Sunday, January 3, 2021

If enough senators challenge the election results, Trump wins By Pamela Geller - on January 2, 2021 VOTER FRAUD

If enough senators challenge the election results, Trump wins

By Pamela Geller - on January 2, 2021

This is where we plant our flag. “A republic, if you can keep it.”

If enough senators challenge the election results, Trump wins
By Andrea Widburg, The American Thinker, January 1, 2021:
Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) officially stated that he will object to the Electoral College vote count to be held in the Senate on January 6.  May this courageous man be the first of many senators to take a stand against the overwhelming evidence of election fraud.  If neither candidate wins enough Electoral College votes on January 6, Trump should win — and it’s all in the Constitution without the need for any strained statutory interpretations.
Let me start with an overview of what happens on January 6.  It’s crucial to appreciate how this can end if Hawley is joined by several senators who refuse to certify Electoral College votes achieved through manifest fraud.  I’ve culled this information from Petr Svab’s excellent article at The Epoch Times (hat tip to Dan Bongino):
The Twelfth Amendment to the Constitution is the primary authority for events on January 6.  The Electoral Count Act (3 USC §15) plays a role, but, thankfully, that act is probably unconstitutional in one very specific and important way.
Under the Twelfth Amendment, the president of the Senate (i.e., Mike Pence) opens the certificates sent from the states, “and the votes shall then be counted.”  That’s all that the Constitution says about the vice president’s role.
Meanwhile, 3 USC §15, enacted in 1887, after prescribing details for conducting the count, says members of Congress can object.  If one House member and one senator object, that triggers a separate vote about the objection by both the House and the Senate.  If both House and Senate agree there’s a problem, the challenged electoral votes are gone.

In this election year, having voices in the House and Senate to challenge the results is important.  As we’ve seen, courts have punted on the question of fraud, effectively denying due process of law, not just to Trump, but to every Trump voter.  When no court will allow evidence on a matter of pre-eminent importance, it’s up to the People’s representatives to get the evidence before the public.
However, we know that no amount of evidence of fraud will get the House to agree that Electoral College votes for Biden are invalid.  So what happens when only the Senate votes to reject the Electoral College votes on the basis of fraud?
Well, this is the point at which the Electoral Count Act is confusing and almost certainly unconstitutional.  It says that if the two bodies vote differently regarding competing Electoral College votes, the votes that the state’s governor has certified win.  This will hand victory to Biden.  By so holding, though, the Electoral Count Act runs directly afoul of the Twelfth Amendment.
As I wrote in September, when no one was paying attention to this kind of thing, the Constitution is remarkably clear on the subject.  If there are not enough Electoral College votes to hand victory to any one candidate — as will be the case if the Senate refuses to accept Electoral College votes predicated on manifest and overwhelming fraud — the Constitution spells out who picks the winner: fifty members (one for each state) from the newly seated House of Representatives decide.
Here’s the Twelfth Amendment’s language:
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. (U.S. Const., Amendment 12, Clause 3.)
What’s of signal importance here is that the House as a body does not vote.  Instead, one House member from each state votes.  Handing the matter to the House in this way makes eminent sense because this is the body closest to the most recently expressed will of the American people.  If the Electoral College failed, at least the majority of voters in each state will speak through the majority of House members from their states.
Under the 20th Amendment, the vote takes place not with the currently seated House, but with the incoming House.  The incoming House has 27 states with a majority of Republican representatives, 20 states with a majority of Democrat representatives, and 3 states that are tied.  That spells a clear victory for Donald Trump.
In brief: If senators follow Hawley’s lead and take a stand against the fraudulently generated Electoral College votes, at that point, under the Twelfth Amendment, there is no elected president, and the matter returns not to the full House, but to a single representative from each state.  And so, Trump wins.

HAVE A TIP WE SHOULD KNOW? YOUR ANONYMITY IS NEVER COMPROMISED. EMAIL TIPS@THEGELLERREPORT.COM

THE TRUTH MUST BE TOLD

YES!! A Dozen GOP Senators, Led by Ted Cruz, To OBJECT to Electoral College Certification, Demand Emergency Audit By Pamela Geller - on January 2, 2021

YES!! A Dozen GOP Senators, Led by Ted Cruz, To OBJECT to Electoral College Certification, Demand Emergency Audit

By Pamela Geller - on January 2, 2021

ELECTION 2020

A coalition of GOP senators and senators-elect, led by Sen. Ted Cruz, will object to the Jan. 6 certification of the presidential election results when a joint session of Congress meets next week, unless there is an emergency 10-day audit of the results by an electoral commission.

GOP senators, led by Cruz, to object to Electoral College certification, demand emergency audit
The lawmakers call for an electoral commission to be established to audit results.
By Adam Shaw | Fox News January 3, 2020
A coalition of GOP senators and senators-elect, led by Sen. Ted Cruz, will object to the Jan. 6 certification of the presidential election results when a joint session of Congress meets next week unless there is an emergency 10-day audit of the results by an electoral commission.
Cruz — along with Sens. 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-Kansas; Bill Hagerty, R-Tenn., and Tommy Tuberville, R-Ala. — say that the election “featured unprecedented allegations of voter fraud and illegal conduct.”
Their effort is separate from one announced by Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., who said this week that he would object to what he said was the failure of some states — most notably Pennsylvania — to follow their own election laws.

“Voter fraud has posed a persistent challenge in our elections, although its breadth and scope are disputed. By any measure, the allegations of fraud and irregularities in the 2020 election exceed any in our lifetimes,” the lawmakers say in a statement.
A source familiar with the effort told Fox News that it was Cruz who orchestrated the effort, working with other senators to organize the push against the certification and call for the electoral commission with just days to go before the joint session of Congress.
The lawmakers say there is a precedent of Democrats objecting to election results in 1969, 2001, 2005 and 2019: “And, in both 1969 and 2005, a Democratic Senator joined with a Democratic House Member in forcing votes in both houses on whether to accept the presidential electors being challenged,” they say.
Cruz: I agreed to argue Pa. election case because US needs ‘resolution’Video
The senators and senators-elect are calling for Congress to appoint an Electoral Commission to conduct a 10-day emergency audit of the election returns in states where the results are disputed. They cite as precedent the 1877 between Samuel Hayes and Rutherford Hayes, where there were allegations of fraud in multiple states.
placeholder
“In 1877, Congress did not ignore those allegations, nor did the media simply dismiss those raising them as radicals trying to undermine democracy,” the lawmakers say. “Instead, Congress appointed an Electoral Commission — consisting of five Senators, five House Members, and five Supreme Court Justices — to consider and resolve the disputed returns.”
“We should follow that precedent. To wit, Congress 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,” they say.
Without that, they will vote against the certification.
“Accordingly, we intend to vote on January 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,” they say in the statement.
It is unclear whether they will rally more Republicans to their cause, and the lawmakers note that most Democrats and some Republicans will vote to certify the results, but say that an audit would increase the public’s faith in the process.
“These are matters worthy of the Congress, and entrusted to us to defend. We do not take this action lightly. We are acting not to thwart the democratic process, but rather to protect it,” they say. “And every one of us should act together to ensure that the election was lawfully conducted under the Constitution and to do everything we can to restore faith in our Democracy.”
The new effort by the senators marks a major win for President Trump’s efforts to challenge the results of the election. Trump has repeatedly claimed he beat Biden, who flipped a number of red states including Georgia and Arizona to get over the 270 Electoral College votes needed to secure the White House.
Electoral College voting to certify Biden as 46th president of USVideo
Trump’s campaign has launched a number of legal challenges, while Trump himself has urged states with Republican governors and legislatures to overturn Biden’s victories — as he alleges widespread voter fraud tilted the scales to Biden.
Senate GOP leaders are against efforts to challenge Biden’s win, with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell recognizing the former vice president’s victory, and behind closed doors urging Senate Republicans not to contest the election results.
But if the GOP senators object, with a similar effort by House Republicans, the joint session of Congress would be dissolved and the House and Senate would then meet separately for two hours to debate a contested state’s electoral vote.
Each body would then vote whether to accept or reject that state’s slate of electoral votes. Then the House and Senate reconvene in the joint session.
In the House, at least 10 incoming House GOP freshmen will back Rep. Mo Brooks’ effort to object to the certification of the presidential election results on Jan. 6.
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
The last time this happened (and only the second time in U.S. history) was in January 2005, following President’ George W. Bush’s narrow reelection victory over Democratic challenger Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts. One Senate Democrat – Sen. Barbara Boxer of California – and one House Democrat – Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones – objected. In 2017, a handful of House Democrats objected to Trump’s victory over Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, but no Senate Democrats joined them.
A state’s slate of electoral votes would only be thrown out if both the House and Senate vote to do so — something that is unlikely given the Democratic majority in the House, and the push by GOP Senate leaders to certify.

HAVE A TIP WE SHOULD KNOW? YOUR ANONYMITY IS NEVER COMPROMISED. EMAIL TIPS@THEGELLERREPORT.COM

NYS Bill A416: Democrats Propose Nazi-Inspired Bill To Round Up, Institutionalize “Public Health Risks” By Pamela Geller - on January 2, 2021 DEMOCRATS: PARTY OF TREASON

NYS Bill A416: Democrats Propose Nazi-Inspired Bill To Round Up, Institutionalize “Public Health Risks”

By Pamela Geller - on January 2, 2021

DEMOCRATS: PARTY OF TREASON

A New York state lawmaker has introduced a bill that would allow the government to detain people deemed a potential public health risk, amid concerns that the Covid-19 crisis is being allegedly used to usher in authoritarianism.

Authored by a Democratic member of the New York State Assembly N. Nick Perry, Bill A416 calls for the “removal and/or detention” of individuals who are potentially dangerous to the public health.”

Who decides who is a public heath threat? If Cuomo and his communist party think my writing is a “dangerous to the public health,” will they send my colleagues and me to camps?

AMERICANS SAT BACK AND WATCHED THE DEMOCRATS STEAL OUR FREEDOM, OUR LIVELIHOOD, OUR SAFETY, OUR SECURITY, AND FINALLY — THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION. DEMOCRATS STEAL ELECTIONS. IF THEY GET AWAY WITH THAT, NOTHING CAN STOP THEM.

Lockdowns were, without question, the worst, most destructive public policy in modern history.

Far, far worse diseases, such as the Black Plague, the Spanish Flu, the Hong Kong Flu, H1N1, were never weaponized in such a way — not since the Nazis.

But in 2020, Democrats did just that and got away with it. So this is just the next step. Note the inclusion of the word “groups” — deeply troubling. Considering Cuomo and de Blasio’s history of antisemitic actions/policies especially in regards to COVID, this is terrifying. Will this law be used to round up Jews and political groups that the left considers undesirable?

Catholic League Decries Andrew Cuomo’s Antisemitic ‘Tyrannical Edict’ Targeting Jews

‘What does this grim picture remind you of?’ Pres. Trump asks of crackdown on Jewish gatherings

Such person or group of persons shall be detained in a medical facility or other appropriate facility or premises designated by the governor or his or her delegee and complying with subdivision five of this section.

Read the whole document here:

AN ACT to amend the public health law, in relation to the removal of cases, contacts and carriers of communicable diseases who are potentially dangerous to the public healthThe People of the State of New York, represented in Senate and Assem-bly, do enact as follows: 1 Section 1. The public health law is amended by adding a new section 2 2120-a to read as follows:
3 § 2120-a. Removal and detention of cases, contacts and carriers who
4 are or may be a danger to public health; other orders. 1. The provisions
5 of this section shall be utilized in the event that the governor 6 declares a state of health emergency due to an epidemic of any communi-
7 cable disease.

Let’s remember that the *exact* same rhetoric was used by the Third Reich, but for tuberculosis, instead of COVID-19:

Go here to oppose this bill:

The New Under Ground Church-THE TRUTH MUST BE TOLD

Sunday, January 3, 2021