21st Century Club Event – Leading the Change
Saturday, February 27, 2021
5 pm to 8 pm
Click HERE to Register
Have the Dems Been Lying to US?
By Chuck Cohn
Guest Writer
Hi guys! You all know how conservative I am, and you know that when I occasionally make a mistake, I try to own up to it.
I’ve made one recently, and it was only today while visiting with Phil B, that I put the pieces together. This one is a biggie, and at least one of you is likely to be offended by it, so I’ll apologize in advance.
Here goes: The Dems have not been lying, and, gulp, there was no election fraud. If you’re still there, I’ll give it to you a little more carefully.
The Dems have not been lying any more than usual, about this anyway: there was no more election fraud than usual. And, this is why dozens of judges refused to hear election fraud cases, and why Attorney General Barr told President Trump straightforwardly that there was no evidence of significant fraud.
I am so stupid. This afternoon Phil explained to me very patiently the difference between breaking the law (fraud, for example), and gaming the system. You see, he explained, the Democrats have been working for at least the last two years (more like, forever!) to get the election rules changed to favor the way they work elections. Whether you agree that the rules should have been changed, or not, or that they were changed legally, or not, you, like me, already know that the rules, the laws governing election procedures in the states, were changed.
The Democrats know who their constituent voters are, and that their numbers have been shrinking. So, very pragmatically, they’ve decided to go find new voters. They’ve been legally combing purple and otherwise blue neighborhoods for the names of people who do not, or often never have, voted. They have gone to their homes, they have gotten them registered, they have taken ballots to them, they have offered to help them fill them out, they’ve offered to take the filled out ballots in for collection and counting. This is called ballot harvesting. And, it’s legal where it’s practiced.
They have furnished counties monies for the purpose that they hire additional election workers, and with which they can create extra ballot drop off boxes in neighborhoods that tend to vote Democrat. These things are legal, under laws currently in force. These behaviors, then, are not illegal, and are not fraud.
What lost the election was Democrats very successfully gaming of the system, not defrauding it. We might call this corrupting the system, because, the whole point over several years, was to lay down election laws and to place sympathetic officials that made it easier for them to effectively work the system to their advantage. Follow this a bit further. The muddier the legal processes, the easier it is to bend the rules, and the harder it is to say the rules were broken. Where the rules said, “you cannot do X,” they mainly did not do it. But, mostly, the rules didn’t say, “you cannot do X.” Read the rules, they are muddy and open to interpretation by local officials and judges. When there was a ruling saying that “X must no longer be done,” for the most part, the Democrats stopped doing X. But, wherever X was not challenged, or was even deemed permissible, X continued to be done.
This, my friends, is the difference between fraud, and gaming the system. If Republicans are outraged, the outrage, then, should be at themselves for having been played so well.
Now, does this speak to voting machine manipulation or massive dumps of ballots. No. But the facts remain, whatever evidence there may have been of these, was never successfully brought to light before, it, too, was clouded, or even destroyed. There is nothing with which to prove fraud. There is much to prove that the Democrats played the system to create rules that made legal practices they wanted to use.
I can see more clearly now, what happened, how, and why. It’s obvious that Democrats are endlessly creative at inventing ways to game the system, and rule-bound Republicans, once again, are left scratching their heads.
The only way to get election integrity restored will be by retaking public offices, from judgeships, right up through the legislatures and statewide offices. And, the only way this will happen is by hard work, often door to door, much in some really nasty places, and in the hearts of local Republican Party workers who see the need to reevaluate and to re-engage.
As the Dems never fail to remind us, politics is dirty, nasty, and local, and this is even true of Republican politics, although we sometimes forget it and most often detest it. But, every political organization still needs folks to stuff envelopes, wash dishes, refill the coffee pots, and run errands.
Latin Politics Arrive in the U.S. Why ‘participatory democracy’ seems always to degenerate into mob violence.
On Wednesday afternoon I checked in with a Latin American friend to get his thoughts about the chaos on Capitol Hill. “It looks like home,” he quipped.
It was not a unique reflection. By evening a popular observation making the rounds was that the invasion of Congress was the stuff of banana republics. The bedlam also evoked memories of what happened in many U.S. cities over the summer when the Black Lives Matter marches turned violent.
There was a big difference between Wednesday and the American summer of terror. During the latter it was merely a presidential candidate (Joe Biden ) who refused to condemn the BLM violence—until he realized it was hurting his polls numbers. Last week it was a sitting U.S. president who stirred up the passions of his followers and continued to justify their anger even after it was clear they were breaking the law, endangering lives, damaging property, and attempting to disrupt an independent branch of government. President Trump may have set a new modern-day low.
Yet the main worry is that political violence in the U.S. on both the left and the right seems to be on the rise. It won’t recede as long as mob action is tolerated as a way to do politics.
A first step in reversing the trend is admitting that the slash-and-burn tactics of both sides are similar. Both justify violence under the banner of “participatory democracy.” Storming the Capitol or burning down a Starbucks is the people speaking.
Participatory democracy as defined by extreme groups has been put into action in the U.S. before. The leftist upheaval in the streets of Seattle against the World Trade Organization ministerial conference in 1999 is one memorable example. It is no coincidence that elements of Mr. Trump’s base oppose free trade and globalization.
Traditional American democracy is “deliberative democracy,” a process by which elected representatives use reason and debate to shape public policies. Participatory democracy tells the aggrieved: Never mind the legislature. Go to the streets to get what you want.
A 2013 paper by Italian philosopher Antonio Floridia traces the origins of participatory democracy to the 1960s in the U.S., “inspired by the great youth movements of that decade.” Mr. Floridia cites the American political scientist Jane Mansbridge, who writes that the term “came into widespread use” after Students for a Democratic Society “gave it a central place in its founding Port Huron Statement.” Ms. Manbridge adds: “What the term meant then was unclear, and it became less clear afterward, as it was applied to virtually every form of organization that brought more people into the decision-making process. In the actual organizations of the New Left, however, the term came to be associated quite quickly with the combination of equality, consensus and face-to-face assembly.”
“It looks like home,” he quipped.
It was not a unique reflection. By evening a popular observation making the rounds was that the invasion of Congress was the stuff of banana republics. The bedlam also evoked memories of what happened in many U.S. cities over the summer when the Black Lives Matter marches turned violent.
There was a big difference between Wednesday and the American summer of terror. During the latter it was merely a presidential candidate (Joe Biden ) who refused to condemn the BLM violence—until he realized it was hurting his polls numbers. Last week it was a sitting U.S. president who stirred up the passions of his followers and continued to justify their anger even after it was clear they were breaking the law, endangering lives, damaging property, and attempting to disrupt an independent branch of government. President Trump may have set a new modern-day low.
Yet the main worry is that political violence in the U.S. on both the left and the right seems to be on the rise. It won’t recede as long as mob action is tolerated as a way to do politics.
A first step in reversing the trend is admitting that the slash-and-burn tactics of both sides are similar. Both justify violence under the banner of “participatory democracy.” Storming the Capitol or burning down a Starbucks is the people speaking.
Participatory democracy as defined by extreme groups has been put into action in the U.S. before. The leftist upheaval in the streets of Seattle against the World Trade Organization ministerial conference in 1999 is one memorable example. It is no coincidence that elements of Mr. Trump’s base oppose free trade and globalization.
Traditional American democracy is “deliberative democracy,” a process by which elected representatives use reason and debate to shape public policies. Participatory democracy tells the aggrieved: Never mind the legislature. Go to the streets to get what you want.
A 2013 paper by Italian philosopher Antonio Floridia traces the origins of participatory democracy to the 1960s in the U.S., “inspired by the great youth movements of that decade.” Mr. Floridia cites the American political scientist Jane Mansbridge, who writes that the term “came into widespread use” after Students for a Democratic Society “gave it a central place in its founding Port Huron Statement.” Ms. Manbridge adds: “What the term meant then was unclear, and it became less clear afterward, as it was applied to virtually every form of organization that brought more people into the decision-making process. In the actual organizations of the New Left, however, the term came to be associated quite quickly with the combination of equality, consensus and face-to-face assembly.”
Mary Anastasia O’Grady
Opinion Columnist, The Wall Street Journal
FOLLOW
Mary Anastasia O’Grady writes “The Americas,” a weekly column on politics, economics and business in Latin America and Canada that appears every Monday in the Journal. Ms. O’Grady joined the paper in August 1995 and became a senior editorial page writer in December 1999. She was appointed an editorial board member in November 2005. She is also a member of the board of directors of the Indianapolis-based Liberty Fund.
In 2012 Ms. O’Grady won the Walter Judd Freedom Award from The Fund for American Studies. In 2009 Ms. O’Grady received the Thomas Jefferson Award from The Association of Private Enterprise Education. In 2005 Ms. O’Grady won the Bastiat Prize for Journalism awarded by the International Policy Network for her articles on the World Bank, the underground economy in Brazil and the bad economic advice the U.S. often gives to Latin American countries. In 1997 Ms. O’Grady won the Inter American Press Association’s Daily Gleaner Award for editorial commentary.
Ms. O’Grady received a bachelor’s degree in English from Assumption College and an M.B.A. in financial management from Pace University.
Memo from Congress Mark Amodei – Joint Session to Read Electoral College Votes & Objection Process
Memorandum Congressman Mark Amodei Nevada’s Second Congressional District
SUBJECT: Joint Session to Read Electoral College Votes & Objection Process DATE: January 4, 2020
Current Status:
- On December 14, electors from all 50 states cast their votes for the electoral college, giving Joe Biden 306 votes and President Trump 232 votes.
- Leading up to this, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton sued four battleground states (GA, MI, PA, WI) to challenge their election results. On December 11, the Supreme Court rejected the lawsuit, stating “Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections.”
- Following the state’s electors’ votes on December 14, the electors sent their vote certificates to the Vice President (as the President of the Senate), their respective state’s Secretary of State, the Archivist of the United States, and the judge of the federal district court whose district in which the electors met.
- On January 6th, the certificates are opened and counted by the VP/President of the Senate during a joint session of Congress. The President of the Senate reads the state’s certificates in alphabetical order, announces the electoral votes for that state, and asks if there are any objections.
- This procedure has largely been ceremonial in the past, but many have taken to the Internet that this serves as the last “opportunity” to change the election results in favor of President Trump.
Objection Scenarios:
Scenario 1 – If no objection is offered by any Member of Congress then the state’s electoral votes are counted, and the next state’s electoral votes are opened and read.
Scenario 2 – If an objection is offered it must be in writing and signed by one Senator and one Representative to jointly submit the objection. If the objection is not in writing or does not have both a Senator and Representative, then the objection is not considered. The state’s electoral votes are counted, and the next state’s electoral votes are opened and read.
Scenario 3 – If an objection is offered in writing with signatures from one Senator and one Representative, the Senate would then return to their chamber, and both houses would consider the objection for no more than two hours. Both houses would then vote on the objection, which is passed/failed by a simple majority vote. The Senate will return to the House for the joint session to reconvene. If both chambers sustain the objection, then that state’s electoral votes would not be counted. If the objection was not agreed to in both chambers then the electoral votes would be counted, and the next state’s electoral votes are opened and read.
- An objection is made toward only one state’s electoral votes. As such, should one Senator and one Representative jointly submit the objection, they can object to every state’s electoral votes if they so choose.
- If the objections fail to pass by a majority vote, then the original electoral votes are counted, and the joint session ends when all the electoral votes have been counted and the candidate with the majority of votes is announced the President.
- If the objection(s) do pass, then those state’s electoral votes are not counted. Should a candidate not hold the necessary 270 electoral college votes or there is a tie, the House of Representatives decides the presidency with each congressional delegation or state having one vote, and the Senate decides the vice president with each Senator having their own vote.
The winner is determined by a simple majority vote, so at least 26 states in the House voting
for one candidate, and 51 Senators voting for one candidate.
• Should this contingent election in the House and Senate not be held by January 20, then the
Speaker of the House serves as Acting President, or if the Senate has voted but the House has not, then the Vice President-elect serves as Acting President until a vote is held.
Outlook for January 6:
- Even if Members of both the House and Senate jointly object to the electoral votes of 6 states (AZ, GA, MI, NV, PA, WI), the House will decide by simple majority if the objections are sustained. With 222 Democrats to 211 Republicans, it is all but certain the House will overrule any objections.
- Additionally, while 12 Republican senators have announced they oppose the counting of electoral votes, 15 senators have already stated they are in support of counting all electoral votes. As such, it is very unlikely that the Senate will vote to sustain any objections.
Vice President Pence’s Authority:
- As President of the Senate, Vice President Pence will preside over the certification process. Rep. Louie Gohmert and 11 Arizona Republicans sued VP Pence, claiming that he has sole authority to decide whether a state’s electoral votes are accepted.
- Vice President Pence subsequently requested the court to reject the suit, stating “Ironically, Representative Gohmert’s position, if adopted by the Court, would actually deprive him of his opportunity as a Member of the House under the Electoral Count Act to raise objections to the counting of electoral votes, and then to debate and vote on them.”
- On January 1, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the case against the Vice President.
Amodei Votes to Uphold Arizona’s Electoral
January 6, 2021 Press Release
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Logan Tucker, 202-225-6155
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Congressman Mark Amodei (NV-02) today released the following statement after voting to uphold Arizona’s electoral votes:
“Under 3 U.S.C. 15, a valid objection was filed in writing to the Arizona 2020 Presidential electoral votes. In further accordance with that provision, the House of Representatives engaged in two hours of debate. I watched those two hours of debate and listened to both sides make significant points.
“I understand the frustration with a judge in Arizona expanding the time for registration, which resulted in 30,000 more people registering to vote. That would appear to violate Arizona election law. However, in accordance with Arizona law (AZ Rev Stat § 16-648), the authority to certify electors lies with the Arizona Secretary of State, joined by the Arizona Governor, the Attorney General, and the Chief Justice of the Arizona Supreme Court. Their discretion in certifying or not certifying under Arizona law – is absolute.
“In Arizona, these four people must agree in deciding which electors to certify to the House. In this case, they agreed unanimously, to certify.
“If the State’s duly elected top lawyer, chief executive, and chief of elections, along with the chief judicial officer, all agreed on the appropriateness of this certification, the redress for disagreement with their unanimous decision lies in court, and at the ballot box the next time you see the names: Secretary of State Katie Hobbs (D), Gov. Doug Ducey (R), Attorney General Mark Brnovich (R), and Arizona Supreme Court Chief Justice Robert Brutinel (R). That’s Arizona voters’ chance to express disagreement with who was certified as electors.
“Nowhere under 3 U.S.C. 15, do I find authorization for a Member of Congress to substitute their legal judgement for the state and federal trial court judges in two election lawsuits filed in Arizona, where rulings upheld the 10,000 plus vote Biden win.
“As a guy who represents rural people in a very small Western state, and who is humbly grateful for the support of voters in CD-2, and who is equally grateful to the election officials in the 11 counties that comprise CD-2, I have always tried to jealously guard Nevada’s ability to run its own affairs – even at times when I fundamentally disagree with how they’re being run.
“I really don’t want to go down a road, where people from other states start passing judgements on Nevada’s election results, or our rules. We Nevadans will do that, without outside interference. Accordingly, I am voting to support the Arizona Elector Certification Board.”
###
Recent Comments