed Biden’s lead in the state to roughly 11,000 votes as outstanding ballots still being counted tend to favor the president over his Democratic challenger. Trump has likely not won enough of the ballots to overtake Biden and win the state’s 11 electoral votes, however.

Keep reading…

Who chooses the President of the United States?

This question is by no means rhetorical.  For example, the mass disinformation media has chosen Joe Biden as the winner of the 2020 election.  Many people liked this news, but I must disappoint them – the television broadcasters have, according to the U.S. Constitution, nothing to do with who will live in the White House for the next four years.

Maybe the Supreme Court chooses the President? No, the Constitution does not provide for this.  Could it be that the citizens of America choose their President? Following the U.S. Constitution, no.  So, who then chooses the President?

Before answering this question, let us note that, contrary to popular misconception, the President of the United States is not a representative of the American people.  State legislators and governors are representatives of the people, and at the federal level so are the members of the House of Representatives of the United States Congress.  (Currently, senators are also representatives of the people, but before the ratification of the 17th Amendment to the Constitution in 1913, they were appointed by state legislators).  So, who does the President of America represent?

The President of the United States of America, according to the Constitution, represents state legislators’ interests and no one else.

In general, the federal government’s structure in America reflects the numerous attempts of the Founding Fathers of the United States to introduce a system of effective state control over the federal government.  The fact is that the main difference between our country and all other countries, without exception, is that it was organized “from the bottom up,” that is, individual colonies voluntarily united against a common enemy – the British Empire.  All other “republics” on the planet were created “from the top down,” when the already existing provinces were graciously granted some independence by the already existing central government.

The Inauguration of George Washington

From The Granger Collection   CC BY-NC-SA 4.0

In building the American state, the fundamental principle was state control over the newly created federal power structure.  Therefore, from the Founding Fathers’ point of view, the federal government in Washington should consist of both representatives of the people (congressmen) and representatives of the state leadership – the federal President and senators.  This is how the institution of the Electoral College was invented and implemented.  The electors are appointed by the state legislatures, and they are the ones who elect the President of the country.

So why do American citizens need to participate in the presidential elections? Well, strictly speaking, it is not necessary.  It is just that there is a long tradition in America – state legislators appoint electors in such a way that these appointments correspond to the mood of the people (in some states, this is even enshrined by law).  This is a tradition, but according to the U.S. Constitution, the participation of the people in presidential elections, generally speaking, is not required.  According to the Constitution, the people participate in the direct elections of their legislators, which is quite enough.

There is nothing reprehensible in this – after all, the President of America is not the representative of the American people.  He is the representative of state legislators.  From the point of view of the states, the President (and pre-1913, two senators from each state) are the “overseers” of the federal government.  In other words, the President, from the point of view of state legislators, is “our man in Havana” (that is, in Washington), who is responsible for the observance of state rights by the federal government.

Thus, under the Constitution, state legislators have the right to generally ignore the results of the voting of citizens of their state and appoint those who they deem necessary to the Electoral College.  Why did the Founding Fathers of the United States give state legislators such unprecedented power? Because most of the Founding Fathers were geniuses with impressive foresight.  They did not know precisely when this would happen, but they knew it would eventually happen: the election’s published results would have nothing to do with how the citizens voted.

This is exactly what happened in 2020.

Of course, there have been falsifications in the counting of votes in America before.  However, in 2020, the Democrats went all-in with a scam, and for the first time in American history, they were close to success.  Actually, they simply had no other choice.  They knew very well that another Trump term would be enough to crush the American left to its core.  (However, even if Trump does not manage to stay in the White House, his departure from politics will be such that the left will not be envied.)

Now, more than a week after the elections, it is already clear what the Trump team is doing.  They are working in two directions.

First, they sue in states where there was a clear violation of the electoral law.  Violations include the counting of votes that came after polling stations closed, turnout of more than 100%, the use of computer systems that were systematically “wrong,” always in favor of Biden, the thousands of Pennsylvania voters born on January 1, 1900 (or even on January 1, 1800), and much more.

For example, election results in some Democrat-controlled states violate fundamental laws of both mathematics and physics.  The votes cast for Biden do not comply with the statistical law of distribution of digits (Benford’s Law), while the ballots cast for Trump do adhere to this law.  Thousands of mailed ballots were received even before they were officially sent.  Thus, the 2020 election showed compelling evidence of the possibility of time travel.

Secondly, the Trump team calls on state legislators to use their constitutional powers to rectify the local executive authority’s criminal actions to the point of completely ignoring the falsified voting results.

These are the expected steps.  Any presidential candidate would and should take such measures.  Al Gore did the same in 2000, but then the case concerned only the state of Florida.  In 2000, the country did not know the name of the winner for 35 days, and in 2020 we should not expect a faster resolution of the issue because now we are talking about at least six “problem” states.

Only now is the reason for the frenzy with which the Democrats attacked the three Trump-nominated Supreme Court justices is becoming clear.  The fact is that the Trump-nominated current U.S. Supreme Court justices – Gorsuch, Kavanagh, and Barrett – were on Bush’s legal team that secured the Supreme Court case in favor of Bush in 2000.

But the main difference between the 2020 elections and the 2000 elections is the involvement of the federal government’s apparatus in investigating violations.  The investigation is carried out by both prosecutors of the Department of Justice and FBI agents.

According to the Constitution, all courts and all other voting problems must be resolved by the first Monday after the second Wednesday of December, which falls on December 14 this year.  If on December 14, the Electoral College fails to elect a president, then the Constitution also provides for this scenario.  Per the 12th Amendment to the Constitution, in this case, the President and Vice President will be elected by the House of Representatives (however, if for some reason the Vice President cannot be elected by the House of Representatives, then the right of his choice is transferred to the Senate.)

In the House of Representatives, state delegations will be voting, not the individual congressmen themselves.  Now in the House of Representatives, the majority of delegations – 26 – belong to Republicans.  In the Senate, the Republicans also have an advantage.  So, the only reason Trump can lose the election now, a week after the election, is his own admission of defeat.  But such a strange decision by Trump is unlikely – this guy is from Queens, and if he gets involved in a fight, he will see it through to the end.

It is also unlikely that Trump does not understand that if the chronic vote-rigging by Democrats is not stopped now, America will end.  The Trump team is well aware that such an opportunity to end the creeping socialist revolution may no longer be presented.

As a result, Democrats will likely not recover from this fraud.  The disinformation media (which Fox News joined on the election night) will not recover from deliberately covering up this fraud, this attempted coup.  If the Democrats went for broke, then Trump could, most likely, also go for broke.

Trump may have already destroyed the Democratic National Committee, but they just do not know it yet.

In military terms, Trump’s team conducted careful reconnaissance and intelligence on the enemy for a week.  They collected numerous affidavits about the electoral fraud of Democrats, witnesses who confirm their testimony under oath.  But on the evening of November 10, the reconnaissance was completed, and massive artillery bombardment began in the form of lawsuits in several key states and the initiation of criminal investigations into violations by the Department of Justice.  If this does not help, Trump will bring into the battle the strategic reserves available only to the President of the American state apparatus – for example, in the form of a complete declassification of Obamagate.  In any case, our country is by no means at the end; we are at the very beginning of this process.

From a legal perspective, Biden is an impostor, a false president, at least until December 14 of this year.  If Biden can declare himself President-elect without any legal basis, then any other American citizen can also declare himself President-elect.

Therefore, I am forced to repeat my advice once again – to survive in this leftist madhouse, turn off the TV and start thinking for yourself.  If you have read the article so far, you will definitely succeed.  And remember – if the laws in our country are still observed, then the chances of the Harris-Biden administration (in this order) are practically zero.  If the laws in America are not followed, then the great American political experiment will unfortunately end.

Gary Gindler, Ph.D., is a conservative columnist at Gary Gindler Chronicles and the founder of a new science: Politiphysics. Follow him on Twitter and Quodverum.

Who chooses the President of the United States?

This question is by no means rhetorical.  For example, the mass disinformation media has chosen Joe Biden as the winner of the 2020 election.  Many people liked this news, but I must disappoint them – the television broadcasters have, according to the U.S. Constitution, nothing to do with who will live in the White House for the next four years.

Maybe the Supreme Court chooses the President? No, the Constitution does not provide for this.  Could it be that the citizens of America choose their President? Following the U.S. Constitution, no.  So, who then chooses the President?

Before answering this question, let us note that, contrary to popular misconception, the President of the United States is not a representative of the American people.  State legislators and governors are representatives of the people, and at the federal level so are the members of the House of Representatives of the United States Congress.  (Currently, senators are also representatives of the people, but before the ratification of the 17th Amendment to the Constitution in 1913, they were appointed by state legislators).  So, who does the President of America represent?

The President of the United States of America, according to the Constitution, represents state legislators’ interests and no one else.

In general, the federal government’s structure in America reflects the numerous attempts of the Founding Fathers of the United States to introduce a system of effective state control over the federal government.  The fact is that the main difference between our country and all other countries, without exception, is that it was organized “from the bottom up,” that is, individual colonies voluntarily united against a common enemy – the British Empire.  All other “republics” on the planet were created “from the top down,” when the already existing provinces were graciously granted some independence by the already existing central government.

The Inauguration of George Washington

From The Granger Collection   CC BY-NC-SA 4.0

In building the American state, the fundamental principle was state control over the newly created federal power structure.  Therefore, from the Founding Fathers’ point of view, the federal government in Washington should consist of both representatives of the people (congressmen) and representatives of the state leadership – the federal President and senators.  This is how the institution of the Electoral College was invented and implemented.  The electors are appointed by the state legislatures, and they are the ones who elect the President of the country.

So why do American citizens need to participate in the presidential elections? Well, strictly speaking, it is not necessary.  It is just that there is a long tradition in America – state legislators appoint electors in such a way that these appointments correspond to the mood of the people (in some states, this is even enshrined by law).  This is a tradition, but according to the U.S. Constitution, the participation of the people in presidential elections, generally speaking, is not required.  According to the Constitution, the people participate in the direct elections of their legislators, which is quite enough.

There is nothing reprehensible in this – after all, the President of America is not the representative of the American people.  He is the representative of state legislators.  From the point of view of the states, the President (and pre-1913, two senators from each state) are the “overseers” of the federal government.  In other words, the President, from the point of view of state legislators, is “our man in Havana” (that is, in Washington), who is responsible for the observance of state rights by the federal government.

Thus, under the Constitution, state legislators have the right to generally ignore the results of the voting of citizens of their state and appoint those who they deem necessary to the Electoral College.  Why did the Founding Fathers of the United States give state legislators such unprecedented power? Because most of the Founding Fathers were geniuses with impressive foresight.  They did not know precisely when this would happen, but they knew it would eventually happen: the election’s published results would have nothing to do with how the citizens voted.

This is exactly what happened in 2020.

Of course, there have been falsifications in the counting of votes in America before.  However, in 2020, the Democrats went all-in with a scam, and for the first time in American history, they were close to success.  Actually, they simply had no other choice.  They knew very well that another Trump term would be enough to crush the American left to its core.  (However, even if Trump does not manage to stay in the White House, his departure from politics will be such that the left will not be envied.)

Now, more than a week after the elections, it is already clear what the Trump team is doing.  They are working in two directions.

First, they sue in states where there was a clear violation of the electoral law.  Violations include the counting of votes that came after polling stations closed, turnout of more than 100%, the use of computer systems that were systematically “wrong,” always in favor of Biden, the thousands of Pennsylvania voters born on January 1, 1900 (or even on January 1, 1800), and much more.

For example, election results in some Democrat-controlled states violate fundamental laws of both mathematics and physics.  The votes cast for Biden do not comply with the statistical law of distribution of digits (Benford’s Law), while the ballots cast for Trump do adhere to this law.  Thousands of mailed ballots were received even before they were officially sent.  Thus, the 2020 election showed compelling evidence of the possibility of time travel.

Secondly, the Trump team calls on state legislators to use their constitutional powers to rectify the local executive authority’s criminal actions to the point of completely ignoring the falsified voting results.

These are the expected steps.  Any presidential candidate would and should take such measures.  Al Gore did the same in 2000, but then the case concerned only the state of Florida.  In 2000, the country did not know the name of the winner for 35 days, and in 2020 we should not expect a faster resolution of the issue because now we are talking about at least six “problem” states.

Only now is the reason for the frenzy with which the Democrats attacked the three Trump-nominated Supreme Court justices is becoming clear.  The fact is that the Trump-nominated current U.S. Supreme Court justices – Gorsuch, Kavanagh, and Barrett – were on Bush’s legal team that secured the Supreme Court case in favor of Bush in 2000.

But the main difference between the 2020 elections and the 2000 elections is the involvement of the federal government’s apparatus in investigating violations.  The investigation is carried out by both prosecutors of the Department of Justice and FBI agents.

According to the Constitution, all courts and all other voting problems must be resolved by the first Monday after the second Wednesday of December, which falls on December 14 this year.  If on December 14, the Electoral College fails to elect a president, then the Constitution also provides for this scenario.  Per the 12th Amendment to the Constitution, in this case, the President and Vice President will be elected by the House of Representatives (however, if for some reason the Vice President cannot be elected by the House of Representatives, then the right of his choice is transferred to the Senate.)

In the House of Representatives, state delegations will be voting, not the individual congressmen themselves.  Now in the House of Representatives, the majority of delegations – 26 – belong to Republicans.  In the Senate, the Republicans also have an advantage.  So, the only reason Trump can lose the election now, a week after the election, is his own admission of defeat.  But such a strange decision by Trump is unlikely – this guy is from Queens, and if he gets involved in a fight, he will see it through to the end.

It is also unlikely that Trump does not understand that if the chronic vote-rigging by Democrats is not stopped now, America will end.  The Trump team is well aware that such an opportunity to end the creeping socialist revolution may no longer be presented.

As a result, Democrats will likely not recover from this fraud.  The disinformation media (which Fox News joined on the election night) will not recover from deliberately covering up this fraud, this attempted coup.  If the Democrats went for broke, then Trump could, most likely, also go for broke.

Trump may have already destroyed the Democratic National Committee, but they just do not know it yet.

In military terms, Trump’s team conducted careful reconnaissance and intelligence on the enemy for a week.  They collected numerous affidavits about the electoral fraud of Democrats, witnesses who confirm their testimony under oath.  But on the evening of November 10, the reconnaissance was completed, and massive artillery bombardment began in the form of lawsuits in several key states and the initiation of criminal investigations into violations by the Department of Justice.  If this does not help, Trump will bring into the battle the strategic reserves available only to the President of the American state apparatus – for example, in the form of a complete declassification of Obamagate.  In any case, our country is by no means at the end; we are at the very beginning of this process.

From a legal perspective, Biden is an impostor, a false president, at least until December 14 of this year.  If Biden can declare himself President-elect without any legal basis, then any other American citizen can also declare himself President-elect.

Therefore, I am forced to repeat my advice once again – to survive in this leftist madhouse, turn off the TV and start thinking for yourself.  If you have read the article so far, you will definitely succeed.  And remember – if the laws in our country are still observed, then the chances of the Harris-Biden administration (in this order) are practically zero.  If the laws in America are not followed, then the great American political experiment will unfortunately end.

Gary Gindler, Ph.D., is a conservative columnist at Gary Gindler Chronicles and the founder of a new science: Politiphysics. Follow him on Twitter and Quodverum.

During a speech before the Federalist Society on Thursday, Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito stated that “in certain quarters, religious liberty is fast becoming a disfavored right.” And is viewed by some as “not a cherished freedom, it’s often just an excuse for bigotry and it can’t be tolerated, even when there is no evidence that anybody has been harmed.”

Alito began by cautioning that, aside from specific references to any Supreme Court cases, he isn’t commenting on the legality of coronavirus restrictions and isn’t making any statements as to whether the restrictions constitute good policy.

He stated that coronavirus has “highlighted disturbing trends that were already present before the virus struck.”

Alito said that cases involving coronavirus restrictions have “pointed up emerging trends in the assessment of individual rights. This is especially evident with respect to religious liberty. It pains me to say this, but in certain quarters, religious liberty is fast becoming a disfavored right.”

Alito contrasted the bipartisan passage of the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act with the backlash faced by states that have attempted to pass or passed similar legislation in recent years.

He then turned to “the protracted campaign against the Little Sisters of the Poor,” the Ralph’s pharmacy case, and the Masterpiece Cakeshop case. Alito remarked, “You can easily see the point, for many today, religious liberty is not a cherished freedom, it’s often just an excuse for bigotry and it can’t be tolerated, even when there is no evidence that anybody has been harmed. And the cases I just mentioned illustrate the point. As far as I’m aware, not one employee of the Little Sisters has come forward and demanded contraceptives under the Little Sisters’ plan. There was no risk that Ralph’s referral practice would have deprived any woman of the drug she sought and no reason to think that Jack Phillips’ stand would deprive any same-sex couple of a wedding cake. The couple that came to his shop was given a free cake by another bakery, and celebrity chefs have jumped to the couple’s defense.”

Alito then noted cases where coronavirus restrictions that “blatantly discriminated against houses of worship” in California and Nevada were upheld by the Supreme Court. Alito stated that in both cases, the rationale was that the court should defer to the governors. Alito continued that this deference meant that Nevada treated “casinos more favorably than houses of worship.”

He added, “If what I have said so far does not convince you that religious liberty is in danger of becoming a second-class right, consider a case that came shortly after the Nevada case.” Alito then discussed U.S. District Judge Theodore Chuang’s ruling suspending the FDA’s requirement that women who wish to obtain an abortion pill must pick up the drug at a clinic. Alito said that Chuang’s rationale that enforcing the rule would interfere with abortion rights because some women might not obtain the pill due to fear of contracting coronavirus if they leave their homes. He noted that at the time of the decision, Maryland’s governor had opened many places of business, and “apparently concluded that Marylanders could safely engage in all sorts of activities outside the home. … If deference was appropriate in the California and Nevada cases, then surely, we should have deferred to the federal Food and Drug Administration on an issue of drug safety. But no, in this instance, the right in question was the abortion right, not the right to religious liberty, and the abortion right prevailed.”

Follow Ian Hanchett on Twitter @IanHanchett