EVERY CITIZEN SHOULD HAVE A VOTER ID CARDby: LT GEN, MARVIN L. COVAULT, US ARMY retiredDecember 10, 2020 I have been thinking a lot about how to have honest presidential elections. A recent blog, WE NEED A NEW LAW FOR NATIONAL ELECTIONS 20 November 2020, provided a solution in the form of new federal law. In case you missed it, the essence of the proposal is as follows:There will be only two authorized election possibilities; in-person and absentee ballot requested by the voter. The election period will be the first Saturday, Sunday, and Monday (a national election holiday) in November.The presidential candidates will be on a separate ballot. When finished filling out the ballot the voter will hand that ballot to a 3-person counting team where the ballot will be immediately numbered, initialed by the three team members, and a tally of whom the vote was for recorded. That will take about 15 seconds at which time the ballot will be placed in a storage box. When the box is full it will be sealed, numbered, signed, and placed in a locked limited-access secure room. There will be a time-stamped chain of custody for every ballot, in-person or absentee.  This is easy and doable. I followed that on 30 November with a blog, CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM.  The key point of that blog was to point out that the 2020 campaigns spent about $14 billion with out-of-control spending by Super PACs and billionaires. Under the new federal law campaign financing for all federal candidates will consist of one, and only one, source. The source is the voter who is geographically associated with the candidate. The proposed new federal law would limit campaign contributions to $1000 per person per candidate in their state.  Scrupulous records would be required by every candidate matching money contributed and money spent. It is all about accountability by the contributors and the candidates. In that blog, I recommended tracking the contributions with an individual’s social security number.  Using SSN is doable but I have determined there is an even better way; individual Voter ID numbers. Thus, this blog: EVERY CITIZEN SHOULD HAVE A VOTER ID CARD. I believe we can make the voting process even more simple and free of fraudulent activities with a new federal law requiring Voter ID Cards. Think of it as a picture ID (like your driver’s license) with a “swipe” capability (like your credit card) that will display on a screen all of the times the Voter ID Card has been “used”. We need a federal law to make Voter ID Cards happen. The intent of the Voter ID Card Law is to positively identify a voter at a voting site with a current photo, a valid state Voter ID number, current address, and a history of voter activity. Under this federal law, everyone who is eligible to vote must have a Voter ID Card in order to perform in-person voting or to apply for an absentee ballot, the only two voting methods that would be authorized.  The Voter ID Card will be obtained from a State Department of Motor Vehicle (DMV) facility and it will expire simultaneously with the expiration of your driver’s license. Both can be renewed at the same time.  The Voter ID Card will be the same size and quality as today’s driver’s license. The Voter ID card will present a photo, full name, date of birth, address, sex, eye color, height, hair color, expiration date, and, most importantly, an individual Voter ID 10-digit number beginning with the two-letter state abbreviation such as TX-456-789-3322. In order to obtain a Voter ID Card, you must be 18 years of age and present: A valid passport or birth certificate proving identity and date of birth. One document confirming full name and Social Security Number. Two documents with a current physical address proving state residency. The State DMV will immediately provide the State Election Headquarters with all Voter ID Card data. When a voter presents their Voter ID Card at the voting site, the voter administrative assistant will swipe the Voter ID Card and ascertain if that particular Voter ID Card number has already been used during the current election period. If not, the assistant will print out an individual ballot that has the voter’s full name, address, and Voter ID Card number printed on the ballot. In the presence of the voting assistant, the voter will sign the ballot acknowledging that the data is correct. Fraudulently signing a ballot will be a federal offense. Once the voter has filled out the ballot and it has been read by the vote tabulating machine, any subsequent ballots presented with that Voter ID number will be automatically rejected.  Those who are physically unable to travel to a DMV processing site may sign a sworn affidavit requesting that another person assists in getting them a Voter ID Card.  Across America, the states’ voter registration rolls are terribly maintained and highly inaccurate. The Voter ID Card system will solve those problems and be self-policing. That is, when a Voter ID Card hits the expiration date the software will automatically delete that voter ID number from the system. Furthermore, when a voter gets a new card or renews an expired one, the system will automatically add the voter to the registration rolls.  So what? The so what is that we will no longer have dead people voting. One method of voter fraud struck down.  Ballot stuffing: Casting illegal votes or submitting more than one ballot per voter. That cannot be done with this system because every ballot must have a Voter ID number on it and that number can only be used once during an election cycle. Voter registration fraud: Filling out and submitting a voter registration card for a fictional person, or filling out a voter registration card with the name of a real person but without that person’s consent and forging his or her signature on the card. None of that can happen with the Voter ID Card system in place because of the voter identification requirements at the DMV site. Voter impersonation: A person claims to be someone else when casting a vote. The Voter ID Card prevents all of that activity. Fraud by election officials: Manipulation of ballots by officials administering the election, such as tossing out ballots or casting ballots in voters’ names. Each ballot will have a valid Voter ID number on it. If not, the system will not accept it. If it does have a valid number, the system will only accept it once. Another fraud problem solved. Absentee ballot vote fraud: A person attempts to fill out and turn in an absentee ballot containing false information. The Voter ID Card will not allow this because an absentee ballot application must contain a valid Voter ID Card number. The only way absentee ballot fraud can exist is if a registered voter has their Voter ID Card stolen; an insignificant number. With respect to campaign contributions, the change is simple. Every eligible voter who wishes to make a campaign contribution will need to have a Voter ID Card because, under the new federal law, the contribution cannot be accepted by the candidate without a Voter ID number. And that ID number will be the key to auditing a candidate’s contributions.  Bottom line:We have seen the videos of ballot counting rooms with dozens of people milling about, workers carrying stacks of loose ballots, tables piled high with hundreds of ballots, and workers taking ballots from one stack and placing it on another stack. Zero ballot security.Under the new proposed federal election law, the voter will relinquish a completed ballot into the hands of a 3-person counting team, and literally within seconds that ballot will be numbered, time-date stamped, initialed by each team member, the vote tallied to the correct candidate and the ballot secured in a storage box. Seconds, not hours or days. Under the new federal Campaign Finance Reform law, throughout the campaign, auditors will be active in every state. Candidates running for US House and Senate seats and for President must keep scrupulous records and be able to match contributions totals with campaign expenditures and prove that no voter has contributed more than $1000 to their campaign. The Voter ID # is the key to making this work.Voting is a civic responsibility. We value our freedoms: freedom of speech, religion, bearing arms, assembly, etc. But freedom is not free. We all need to play a role. Voter apathy is rampant and disgusting. In the 2016 election, an estimated 100 million eligible voters did not vote. In the 2020 election, a record number of Americans voted but still an estimated 80 million did not.  With this Voter ID Card law in place, the Department of Education should initiate an on-going national campaign to get every high school in the country involved in voter registration. Most high school graduates are age 18. Every high school should have a program that encourages every student who turns 18 to immediately get a Voter ID Card. Encourage them to participate in elections beginning with the first election following their eligibility and make it a lifetime civic duty response.  A note to subscribers: There are four imperatives to getting our national elections under control. Part One, 20 November 2020, was:  WE NEED A NEW LAW FOR NATIONAL ELECTIONS, Part Two, 30 November 2020, was: CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM,  This is Part Three: EVERY CITIZEN SHOULD HAVE A VOTER ID CARD. Coming soon, Part Four:  CHANGE THE WAY WE CONDUCT PRIMARY ELECTIONS. If you agree with any of these proposals, I encourage you to contact your US Representative and Senators. Thank you, Lt Gen, MARVIN L. COVAULT, US ARMY retired, author of VISION TO EXECUTION, Rip MacIntosh

A Summary of the Texas Election LawsuitBy Robert MadsenAmerican ThinkerDecember 10, 2020 Texas claims that the presidential elections as held (and as directed by government officials outside the legislature) in Pennsylvania, Georgia, Wisconsin, and Michigan all flagrantly violated their own election laws by materially weakening or doing away with security measures.  Further, according to the U.S. Constitution, the legislature (representing the citizens) of each state has absolute authority and responsibility for how presidential electors are chosen; the will of the legislature being expressed through state law. Texas claims that the violations of election law in these states created an environment where ballot fraud was enabled and likely to occur. The lawsuit lists the violations of law in each of the defendant states and provides evidence of fraud (the number of ballots handled unconstitutionally) in each of the states sufficient to change the outcome of the ballot counts. PennsylvaniaFacts:Vote Tally: 3,445,548 for Biden and 3,363,951 for Trump – margin 81,597.Requests for mail-in ballots 70% Democrats and 25% Republicans.Mail-in ballots increased from 266,208 in 2016 to over 3,000,000 in 2020.Violations of Election Law:The Secretary of State unilaterally abrogated signature verification requirements for mail-in ballots.PA supreme court changed the existing deadline for receiving mail-in ballots from 8:00 PM on the day of the election to 3 days after the election and adopted a presumption that non-postmarked ballots be considered as valid.Election officials in Philadelphia and Allegheny Counties did not follow state law permitting poll-watchers to be present for the opening, counting, and recording of mail-in ballots.The Secretary of State directed election officials to remove ballots before 7:00 AM on the day of the election in order to “cure” defective mail-in ballots. This was done only in Democrat majority counties.Election officials did not segregate ballots received after 8:00 PM on election day breaking the promise made to the U.S. Supreme Court thus making it impossible to identify or remove those ballots.Evidence of Fraud:Ballots with no mailed date: 9,005 (no evidence they were sent to a voter)Ballots returned on or before the mailed date: 58,221Ballots returned one day after the mailed date: 51,200 (Perhaps not impossible, but highly unlikely for the average voter to receive a ballot, fill it out, place it in the mail and have it returned the next day.)On Nov 2, the day before the election, PA reports that 2.7 million ballots had been sent out. On Nov 4 that number had increased to 3.1 million — an increase of 400,000 mail-in ballots at election time with literally no reasonable chance of them being used by legitimate voters. GeorgiaFacts:Vote Tally: 2,472,098 for Biden and 2,458,121 for Trump – margin 12,670.Mail-in ballots: 65.32% for Biden and 34.68% for Trump.Mail-in ballots increased from 213,033 in 2016 to 1,305,659 in 2020.Violations of Election Law:The Secretary of State unilaterally abrogated signature verification requirements for mail-in ballots.The Secretary of State authorized opening and processing mail-in ballots up to three weeks before election day when the law prohibits that until after the polls open on election day.The Secretary of State materially weakened the security requirements for ballot rejection based on signature verification or other missing information.Evidence of Fraud:The mail-in ballot rejection rate for missing or inaccurate information or for non-matching signatures decreased from 6.42% in 2016 to .36% in 2020. Rejecting 2020 ballots at the same rate as 2016 would have resulted in a net gain of 25,587 votes for Trump – twice the number needed to overcome Biden’s count. With a six-fold increase in the number of mail-in ballots, reason would indicate that the rejection rate would increase, or at least stay the same, with so many first-time mail-in ballots. MichiganFacts:Vote Tally: 2,796,702 for Biden and 2,650,695 for Trump – margin 146,007.In 2016 587,618 voters requested mail-in ballots. In 2020 3.2 million votes were cast by mail-in ballot.Democrats voted by mail at a rate approximately two times that of Republican voters.Violations of Election Law:The Secretary of State unilaterally abrogated signature verification requirements for mail-in ballots.The Secretary of State sent out unsolicited ballots to all 7.7 million registered voters contrary to election law which requires a voter to request a mail-in ballot through a process that includes a signature to be matched with the voter registration.The Secretary of State also allowed absentee ballots to be requested online without signature verification.Local election officials in Wayne County — containing 322,925 more ballots for Biden than for Trump — opened and processed mail-in ballots without poll-watchers present.Local election officials in Wayne County also ignored the strict election law requirements of placing a written statement or stamp on each ballot envelope indicating that the voter signature was in fact-checked and verified with the signature on file with the state.Evidence of Fraud:174,384 mail-in ballots in Wayne County had no valid registration number, indicating they likely resulted from election workers running the same ballots through the tabulator multiple times.71% of Wayne County Absent Voter Counting Boards were unbalanced, where the number of people who checked in did not match the number of ballots cast. WisconsinFacts:Vote Tally: 1,630,716 for Biden and 1,610,151 for Trump – margin 20,565.Mail-in ballots increased from 146,932 in 2016 to 1,275,019 in 2020.Violations of Election Law:The Wisconsin Elections Commission (WEC) positioned hundreds of unmanned illegal drop boxes to collect absentee ballots. (The use of any dropbox, manned or unmanned, is directly prohibited by Wisconsin statute. Any alternate mail-in ballot site “shall be staffed by the municipal clerk or the executive director of the board of election commissioners…” “Ballots cast in contravention of the procedures specified in those provisions may not be included in the certified result of any election.”)The WEC encouraged voters to unlawfully declare themselves “indefinitely confined” in order to avoid security measures like signature verification and photo ID requirements. Nearly 216,000 voters said they were indefinitely confined in the 2020 election, nearly four times as many as in 2016.Strict laws requiring mail-in voters to certify by signature including the signature of an adult witness were ignored or circumvented by election officials.Evidence of Fraud:One hundred thousand ballots were supposedly missing and directed to be “found” after election day. ConclusionSignificant violations of election law that were put into place to protect against election fraud is sufficient to invalidate the results of the elections, apart from whatever evidence is able to be gathered in a short time to show actual numbers of fraudulent ballots. Reason would indicate that there is a high number of fraudulent ballots that are impossible to identify, which is why the election laws pertaining to mail-in ballots were established, to begin with. There is no remedy to correct the Nov 3rd election because ballots that did not adhere to election law cannot be identified as separate from those that did. An accurate count of legal ballots that were cast cannot be made. Therefore, as directed in the Constitution, it falls to the legislature of each state to choose electors as has been done in the past. Failing that, each state may determine not to submit any presidential electors. The Texas lawsuit claims the odds of Biden overcoming Trump’s lead and winning any of the states after the point indicated was one in a quadrillion. And therefore, the odds of winning all four was one in a quadrillion to the fourth power. The lawsuit did not provide information on how that number was determined. This may seem exaggerated to some. It is enough to state that the odds of winning any one of the states were highly unlikely and the odds of winning all four were extremely unlikely. For example, if the odds of winning any one of the states was numerically much less extreme but still highly unlikely, say something like one in twenty, then the odds of doing that in all four states would be 1 in 160,000. Twenty beans in a jar: 19 white and 1 black. Reach in without looking and be lucky enough to pull out the one black bean. The chance of doing that again is 1 in 400. Clearly indicative of cheating if someone claims to have done that four times in a row. As I said the statistical analysis behind the claim of odds of 1 in a 1,000,000,000,000 is not given so I cannot speak to that. But even if the odds were orders of magnitude better than that, they were still astronomically small. At any rate, the merits of the lawsuit do not depend on any certain level of odds of Biden overcoming a lead that had been established by 3:00 A.M. the day after the election. Rip McIntosh

6 Things To Know About Texas’s Supreme Court Petition Over 2020’s Messed-Up ElectionTexas argues that the case ‘presents constitutional questions of immense national consequences,’ namely that the 2020 election suffered from serious constitutional irregularities. By Margot ClevelandThe FederalistDecember 9, 2020 On Monday, Texas filed a motion for leave to file a “Bill of Complaint” with the U.S. Supreme Court to challenge the constitutionality of Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin’s administration of the 2020 presidential election. The combined filings, which also include a request for an expedited review and a preliminary injunction, spanned more than 150 pages. Here’s what you need to know about this latest election case. 1. This Is Not Bush v. GoreTexas’s lawsuit is a procedural creature differing greatly from the Bush v. Gore case about the 2000 election. Unlike Bush v. Gore, which traveled to the Supreme Court on appeal, Texas’s lawsuit relies on the Supreme Court’s “original jurisdiction,” or power to hear a case initially. The Constitution establishes several types of cases that fall within the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction, but other than cases involving disputes between two states, Congress has created “concurrent jurisdiction” with lower federal courts. This means those other types of disputes may be heard by federal district courts. Not so in the case of a state suing a state. The U.S. Supreme Court has “exclusive jurisdiction” over such cases, meaning that such disputes can only be resolved by the U.S. Supreme Court. Paradoxically, however, the Supreme Court does not have to hear a dispute between the states. Rather, controlling precedent holds that whether to hear such a dispute is within the Supreme Court’s discretion. That is why Texas filed a “Motion for Leave to File a Bill of Complaint”—because it needs the court’s permission to file the complaint. In its memorandum in support of its motion, Texas argues that the case “presents constitutional questions of immense national consequences,” namely that the 2020 election suffered from serious constitutional irregularities, including violations by the defendant states of the Electors Clause and the Due Process Clause of the Constitution. The brief also argues that a ruling would help “preserve the Constitution and help prevent irregularities in future elections.” Texas, however, also argues the Supreme Court’s “review is not discretionary.” In other words, Texas is also asking the Supreme Court to overturn its precedent that holds that the high court need not accept a complaint filed by one state against one or more defendant states. Given the time-sensitivity of the election dispute, it is unlikely that the Supreme Court will want to waste precious days revisiting this precedent—something unnecessary if the Supreme Court accepts the Bill of Complaint on a discretionary basis. 2. The Time Is Short—And the Court Has Already ActedAlong with its Motion for Leave to File a Bill of Complaint, Texas also filed a Motion for Expedited Consideration of its motions, including its second motion, a Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, Temporary Restraining Order, or Alternatively a Stay. In this latter motion, Texas asks the court to order Georgia, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania not to take any action to certify presidential electors, participate in the Electoral College, or vote for a presidential candidate until the Supreme Court resolves Texas’s lawsuit. Noting that federal law establishes Dec. 8 as a safe harbor for certifying presidential electors, that the Electoral College votes on Dec. 14, and the House of Representatives counts votes on Jan. 6, Texas implores the court to expedite the proceeding, as “absent some form of relief, the defendants will appoint electors based on unconstitutional and deeply uncertain election results.” Yesterday the court, recognizing the urgency of the matter, ordered responses by the defendant states to Texas’s Motion for Leave to File a Bill of Complaints, and Texas’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, Temporary Restraining Order, or a Stay, to be filed by Dec. 10, 2020, at 3 p.m. 3. Texas Presents Serious Constitutional ClaimsNotwithstanding some branding Texas lawsuit a “Hail Mary” attempt to block the outcome of the 2020 election, the Lone Star State’s complaint presents serious constitutional issues. Those issues, as Texas puts it, far exceed the electoral irregularities of “the hanging-chad saga of the 2000 election.” In its Bill of Complaint, filed along with its Motion for Leave, Texas presents three constitutional challenges. Count 1 alleges the defendant states violated the Electors Clause of the Constitution. The Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution provides “[e]ach state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress.” As Texas notes, this clause “makes clear that only the legislatures of the States are permitted to determine the rules for appointing presidential electors.” But, as Texas reveals in its detailed summary of the facts, each of the defendant states, through non-legislative actors, nullified legislatively established election laws in violation of the Electors Clause. For example, several large Wisconsin counties used drop boxes in direct violation of the Wisconsin Election Code that provides detailed procedures by which municipalities may designate sites for the acceptance of absentee ballots. Wisconsin election officials also ignored the statutory certification requirements for absentee ballots, counting votes that the state legislature defined as illegal because they did not include a witness signature and address. Michigan election officials likewise violated the statutory mandates established by the state legislature, with the secretary of state mass mailing absentee ballots in contravention of state law. And in Wayne County, the home of Detroit’s Democratic stronghold, election officials ignored the state’s signature verification requirement. Georgia also violated the legislature’s requirement for signature verifications, according to Texas’s complaint. The most egregious violations alleged came from Pennsylvania, where election officials ignored the statutory bar on inspecting ballots before election day, then illegally provided voter information to third parties and allowed illegal curing of the ballots. Significantly, in Pennsylvania, these illegal practices only occurred in Democratic strongholds, with Republicans following the law. These and other practices, Texas alleges, establish a clear violation of the Electors Clause because that clause makes clear that it is the state legislature—and not administrative agencies, election officials, or even courts—charged under our constitutional system with selecting electors. (This argument finds support in the three-justice concurrence authored by then-Chief Justice William Rehnquist in Bush v. Gore.) From there, Texas’s Count 1 argues that “electors appointed to Electoral College in violation of the Electors Clause cannot cast constitutionally valid votes for the office of President.” In Count 2, Texas relied on the same facts, then asserted an Equal Protection claim, premised on the reasoning of the majority opinion in Bush v. Gore. In Bush v. Gore, the Supreme Court held that the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution is violated when states apply differing standards for judging the legality of votes cast for president. “The right to vote is protected in more than the initial allocation of the franchise,” the Supreme Court wrote. “Equal protection applies as well to the manner of its exercise. Having once granted the right to vote on equal terms, the State may not, by later arbitrary and disparate treatment, value one person’s vote over that of another.” Then, citing its detailed statement of the facts, which highlighted the defendant states’ disparate treatment of voters, Texas argues in Count 2 that “equal protection violations in one State can and do adversely affect and diminish the weight of votes cast in States that lawfully abide by the election structure set forth in the Constitution.” Finally, in Count 3, Texas asserts a violation of the Due Process Clause of the Constitution. This claim is premised on Texas’s allegation that the election practices of the defendant states in 2020 reached “the point of patent and fundamental unfairness,” thus violating substantive due process. These three counts, and the detailed facts Texas alleges, make clear that Texas’s beef is not with the states’ election laws, but with the states’ violation of their own election laws, in contravention of the U.S. Constitution. 4. Texas’s Standing to SueMerely alleging the defendant states violated the Constitution, however, is not enough. Texas must also establish that it has “standing” to sue, meaning it has been injured in a way entitling it to stand before the court and seek redress. In its Motion for Leave, Texas argues at great length that it has standing, and presents three separate bases for it. First, Texas claims the right to present the constitutional claims of its citizens, who “have the right to demand that all other States abide by the constitutionally set rules in appointing presidential electors to the electoral college.” Second, Texas “presses its own form of voting-rights injury as States” premised on the structure of the Constitution. “Whereas the House represents the People proportionally, the Senate represents the States,” Texas notes. Thus, “[w]hile Americans likely care more about who is elected President, the States have a distinct interest in who is elected Vice President and thus who can cast the tie-breaking vote in the Senate,” the Texas brief stresses. “Through that interest,” the brief continues:States suffer an Article III injury when another State violates federal law to affect the outcome of a presidential election. This injury is particularly acute in 2020, where a Senate majority often will hang on the Vice President’s tie-breaking vote because of the nearly equal—and, depending on the outcome of Georgia run-off elections in January, possibly equal— balance between political parties. Quite simply, it is vitally important to the States who becomes Vice President. Finally, Texas argues it has standing to sue as a representative of the state’s “electors.” These electors, Texas argues, suffer a “legislative injury whenever allegedly improper actions deny them a working majority.” Since “[t]he electoral college is a zero-sum game,” the unconstitutional appointment of electors in other states injures Texas’s electors, according to the briefing. 5. Texas Is Not Seeking to Overturn the Election—Or Install TrumpThese injuries, Texas asserts, demand a remedy. But the remedy sought is not what some may surmise is the goal—a second term for President Trump. No, what Texas seeks is for the Supreme Court to mandate that the defendant states comply with the Constitution, and that means that electors are selected by the states’ legislatures. Texas makes this point clear, stressing: “Plaintiff State does not ask this Court to decide who won the election; they only ask that the Court enjoin the clear violations of the Electors Clause of the Constitution.” 6. Texas Brings the QuotesThe Texas attorney general’s legal team excelled in its briefing. With clear and striking facts and detailed and persuasive argument, Texas has made a solid case for Supreme Court involvement, and along the way, the legal team included some stellar quotes—some from years past and some new classics, such as this opener: Our Country stands at an important crossroads. Either the Constitution matters and must be followed, even when some officials consider it inconvenient or out of date, or it is simply a piece of parchment on display at the National Archives. We ask the Court to choose the former. If the Supreme Court does intervene, it will indeed be “in the spirit of Marbury v. Madison,” as Texas put it. Margot Cleveland is a senior contributor to The Federalist. Cleveland served nearly 25 years as a permanent law clerk to a federal appellate judge and is a former full-time faculty member and adjunct instructor at the college of business at the University of Notre Dame. The views expressed here are those of Cleveland in her private capacity. RIP MCINTOSH

6 Things To Know About Texas’s Supreme Court Petition Over 2020’s Messed-Up ElectionTexas argues that the case ‘presents constitutional questions of immense national consequences,’ namely that the 2020 election suffered from serious constitutional irregularities. By Margot ClevelandThe FederalistDecember 9, 2020 On Monday, Texas filed a motion for leave to file a “Bill of Complaint” with the U.S. Supreme Court to challenge the constitutionality of Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin’s administration of the 2020 presidential election. The combined filings, which also include a request for an expedited review and a preliminary injunction, spanned more than 150 pages. Here’s what you need to know about this latest election case. 1. This Is Not Bush v. GoreTexas’s lawsuit is a procedural creature differing greatly from the Bush v. Gore case about the 2000 election. Unlike Bush v. Gore, which traveled to the Supreme Court on appeal, Texas’s lawsuit relies on the Supreme Court’s “original jurisdiction,” or power to hear a case initially. The Constitution establishes several types of cases that fall within the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction, but other than cases involving disputes between two states, Congress has created “concurrent jurisdiction” with lower federal courts. This means those other types of disputes may be heard by federal district courts. Not so in the case of a state suing a state. The U.S. Supreme Court has “exclusive jurisdiction” over such cases, meaning that such disputes can only be resolved by the U.S. Supreme Court. Paradoxically, however, the Supreme Court does not have to hear a dispute between the states. Rather, controlling precedent holds that whether to hear such a dispute is within the Supreme Court’s discretion. That is why Texas filed a “Motion for Leave to File a Bill of Complaint”—because it needs the court’s permission to file the complaint. In its memorandum in support of its motion, Texas argues that the case “presents constitutional questions of immense national consequences,” namely that the 2020 election suffered from serious constitutional irregularities, including violations by the defendant states of the Electors Clause and the Due Process Clause of the Constitution. The brief also argues that a ruling would help “preserve the Constitution and help prevent irregularities in future elections.” Texas, however, also argues the Supreme Court’s “review is not discretionary.” In other words, Texas is also asking the Supreme Court to overturn its precedent that holds that the high court need not accept a complaint filed by one state against one or more defendant states. Given the time-sensitivity of the election dispute, it is unlikely that the Supreme Court will want to waste precious days revisiting this precedent—something unnecessary if the Supreme Court accepts the Bill of Complaint on a discretionary basis. 2. The Time Is Short—And the Court Has Already ActedAlong with its Motion for Leave to File a Bill of Complaint, Texas also filed a Motion for Expedited Consideration of its motions, including its second motion, a Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, Temporary Restraining Order, or Alternatively a Stay. In this latter motion, Texas asks the court to order Georgia, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania not to take any action to certify presidential electors, participate in the Electoral College, or vote for a presidential candidate until the Supreme Court resolves Texas’s lawsuit. Noting that federal law establishes Dec. 8 as a safe harbor for certifying presidential electors, that the Electoral College votes on Dec. 14, and the House of Representatives counts votes on Jan. 6, Texas implores the court to expedite the proceeding, as “absent some form of relief, the defendants will appoint electors based on unconstitutional and deeply uncertain election results.” Yesterday the court, recognizing the urgency of the matter, ordered responses by the defendant states to Texas’s Motion for Leave to File a Bill of Complaints, and Texas’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, Temporary Restraining Order, or a Stay, to be filed by Dec. 10, 2020, at 3 p.m. 3. Texas Presents Serious Constitutional ClaimsNotwithstanding some branding Texas lawsuit a “Hail Mary” attempt to block the outcome of the 2020 election, the Lone Star State’s complaint presents serious constitutional issues. Those issues, as Texas puts it, far exceed the electoral irregularities of “the hanging-chad saga of the 2000 election.” In its Bill of Complaint, filed along with its Motion for Leave, Texas presents three constitutional challenges. Count 1 alleges the defendant states violated the Electors Clause of the Constitution. The Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution provides “[e]ach state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress.” As Texas notes, this clause “makes clear that only the legislatures of the States are permitted to determine the rules for appointing presidential electors.” But, as Texas reveals in its detailed summary of the facts, each of the defendant states, through non-legislative actors, nullified legislatively established election laws in violation of the Electors Clause. For example, several large Wisconsin counties used drop boxes in direct violation of the Wisconsin Election Code that provides detailed procedures by which municipalities may designate sites for the acceptance of absentee ballots. Wisconsin election officials also ignored the statutory certification requirements for absentee ballots, counting votes that the state legislature defined as illegal because they did not include a witness signature and address. Michigan election officials likewise violated the statutory mandates established by the state legislature, with the secretary of state mass mailing absentee ballots in contravention of state law. And in Wayne County, the home of Detroit’s Democratic stronghold, election officials ignored the state’s signature verification requirement. Georgia also violated the legislature’s requirement for signature verifications, according to Texas’s complaint. The most egregious violations alleged came from Pennsylvania, where election officials ignored the statutory bar on inspecting ballots before election day, then illegally provided voter information to third parties and allowed illegal curing of the ballots. Significantly, in Pennsylvania, these illegal practices only occurred in Democratic strongholds, with Republicans following the law. These and other practices, Texas alleges, establish a clear violation of the Electors Clause because that clause makes clear that it is the state legislature—and not administrative agencies, election officials, or even courts—charged under our constitutional system with selecting electors. (This argument finds support in the three-justice concurrence authored by then-Chief Justice William Rehnquist in Bush v. Gore.) From there, Texas’s Count 1 argues that “electors appointed to Electoral College in violation of the Electors Clause cannot cast constitutionally valid votes for the office of President.” In Count 2, Texas relied on the same facts, then asserted an Equal Protection claim, premised on the reasoning of the majority opinion in Bush v. Gore. In Bush v. Gore, the Supreme Court held that the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution is violated when states apply differing standards for judging the legality of votes cast for president. “The right to vote is protected in more than the initial allocation of the franchise,” the Supreme Court wrote. “Equal protection applies as well to the manner of its exercise. Having once granted the right to vote on equal terms, the State may not, by later arbitrary and disparate treatment, value one person’s vote over that of another.” Then, citing its detailed statement of the facts, which highlighted the defendant states’ disparate treatment of voters, Texas argues in Count 2 that “equal protection violations in one State can and do adversely affect and diminish the weight of votes cast in States that lawfully abide by the election structure set forth in the Constitution.” Finally, in Count 3, Texas asserts a violation of the Due Process Clause of the Constitution. This claim is premised on Texas’s allegation that the election practices of the defendant states in 2020 reached “the point of patent and fundamental unfairness,” thus violating substantive due process. These three counts, and the detailed facts Texas alleges, make clear that Texas’s beef is not with the states’ election laws, but with the states’ violation of their own election laws, in contravention of the U.S. Constitution. 4. Texas’s Standing to SueMerely alleging the defendant states violated the Constitution, however, is not enough. Texas must also establish that it has “standing” to sue, meaning it has been injured in a way entitling it to stand before the court and seek redress. In its Motion for Leave, Texas argues at great length that it has standing, and presents three separate bases for it. First, Texas claims the right to present the constitutional claims of its citizens, who “have the right to demand that all other States abide by the constitutionally set rules in appointing presidential electors to the electoral college.” Second, Texas “presses its own form of voting-rights injury as States” premised on the structure of the Constitution. “Whereas the House represents the People proportionally, the Senate represents the States,” Texas notes. Thus, “[w]hile Americans likely care more about who is elected President, the States have a distinct interest in who is elected Vice President and thus who can cast the tie-breaking vote in the Senate,” the Texas brief stresses. “Through that interest,” the brief continues:States suffer an Article III injury when another State violates federal law to affect the outcome of a presidential election. This injury is particularly acute in 2020, where a Senate majority often will hang on the Vice President’s tie-breaking vote because of the nearly equal—and, depending on the outcome of Georgia run-off elections in January, possibly equal— balance between political parties. Quite simply, it is vitally important to the States who becomes Vice President. Finally, Texas argues it has standing to sue as a representative of the state’s “electors.” These electors, Texas argues, suffer a “legislative injury whenever allegedly improper actions deny them a working majority.” Since “[t]he electoral college is a zero-sum game,” the unconstitutional appointment of electors in other states injures Texas’s electors, according to the briefing. 5. Texas Is Not Seeking to Overturn the Election—Or Install TrumpThese injuries, Texas asserts, demand a remedy. But the remedy sought is not what some may surmise is the goal—a second term for President Trump. No, what Texas seeks is for the Supreme Court to mandate that the defendant states comply with the Constitution, and that means that electors are selected by the states’ legislatures. Texas makes this point clear, stressing: “Plaintiff State does not ask this Court to decide who won the election; they only ask that the Court enjoin the clear violations of the Electors Clause of the Constitution.” 6. Texas Brings the QuotesThe Texas attorney general’s legal team excelled in its briefing. With clear and striking facts and detailed and persuasive argument, Texas has made a solid case for Supreme Court involvement, and along the way, the legal team included some stellar quotes—some from years past and some new classics, such as this opener: Our Country stands at an important crossroads. Either the Constitution matters and must be followed, even when some officials consider it inconvenient or out of date, or it is simply a piece of parchment on display at the National Archives. We ask the Court to choose the former. If the Supreme Court does intervene, it will indeed be “in the spirit of Marbury v. Madison,” as Texas put it. Margot Cleveland is a senior contributor to The Federalist. Cleveland served nearly 25 years as a permanent law clerk to a federal appellate judge and is a former full-time faculty member and adjunct instructor at the college of business at the University of Notre Dame. The views expressed here are those of Cleveland in her private capacity. RIP MCINTOSH

• FEATURED
• FEATURED COMMENTARY

A Pope in Bed With Monsters

 Steve SkojecDecember 10, 20200 Comments

• 312Shares
• 312

The other day, as I was scrolling through social media, I saw a headline that caught my eye. “China is harvesting thousands of human organs from its Uighur Muslim minority, UN human-rights body hears.” The first thing I did was look at the source. I know the kind of wicked cruelty China is capable of, but I didn’t want to be suckered in by a clickbait headline at some fringe publication.

Business Insider.https://b56fe7d2363a8948998fb4be4d9e7df2.safeframe.googlesyndication.com/safeframe/1-0-37/html/container.html

Huh. Didn’t expect that. I read on:

China was accused on Tuesday of harvesting human organs from persecuted groups in the country.

The China Tribunal, a group that’s investigating the organ harvesting, said at a tense meeting of the United Nations Human Rights Council that the Chinese government was taking hearts, kidneys, lungs, and skin from groups including Uighur Muslims and members of the Falun Gong religious group.

The China Tribunal describes itself as an “independent, international people’s tribunal, and was backed by the International Coalition to End Transplant Abuse in China, an Australian human rights charity made up of lawyers, academics, and medical professionals.

[…]

Sabi was presenting evidence from the tribunal’s final report, published in June, which found that a “very substantial number” of prisoners were “killed to order” by the Chinese government.

They were “cut open while still alive for their kidneys, livers, hearts, lungs, cornea and skin to be removed and turned into commodities for sale,” the report said.

Brutal, horrifying, dystopian nightmare fuel. And then this:

Addressing UN representatives, a lawyer for the China Tribunal, Hamid Sabi, said the group had proof of the organ harvesting.

Sabi said the group had found that China was committing “crimes against humanity” by harvesting organs from religious minorities like the Uighurs and members of Falun Gong, which has been banned and widely persecuted by the Chinese government.

My first thought, seeing the world as I do through a Catholic lens, was that this pope — this cruel, wicked pope — has sold out the faithful Catholics in China to the a regime willing to do this to other religious minorities. The regime that is known for being “one of the world’s most notorious violators of religious freedom.” A nation where there has been “a rise in every facet of persecution.”

He can’t possibly think they won’t do all these things to Catholics. His flock. 

And yet, he shows no indication that he cares even a little. Do you remember how this godforsaken year began? With the pope slapping the hand of an Asian woman who tried desperately to speak to him on New Year’s Eve? A woman whom some believe was making an appeal to him on behalf of the Chinese people?

Worse yet, we don’t know why he did it. We know it isn’t ignorance – after all, he has been warned by experts and diplomats about what a terrible idea it was to engage in foolish Ostpolitik with Beijing. We can only speculate.

It appears he may have done it for money. He’s been accused of taking billions in bribes from the Chinese government. This might make sense, even if it’s awful. After all, as Cardinal Pell told Reuters this month:

“The great challenge that lies before the Vatican is that it’s slowly going broke. Now that’s a bit of an exaggeration (but) it’s slowly happening,” he said, adding that he was basing his comments on public information.

Growing Vatican deficits – the 2020 shortfall is expected to be more than 50 million euros – and a looming deficit of hundreds of millions of euros in the Vatican’s pension fund means potential future trouble.

“You can’t go on like that forever,” Pell said.

Perhaps Francis sold out Chinese Catholics for another reason; perhaps it’s because he wants a seat at the table with his Chinese Comrades. After all, as his own direct subordinate so helpfully informed us, “Right now, those who are best implementing the social doctrine of the Church are the Chinese.”

Of course, Francis, like the good Peronist he is, likes to keep his options open. Open Marxism is one thing. But what about virtue-signal “capitalism”? He rails against free markets, but he eagerly signed up for something called The Council for Inclusive Capitalism with the Vatican (CICV). What kind of goals does this council have, you ask? Well, let’s take a peek:

Capitalism has delivered wealth and prosperity to billions of people around the world. However, we recognize that capitalism must evolve to promote a more sustainable, trusted, equitable, and inclusive system that works for everyone. This is especially important in these days of unprecedented technological advancement, climate disruption, public health crises, and social unrest. The Council recognizes the need for determined actions by its members and others working with them to achieve these aspirations for capitalism.

If you’re thinking that sounds a lot like the World Economic Forum’s language about the “Great Reset,” and not much like real capitalism at all, that’s because that’s exactly what it is. Here’s the WEF language, as a refresher:

To achieve a better outcome, the world must act jointly and swiftly to revamp all aspects of our societies and economies, from education to social contracts and working conditions. Every country, from the United States to China, must participate, and every industry, from oil and gas to tech, must be transformed. In short, we need a “Great Reset” of capitalism.

Remember, too, that Pope Francis has finally bought in to openly using the Great Reset catch phrase, “Build Back Better.

For him, it’s looking like the plan is all coming together quite nicely. He’s still part of the evil and insanely powerful cool kids club, which is probably a very important thing for a power-hungry Argentinian social climber of dubious, if any, supernatural belief, who is willing to use the Church Christ founded like a giant NGO pushing ideological goals at the expense of salvation of souls.

Sometimes monsters don’t cut organs out of your still living body. Sometimes, they seek to fundamentally transform the world you live in, or the Church you thought you knew and could trust.

Now, I haven’t taken the time to go through the list of team members — “guardians,” as they call them — on the CICV with a fine-toothed comb. But one name stands out right away: Lynn Forrester de Rothschild. Any time you see a Rothschild involved with something, you tend to take notice.

I don’t know anything about her, but a little googling tells me she’s (no surprise) insanely rich. She’s friends with (and a fundraiser for) the Clintons. She introduced Prince Andrew to Jeffrey Epstein (and we all know how well that turned out.) And she’s been advocating for a reset of capitalism since at least 2016:

It is perfectly obvious that failings in Western capitalism are at the root of the social and political dysfunction gripping the world. Income and wealth have indeed been monopolized by the richest few leading to widening economic inequality, stagnate wages and a shrinking middle class. The values and priorities of our capitalist system need to evolve, as they have done many times before.

[…]

Bringing business and society together is the goal of “Inclusive Capitalism”. It is not just another name for corporate social responsibility, philanthropy or redistribution. Instead, it represents a different investment and management theory. It unifies us toward a shared goal of broadly based prosperity. It reaffirms the basic bargain between society and business because firms identify and measure material environmental, social, and governance metrics for the best interests of their customers, employees, shareholders and communities. The firms that perform best for all become the most financially valuable companies.

It always comes back to this: meddling. Treating nations, economies, and people like playthings. Restructuring corporations as organs of an ideological agenda. The über-rich and the ultra-powerful are apparently bored of luxurious spa retreats, obscenely expensive food and art, yacht parties, and exotic travel. I wouldn’t mind if they spent all their time on that. I wouldn’t care if they bought dozens pet tigers, or fleets of Bugatti Veyrons, or swam in vaults full of gold coins like Scrooge McDuck.

I just want these monsters to leave us alone. I want them not to lock us down, bankrupt us, or sell us and our children  — sometimes literally — to the highest bidder.

But they won’t stop, because they think they’re better than all of us. They think they’re entitled to toy with us. They think they have every right to tinker with — or even carve up piecemeal and ultimately dispose of, as the Chinese government so horrifyingly proves — human lives.

And like it or not, Pope Francis is one of them.

Steve Skojec

Steve Skojec is the Founding Publisher and Executive Director of OnePeterFive.com. He received his BA in Communications and Theology from Franciscan University of Steubenville in 2001. His commentary has appeared in The New York Times, USA Today, The Washington Post, The Washington Times, Crisis Magazine, EWTN, Huffington Post Live, The Fox News Channel, Foreign Policy, and the BBC. Steve and his wife Jamie have seven children.www.steveskojec.com

6 Things To Know About Texas’s Supreme Court Petition Over 2020’s Messed-Up ElectionTexas argues that the case ‘presents constitutional questions of immense national consequences,’ namely that the 2020 election suffered from serious constitutional irregularities.
By Margot ClevelandThe FederalistDecember 9, 2020
On Monday, Texas filed a motion for leave to file a “Bill of Complaint” with the U.S. Supreme Court to challenge the constitutionality of Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin’s administration of the 2020 presidential election. The combined filings, which also include a request for an expedited review and a preliminary injunction, spanned more than 150 pages. Here’s what you need to know about this latest election case.
1. This Is Not Bush v. GoreTexas’s lawsuit is a procedural creature differing greatly from the Bush v. Gore case about the 2000 election. Unlike Bush v. Gore, which traveled to the Supreme Court on appeal, Texas’s lawsuit relies on the Supreme Court’s “original jurisdiction,” or power to hear a case initially.
The Constitution establishes several types of cases that fall within the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction, but other than cases involving disputes between two states, Congress has created “concurrent jurisdiction” with lower federal courts. This means those other types of disputes may be heard by federal district courts.
Not so in the case of a state suing a state. The U.S. Supreme Court has “exclusive jurisdiction” over such cases, meaning that such disputes can only be resolved by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Paradoxically, however, the Supreme Court does not have to hear a dispute between the states. Rather, controlling precedent holds that whether to hear such a dispute is within the Supreme Court’s discretion. That is why Texas filed a “Motion for Leave to File a Bill of Complaint”—because it needs the court’s permission to file the complaint.
In its memorandum in support of its motion, Texas argues that the case “presents constitutional questions of immense national consequences,” namely that the 2020 election suffered from serious constitutional irregularities, including violations by the defendant states of the Electors Clause and the Due Process Clause of the Constitution. The brief also argues that a ruling would help “preserve the Constitution and help prevent irregularities in future elections.”
Texas, however, also argues the Supreme Court’s “review is not discretionary.” In other words, Texas is also asking the Supreme Court to overturn its precedent that holds that the high court need not accept a complaint filed by one state against one or more defendant states. Given the time-sensitivity of the election dispute, it is unlikely that the Supreme Court will want to waste precious days revisiting this precedent—something unnecessary if the Supreme Court accepts the Bill of Complaint on a discretionary basis.
2. The Time Is Short—And the Court Has Already ActedAlong with its Motion for Leave to File a Bill of Complaint, Texas also filed a Motion for Expedited Consideration of its motions, including its second motion, a Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, Temporary Restraining Order, or Alternatively a Stay. In this latter motion, Texas asks the court to order Georgia, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania not to take any action to certify presidential electors, participate in the Electoral College, or vote for a presidential candidate until the Supreme Court resolves Texas’s lawsuit.
Noting that federal law establishes Dec. 8 as a safe harbor for certifying presidential electors, that the Electoral College votes on Dec. 14, and the House of Representatives counts votes on Jan. 6, Texas implores the court to expedite the proceeding, as “absent some form of relief, the defendants will appoint electors based on unconstitutional and deeply uncertain election results.”
Yesterday the court, recognizing the urgency of the matter, ordered responses by the defendant states to Texas’s Motion for Leave to File a Bill of Complaints, and Texas’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, Temporary Restraining Order, or a Stay, to be filed by Dec. 10, 2020, at 3 p.m.
3. Texas Presents Serious Constitutional ClaimsNotwithstanding some branding Texas lawsuit a “Hail Mary” attempt to block the outcome of the 2020 election, the Lone Star State’s complaint presents serious constitutional issues. Those issues, as Texas puts it, far exceed the electoral irregularities of “the hanging-chad saga of the 2000 election.”
In its Bill of Complaint, filed along with its Motion for Leave, Texas presents three constitutional challenges. Count 1 alleges the defendant states violated the Electors Clause of the Constitution.
The Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution provides “[e]ach state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress.” As Texas notes, this clause “makes clear that only the legislatures of the States are permitted to determine the rules for appointing presidential electors.”
But, as Texas reveals in its detailed summary of the facts, each of the defendant states, through non-legislative actors, nullified legislatively established election laws in violation of the Electors Clause. For example, several large Wisconsin counties used drop boxes in direct violation of the Wisconsin Election Code that provides detailed procedures by which municipalities may designate sites for the acceptance of absentee ballots. Wisconsin election officials also ignored the statutory certification requirements for absentee ballots, counting votes that the state legislature defined as illegal because they did not include a witness signature and address.
Michigan election officials likewise violated the statutory mandates established by the state legislature, with the secretary of state mass mailing absentee ballots in contravention of state law. And in Wayne County, the home of Detroit’s Democratic stronghold, election officials ignored the state’s signature verification requirement. Georgia also violated the legislature’s requirement for signature verifications, according to Texas’s complaint.
The most egregious violations alleged came from Pennsylvania, where election officials ignored the statutory bar on inspecting ballots before election day, then illegally provided voter information to third parties and allowed illegal curing of the ballots. Significantly, in Pennsylvania, these illegal practices only occurred in Democratic strongholds, with Republicans following the law.
These and other practices, Texas alleges, establish a clear violation of the Electors Clause because that clause makes clear that it is the state legislature—and not administrative agencies, election officials, or even courts—charged under our constitutional system with selecting electors. (This argument finds support in the three-justice concurrence authored by then-Chief Justice William Rehnquist in Bush v. Gore.) From there, Texas’s Count 1 argues that “electors appointed to Electoral College in violation of the Electors Clause cannot cast constitutionally valid votes for the office of President.”
In Count 2, Texas relied on the same facts, then asserted an Equal Protection claim, premised on the reasoning of the majority opinion in Bush v. Gore. In Bush v. Gore, the Supreme Court held that the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution is violated when states apply differing standards for judging the legality of votes cast for president.
“The right to vote is protected in more than the initial allocation of the franchise,” the Supreme Court wrote. “Equal protection applies as well to the manner of its exercise. Having once granted the right to vote on equal terms, the State may not, by later arbitrary and disparate treatment, value one person’s vote over that of another.”
Then, citing its detailed statement of the facts, which highlighted the defendant states’ disparate treatment of voters, Texas argues in Count 2 that “equal protection violations in one State can and do adversely affect and diminish the weight of votes cast in States that lawfully abide by the election structure set forth in the Constitution.”
Finally, in Count 3, Texas asserts a violation of the Due Process Clause of the Constitution. This claim is premised on Texas’s allegation that the election practices of the defendant states in 2020 reached “the point of patent and fundamental unfairness,” thus violating substantive due process.
These three counts, and the detailed facts Texas alleges, make clear that Texas’s beef is not with the states’ election laws, but with the states’ violation of their own election laws, in contravention of the U.S. Constitution.
4. Texas’s Standing to SueMerely alleging the defendant states violated the Constitution, however, is not enough. Texas must also establish that it has “standing” to sue, meaning it has been injured in a way entitling it to stand before the court and seek redress. In its Motion for Leave, Texas argues at great length that it has standing, and presents three separate bases for it.
First, Texas claims the right to present the constitutional claims of its citizens, who “have the right to demand that all other States abide by the constitutionally set rules in appointing presidential electors to the electoral college.”
Second, Texas “presses its own form of voting-rights injury as States” premised on the structure of the Constitution. “Whereas the House represents the People proportionally, the Senate represents the States,” Texas notes. Thus, “[w]hile Americans likely care more about who is elected President, the States have a distinct interest in who is elected Vice President and thus who can cast the tie-breaking vote in the Senate,” the Texas brief stresses. “Through that interest,” the brief continues:

• States suffer an Article III injury when another State violates federal law to affect the outcome of a presidential election. This injury is particularly acute in 2020, where a Senate majority often will hang on the Vice President’s tie-breaking vote because of the nearly equal—and, depending on the outcome of Georgia run-off elections in January, possibly equal— balance between political parties. Quite simply, it is vitally important to the States who becomes Vice President.

Finally, Texas argues it has standing to sue as a representative of the state’s “electors.” These electors, Texas argues, suffer a “legislative injury whenever allegedly improper actions deny them a working majority.” Since “[t]he electoral college is a zero-sum game,” the unconstitutional appointment of electors in other states injures Texas’s electors, according to the briefing.
5. Texas Is Not Seeking to Overturn the Election—Or Install TrumpThese injuries, Texas asserts, demand a remedy. But the remedy sought is not what some may surmise is the goal—a second term for President Trump.
No, what Texas seeks is for the Supreme Court to mandate that the defendant states comply with the Constitution, and that means that electors are selected by the states’ legislatures. Texas makes this point clear, stressing: “Plaintiff State does not ask this Court to decide who won the election; they only ask that the Court enjoin the clear violations of the Electors Clause of the Constitution.”
6. Texas Brings the QuotesThe Texas attorney general’s legal team excelled in its briefing. With clear and striking facts and detailed and persuasive argument, Texas has made a solid case for Supreme Court involvement, and along the way, the legal team included some stellar quotes—some from years past and some new classics, such as this opener:

• Our Country stands at an important crossroads. Either the Constitution matters and must be followed, even when some officials consider it inconvenient or out of date, or it is simply a piece of parchment on display at the National Archives. We ask the Court to choose the former.

If the Supreme Court does intervene, it will indeed be “in the spirit of Marbury v. Madison,” as Texas put it.
Margot Cleveland is a senior contributor to The Federalist. Cleveland served nearly 25 years as a permanent law clerk to a federal appellate judge and is a former full-time faculty member and adjunct instructor at the college of business at the University of Notre Dame. The views expressed here are those of Cleveland in her private capacity.

How to Steal an Entire CountryBy Donald FinleyAmerican ThinkerDecember 9, 2020 It’s been over a month since the election, and all is not well in Mudville.  The home team fights round the clock to prove that the challenger cheated, and the challenger makes no effort to calm fears or address concerns — just continues naming cronies and planning not just to take over the ballpark, but to change the rules for the entire sport. For those who care, the internet still exists, and there are more sites than Twitter, Facebook and news services out there where the truth actually matters.  So why does anyone have to search for the truth?  Investigations and impeachments have been blasted forcefully into our faces for years, thanks to the author of the MSM’s Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs), Joseph Goebbels, of Third Reich fame, who said, “The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly — it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over. A lie told once remains a lie, but a lie told a thousand times becomes the truth.”  It appears he also wrote the SOPs for Facebook, one of which is clearly “propaganda works best when those who are being manipulated are confident they are acting on their own free will.” Now, all across the MSM, Biden’s “victory” consequences are given the fait accompli treatment.  We should all just behave and accept reality.  It sounds and reads like this: “Trump is baselessly contesting the results.”  “Trump campaign court cases have been thrown out due to baseless claims.”  All the “doing” is from the Trump side, and it’s wasting everyone’s time.  The Democrats haven’t done a thing, obviously.  They are the innocent victims, once again, of Trump’s craziness.  “Meanwhile, President-Elect Biden saw his shadow again today.” There is nothing baseless about what happened.  It’s clear the Democrats planned this for quite some time, focusing on the battleground states, and centrally synchronizing and executing their Transition Integrity Project war-gamed plan.  They prepped the battlefield with lawsuits all across the country to remove any teeth in election laws, thus making the commission of fraud much easier and its discovery much harder.  And here is what they did.  And here. And here.  And here.  More here.  Just check it out.  I recommend getting a head start and caring now; otherwise, it will be a big shock when you care later, and you will certainly care later. So there’s a growing mountain of evidence that President Trump was re-elected.   If the election had been conducted according to existing laws, there would be no question.  If only legal ballots were counted, there would be no question.  If the Democrats hadn’t fabricated so many illegal votes, there would be no question.  But there is a question, and it’s this: how are we going to make this right?

How to Steal an Entire CountryBy Donald FinleyAmerican ThinkerDecember 9, 2020 It’s been over a month since the election, and all is not well in Mudville.  The home team fights round the clock to prove that the challenger cheated, and the challenger makes no effort to calm fears or address concerns — just continues naming cronies and planning not just to take over the ballpark, but to change the rules for the entire sport. For those who care, the internet still exists, and there are more sites than Twitter, Facebook and news services out there where the truth actually matters.  So why does anyone have to search for the truth?  Investigations and impeachments have been blasted forcefully into our faces for years, thanks to the author of the MSM’s Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs), Joseph Goebbels, of Third Reich fame, who said, “The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly — it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over. A lie told once remains a lie, but a lie told a thousand times becomes the truth.”  It appears he also wrote the SOPs for Facebook, one of which is clearly “propaganda works best when those who are being manipulated are confident they are acting on their own free will.” Now, all across the MSM, Biden’s “victory” consequences are given the fait accompli treatment.  We should all just behave and accept reality.  It sounds and reads like this: “Trump is baselessly contesting the results.”  “Trump campaign court cases have been thrown out due to baseless claims.”  All the “doing” is from the Trump side, and it’s wasting everyone’s time.  The Democrats haven’t done a thing, obviously.  They are the innocent victims, once again, of Trump’s craziness.  “Meanwhile, President-Elect Biden saw his shadow again today.” There is nothing baseless about what happened.  It’s clear the Democrats planned this for quite some time, focusing on the battleground states, and centrally synchronizing and executing their Transition Integrity Project war-gamed plan.  They prepped the battlefield with lawsuits all across the country to remove any teeth in election laws, thus making the commission of fraud much easier and its discovery much harder.  And here is what they did.  And here. And here.  And here.  More here.  Just check it out.  I recommend getting a head start and caring now; otherwise, it will be a big shock when you care later, and you will certainly care later. So there’s a growing mountain of evidence that President Trump was re-elected.   If the election had been conducted according to existing laws, there would be no question.  If only legal ballots were counted, there would be no question.  If the Democrats hadn’t fabricated so many illegal votes, there would be no question.  But there is a question, and it’s this: how are we going to make this right?   This is no conspiracy theory; it’s a real conspiracy, across many states, involving the highest levels of Democrat elected officials, down to hapless election volunteers just following directions.  It was a conspiracy to steal the federal election for Joe Biden or, in other words, to remove Donald Trump from office, something Democrats have been openly trying to do for at least four years.  All the guilty Democrats believe that if they act the propaganda out, it will actually happen.  Why don’t they call for transparency?  Because they don’t want it.  It will expose them for what they are.  Don’t they want to eliminate the cloud of illegitimacy in the election?  No, because they built it; it’s about power, not legitimacy.   What about their reputations in being associated with a fraudulent election?  They don’t care what we think of them; they want their shot at wielding power and getting rich from taxpayer dollars, book deals, and speaking fees.  There is no MAGA in what the Democrats did, nor in what they plan to do.  If they are allowed to do it, there will be no America left to make great.  Like the home title theft commercials, this is entire country and cultural theft.  Every MAGA policy will be reversed if Biden is allowed to take the Oval Office.  He will make America weak again, dependent upon others again, full of Made in China again, and friends to jihadists again — it’ll be Obama II, the narcissistic pronoun president again.  “I,” “Me,” and “My” will dominate every speech again, which will repeatedly lecture to us, “That’s not who we are,” as something we absolutely are is insulted in favor of some more egalitarian socialist-globalist replacement.  Under a Democrat administration, “we” real Americans who love “our” nation and don’t want “our” prosperity given to China so Hunter Biden can get rich again will slowly watch “our” Constitution, freedom, history, democracy, tradition, and independence chip away.  Because the Democrats are so self-centered, they have framed the governance of the U.S. as them versus Donald Trump.  They have fought everything Trump because he has fought their corruption with his promise to “Drain the Swamp.”  But this is much bigger than Donald Trump, and he has openly said so.  It’s not whether he wins or loses this election; it’s whether the U.S. ever again holds a free and fair election.  To the Democrats, it’s “Donald Trump’s investigations can destroy many of us in the next four years and we’ll never win another election” versus “Donald Trump goes away, and so do his investigations of Democrat crimes (and as a bonus, Joe Biden will let us do whatever we want and we’ll ensure we never again lose an election).”   In framing it in such a way, the Democrats’ thirst for power at all costs created the circumstances whereby they couldn’t succeed without doing grave damage to the country.  That’s where we are, with our election system shattered, void of the electorate’s trust, and those who did the damage potentially and ironically poised as the only ones who can fix it.  The epitome of “the fix is in.“ In the end, it comes down to this: what does it mean to have right versus wrong, corrupt versus honest, truth versus lies, fair versus stolen all work out backwards?   The last place on Earth the rest of the world would have thought that possible is right here.  “Our” America.  Abraham Lincoln said, “We shall nobly save, or meanly lose, the last best hope of earth.”  He was talking about slavery, an evil that needed to be purged from our nation, lest we lose our nation altogether. There are many evils, but today the foremost evil we must address is the Democrat party’s corruption of our national election.   We all know what happened, and what the right thing is.   We need to fix it.  Now.  The details and the prison terms can be figured out later. Donald N. Finley is a retired U.S. Air Force colonel. -RIP MCINTOSH

The Fred Martinez Report

Thursday, December 10, 2020

Constitutional Lawyer ” Summarizes Best Case Election Scenario” of the Texas Lawsuit and the other Options for President Trump

Former practicing constitutional law attorney Scott Lively “[s]ummarizes best case election scenario” of the Texas lawsuit and the other options for President Donald Trump: 

(Scott Lively’s Mission Dispatch, December 10, 2020, www.scottlively.net Observations on Current Events, History and Theology. Subscribe by email request here scottlivelyministries@gmail.com . DONATE HERE)

Lively in his website showed the other paths that President Donald Trump may need to take to save our American Republic in his post “Trump Should Not Surrender the White House”:

Trump Should Not Surrender the White House

If not for the surreal, unprecedented “Big Lie” conspiracy of the elites who monopolize our public information systems (Big Media and Big Tech) – and who dominate the top strata of our institutions, including the courts and intelligence agencies — all fair-minded Americans would agree that the 2020 election was irredeemably corrupted by fraud. The overwhelming preponderance of the evidence on the Trump side is matched only by the intensity of the criminal suppression of it by the anti-Trump side. Now even President Trump is admitting that it may be impossible to get his case to the Supreme Court for vindication of his election night victory through a full disclosure and review of that evidence by the constitutionalist majority of justices.

IF that turns out to be the case, and the elites have so thoroughly solidified control over the legal and political mechanisms which the Founders established for us, it will mean that they have broken the US Constitution itself. They will have accomplished what none of us believed possible – a coup d’ etat by means of the Purple Revolution, which is the domestic version of the color revolutions by which the globalist left and our CIA have overthrown governments across the globe. I have been writing about this Purple Revolution since before Trump’s inauguration in January 2017. 

Now we know why Pelosi and the other narrative-setters of the Purple Revolution began injecting the then-mystifying accusation (without a shred of evidence) that Trump might refuse to vacate the White House on January 20th. They expected to be able to block Trump from getting his case to SCOTUS, and to be able to gaslight such a huge portion of the electorate with the “no evidence of fraud” Big Lie that we would accept their theft of the presidency as “constitutional,” and acquiesce to a “peaceful transition of power.”

I still believe SCOTUS will get the case and rescue the nation from the Marxists. And I believe the fall-back contingency of presidential electors being chosen by the state legislatures is a second path to preserving the republic.

However, if these last constitutional barriers to the overthrow of the United States are defeated by the globalists, there is only one remaining option for the free and just America our founders bequeathed to us to survive: a declaration of national emergency by President Trump to allow him to remain in office long enough for a new election to be conducted by means guaranteed to ensure its fairness, with every step of the process except the secret ballot casting itself being done under full public scrutiny and recorded on video.

It is essential to recognize in the face of this existential election fraud crisis, that the US Constitution is not the deepest foundation of our country. The bedrock on which the constitution was constructed is the Declaration of Independence. It is in that document that we find the remedy for curing the Marxist cancer that has put America on her death-bed.

Having been a front-lines culture war activist for more than three decades of America’s incremental take-over – fighting a rearguard action against same leftist elements now arrayed against Trump (with many deep battle scars to prove it) – I perceived that the trajectory of the Purple Revolution would likely bring us to this precipice. Therefore, on November 17th, 2016, I specifically predicted exactly what would and has now transpired: 

“1) An army of faceless anarchists engaged in civil disobedience and property destruction on an “anti-fascism” theme (imagine the explosion of street violence in the late 1960s but employing “social justice” rather than anti-war rhetoric – like Black Lives Matter but bigger and broader). This is designed to terrorize the public but also to deliberately provoke police reactions that can be documented on film and edited to misrepresent the police as Brownshirt-style fascists.

2) A coordinated propaganda campaign by all the usual suspects on the left in media, academia, Hollywood, and the non-profit/foundations sector, branding the Trump administration as a fascist regime akin to the Third Reich. This will build slowly but inexorably as the left gathers and weaves together its case like a crooked prosecutor in the courtroom of international opinion.

3) Obstruction of conservative policy through guerrilla litigation tactics by groups such as the Center for Constitutional Rights and Southern Poverty Law Center, and their silent partners in the federal judiciary.”

I outlined a broad-brush counter-strategy in that article as well that remains timely. But on January 7th, 2020, after my predictions had come true and cracks had begun to show in the foundation-stones of the constitution, I foresaw the potential need for a more legally-oriented proto-constitutional remedy grounded in the Declaration of Independence, specifically this clause:

“governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…[thus] whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government.”

I drafted a “Declaration of Restoration” that frames the legal path forward. My prescription then and now is invoke this law to alter, not abolish, our government, by the use of the emergency powers of the president to impose necessary election reforms through a new presidential election with just two sections – 1) a re-vote for President and all down-ticket races and 2) a binding referendum question allowing voters to affirm or reject the reform package as a guarantee of election integrity in all future elections.

Hillary Clinton pronounced on August 25th, 2020 that Joe Biden should not concede the election under any circumstances. In retrospect, I believe she was baiting a trap for conservatives to jump on her with both feet and thus preemptively neuter any argument from our side that Trump should not concede. I never took that bait, and I’m saying loud and clear right now, that Donald Trump should not vacate the White House unless he does so because he agrees he legitimately lost the election and was not cheated out of it through election fraud.

If he knows the election was fraudulent and he really did win, he has a legal and moral duty to preserve the republic by implementing an election do-over. [https://www.scottlively.net/]

Important Note: The publisher of the Catholic Monitor has made a pledge to say the Sorrowful Mysteries of the Rosary everyday for a Rosary Lepanto-like victory for President Trump. He asks all CM readers to make this pledge.

“THE HOLY ROSARY, MOST POWERFUL WEAPON AGAINST THE ENEMY OF GOD AND MAN… Saint Pius V ordered the faithful to recite the Rosary to impetrate victory from God in the epic battle of the Christian Armada against the Turk in the waters of Lepanto: still today, at noon each day, the bells ring in our cities to recall [the victory of] October 7, 1571… Let us pray for the United States of America; let us pray for our President; let us pray for his victory, that the Lord God of Hosts – Dominus Deus Sabaoth –will grant that he may know how to place himself under God’s protection.” –  Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò

Pray an Our Father now for the grace to know God’s Will and to do it.

Pray an Our Father now for President Donald Trump, the legal teams including Sidney Powell and justice in the United States of America.

Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church as well as the Triumph of the Kingdom of the Sacred Heart and the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

Note: Please put your family, the United States of America, President Donald Trump and the Trump legal team as the intentions in the following Prayer of Command:

Prayer of Command
In His Name and by the power of His Cross and Blood, I ask Jesus to bind any evil spirits, forces and powers of the earth, air, fire, or water, of the netherworld and the satanic forces of nature.  By the power of the Holy Spirit and by His authority, I ask Jesus Christ to break any curses, hexes, or spells and send them back to where they came from, if it be His Holy Will.  I beseech Thee Lord Jesus to protect us by pouring Thy Precious Blood on us (my family, etc.), which Thou hast shed for us and I ask Thee to command that any departing spirits leave quietly, without disturbance, and go straight to Thy Cross to dispose of as Thou sees fit.  I ask Thee to bind any demonic interaction, interplay, or communications.  I place N. (Person, place or thing) under the protection of the Blood of Jesus Christ which He shed for us. Amen Please pray this prayer everyday for President Trump form Bishop Rene Gracida:

A Prayer for Deliverance Of President Donald Trump from Enemies

Based on A Psalm of David.

Contend, O Lord, with those who contend with President Donald Trump;

    fight against those who fight against him!

2 

Take hold of shield and buckler,

    and rise for his help!

3 

Draw the spear and javelin

    against his pursuers!

Say to his soul,

    “I am your deliverance!”

4 

Let them be put to shame and dishonor

    who seek after his life!

Let them be turned back and confounded

    who devise evil against him!

5 

Let them be like chaff before the wind,

    with the angel of the Lord driving them on!

6 

Let their way be dark and slippery,

    with the angel of the Lord pursuing them!

7 

For without cause they hid their net for him;

    without cause they dug a pit[a] for his life.

8 

Let ruin come upon them unawares!

And let the net which they hid ensnare them;

    let them fall therein to ruin!

9 

Then his soul shall rejoice in the Lord,

    exulting in his deliverance.

10 

All his bones shall say,

    “O Lord, who is like thee,

thou who delivers the weak

    from those who are too strong for him,

    the weak and needy from him who despoils him?”

11 

Malicious witnesses rise up;

    they accuse him of things that he knows not.

12 

They requite him evil for good.

15 

But at his stumbling they gathered in glee,

    they gathered together against him;

cripples whom he knew not

    slandered him without ceasing;

16 

they impiously mocked more and more,[c]

    gnashing at him with their teeth.

17 

How long, O Lord, wilt thou look on?

    Rescue him from the ravages

    from the lions!

18 

Then I will thank thee in the great congregation;

    in the mighty throng I will praise thee.

19 

Let not those rejoice over him

    who are wrongfully his foes,

and let not those wink the eye

    who hate him without cause.

20 

For they do not speak peace,

    but against those who are quiet in the land

    they conceive words of deceit.

21 

They open wide their mouths against him;

    they say, “Aha, Aha!

    our eyes have seen it!”

22 

Thou hast seen, O Lord; be not silent!

    O Lord, be not far from him!

23 

Bestir thyself, and awake for his right,

    for his cause, my God and my Lord!

24 

Vindicate him, O Lord, my God, according to thy righteousness;

    and let them not rejoice over him!

25 

Let them not say to themselves,

    “Aha, we have our heart’s desire!”

Let them not say, “We have swallowed him up.”

26 

Let them be put to shame and confusion altogether

    who rejoice at his calamity!

Let them be clothed with shame and dishonor

    who magnify themselves against him!

27 

Let those who desire his vindication

    shout for joy and be glad,

    and say evermore,

“Great is the Lord,

    who delights in the welfare of his servant!”

28 

Then my tongue shall tell of thy righteousness

    and of thy praise all the day long.

– Bishop Rene Henry GracidaFred Martinez at 7:40 AMShare

Tweet

See new Tweets

Conversation

Darren J. Beattie @DarrenJBeattieChinese elites not only understand America better than American elites understand China, Chinese elites understand America better than most American elites understand America.Quote Tweet

Jack Posobiec 

@JackPosobiec · Dec 8Here is Renmin University professor Di Dongsheng talking about how the US government really works2:05315.6K views12:15 AM · Dec 9, 2020·Twitter Web App869 Retweets93 Quote Tweets2.2K LikesDick Nixon@slickdickysmoov·Dec 9Replying to @DarrenJBeattieThis guy is incidentally turning into our 21st Century Tocqueville, but perhaps instead documenting “Democracy’s Death in America.”1233Show repliesPresident-Elect Tony Hrvatska @tonybalogna·Dec 9Replying to @DarrenJBeattieChina, Russia, other rising powers have spent decades studying America’s success and emulating it. Meanwhile, America has spent the past few decades emulating the third world.3668King Baeksu @KingBaeksu·22hI used to work at a major public university in the PRC. In 2010, after the US diplomatic-cables leak, several professors and a vice dean asked me to lead a kind of seminar to discuss their contents. It was held in the evening. Can one imagine American academics so industrious?116Show repliesNils @Alpackas·Dec 9Replying to @DarrenJBeattie and @ColumbiaBugleWhat he is saying might be correct. But i think they made this for us to see and to rile us up, not for the Chinese people to learn about the US. Just really scary that this comes out now at what feels like the ultimate melting point. They want us to fight.3122Roger Williams@PIAccount1·Dec 9They’ve been pushing us to fight for quite some time. Sun Tzu was Chinese, so we shouldn’t be surprised to find China understands The Art of War.18Show repliesAmy@Amy83267925·Dec 9Replying to @DarrenJBeattie and @ColumbiaBugleEurope doesn’t understand us at all, and doesn’t want to. But they sure act like experts in their media, etc

… Then upper-middle class “globalists” buy their way into our country and pretend to represent America. Of course Asia has a clearer view. They are more disinterested.210Jae Jae@jae85313749·Dec 9Replying to @DarrenJBeattieThis is fucking unbelievable….where is the CIA…DOJ on this…or are they part of the CHI-COMS payroll…..

438GVB@gvb7862·Dec 9Replying to @DarrenJBeattie and @APhilosophaethey play the long game. thugs.Lion’s Biggest Fan@loudproudTexan·Dec 9Replying to @DarrenJBeattie and @APhilosophae**I** understand PEOPLE and when they SHIVE you the IN THE FACE the THIRD time, you CUT ALL TIES. It’s BASIC logic they’re not your FRIENDS. In the US govt’s case aka our Elected Officials, they saw $ & threw The Constitution, their Oath, & WTP to the the HIGHEST bidding wolves.GIF390liver@0Iiver_Sister·Dec 9Replying to @DarrenJBeattietwitter anons vindicated once again5radu luca@raduluca·Dec 9Replying to @DarrenJBeattie and @APhilosophaein China “deep state” goes by a different name, not hidden but in plain sight…CCP, never-ever out of power214holly wiley@hollyjayewiley·23hReplying to @DarrenJBeattie and @RonColemanIs that in Utah because the University in Utah offers Chinese classes13𝕯𝖎𝖗𝖐@Dirk_UwU·21hReplying to @DarrenJBeattie and @fotopakThe elites probably understand China better than he does.211President-Elect okeh@fotopak·19hHi, you genuinely think Western “elites” really understand China better than Chinese professor Di Dongsheng?12Show replies旅行@TheHalcroGroup·19hReplying to @DarrenJBeattieHow we are seen, we are as others see us?Ibn El Shaddai – kiss my kraken Joe & Kamal toe.@coyote86x·19hReplying to @DarrenJBeattieand Trump treated them with kid gloves.1Patrick Grattan@PatrickGrattan·16hReplying to @DarrenJBeattie and @Scott5357Chinese elite have been educated at elite American prep schools, universities, post graduate work, tech companies, etc.

DECEMBER 10, 2020

Charity or Death

MICHAEL WARREN DAVIS

CRISIS MAGAZINE

Aristotle said that the ideal polis has no more than ten thousand citizens. Well, Dixville Notch has twelve. That little hamlet in New Hampshire, nestled up there by the Canadian border, has exactly one dozen citizens—five of whom voted in the 2020 election; all five went for Mr. Biden.

If there had been fraud committed in Dixville Notch, we would have heard about it pretty quickly. The ballots are officially counted and reported as soon as the five voters submit them. If one had voted for Donald Trump, he would have cried foul then and there, and then… well, then the game would be afoot, I suppose.ADVERTISEMENT – CONTINUE READING BELOW

Aristotle understood that small-scale democracies are high-trust democracies. The machinery of state is pretty simple: you stick a few paper ballots in a box. It takes about two minutes to tabulate the results, and the margin of error is basically nil. Recounts take another two minutes. In fact, there’s no real need for proof of residence: you probably run into your poll worker once a week at the grocery store. He knows you, and you know her.

More importantly, in small democracies, voters feel connected to one another. They feel accountable to one another. To cheat in an election doesn’t mean only striking a blow to your political opponent. It means ripping off your neighbor, your cousin, your pastor, your dentist, your plumber, your friend. It’s harder to cheat someone you know and love—whose well-being is so intimately bound up with yours.

Now take New York City, whose population stands at over eight million. That’s about twenty-seven thousand souls per square mile.ADVERTISEMENT – CONTINUE READING BELOW

I understand that some people like New York. I’d rather cut off both my feet than spend a week in the Big Apple, but to each his own. The point is this: when you have so many different people packed into such a small space, you can’t even feel confident in the results of the election for your Condominium Owners’ Association.

You don’t know those people. You have nothing in common with them except proximity. You were born in different towns, different states, even different countries. Some of you shop at Whole Foods, some at Trader Joe’s, some at Fairway; some of you patronize a farmer’s market or bodega. You don’t go to the same bars, the same cafés, or the same restaurants. You all attend different churches or synagogues or mosques or temples—assuming that any of you believe in God at all. Every day, you might pass on the street the guy who lives in the unit above you and never recognize each other.

The Philosopher understood that large-scale democracies are low-trust democracies.ADVERTISEMENT – CONTINUE READING BELOW

That trust breaks down even further the more “diverse” a society becomes. I don’t mean skin color; that’s incidental. I mean cultural and economic spheres. Not only do you notknow your neighbor: you can’t even imagine what kind of person she is. You have no idea what she’s like, what she believes, what her values are. You have no way of finding out, either—not unless you try to get to know her. In that case, she may take out a restraining order on you for sexual harassment. (If you’ve ever seen how many creeps live in these big cities, you could hardly blame her.)

❧

These thoughts ran through my head as I read Catholic columnist Ross Douthat’s latest piece in The New York Times, which is succinctly titled “Why Do So Many Americans Think the Election Was Stolen?”ADVERTISEMENT – CONTINUE READING BELOW

By way of an answer, I might ask, “Why don’t more Americans?”

Mr. Douthat’s analysis is smart, as always. He doesn’t think there was widespread voter fraud; I think he’s wrong, but he’s wrong in the smartest possible way.

I don’t know why a smart fella like Mr. Douthat would have so much faith in the electoral process—in thousands upon thousands of poll workers about whom he knows absolutely nothing and with whom he has very little in common. (Few Americans have anything in common with many other Americans.) Why should he assume they’re honest? Why should he assume they don’t have an agenda? Why should he assume that none of them believe the mainstream media’s narrative about President Trump—that he’s a fascist, a racist, a xenophobe, and must be removed from power by any means necessary?

Maybe Mr. Douthat has faith in the basic goodness and integrity of ordinary men and women. That’s quaint, even admirable. But it’s not very Christian. We’re supposed to be a little more skeptical about human nature, and our political views are supposed to reflect that skepticism. It’s one of the main reasons the Church forbids us from embracing utopian ideologies like Marxism.

What other explanation could there be? Is it possible that Mr. Douthat et al. are simply too afraid to face the reality: that America is coming apart at the seams?

Mr. Douthat and his Times colleague David Brooks (another very smart, conservative-ish personage who usually gets election stuff wrong) have observed for years how America’s cultural divisions manifest themselves in government. As our social order breaks down, so, too, does our political order. At some point, however, things must fall apart. The center can’t hold forever.

As Messrs. Douthat and Brooks might observe, the issue of election fraud isn’t really the point. It’s a serious issue in itself, but it’s not the issue. The issue is that Americans don’t trust each other. We don’t even like each other. Poll after poll shows that conservatives and liberals don’t just think the other side is wrong, or even stupid. We think the other guys are bad. We think they’re malicious. We think they’re trying to hurt us.

And how could it be otherwise?

Most Crisis readers are right-leaning, orthodox Catholics. We believe that life begins at conception. But about half of our countrymen believe in abortion. That means, from where we stand, about half of Americans support infanticide in one form or another. We know that most of those folks (somehow) don’t believe that a baby in the womb is really a living human being. But that doesn’t make you feel much better about the person.

Much as I hate to play the Hitler card, I would ask progressives to imagine what it would be like to sit across from your sister at Thanksgiving dinner and have her casually mention that we ought to euthanize the mentally ill. After all, they’re not rational, so they’re not really people. They’re just a drain on society.

That’s how pro-life conservatives see pro-choice liberals. We don’t necessarily think they’re malicious. But all the talk about “preserving the integrity of our democratic institutions” gets to be a little cheap when you’re dealing with people whom you believe want to kill babies. 

❧

Here’s my question. How long can a country survive when its members can’t even agree on which human beings deserve life and which can be killed for the sake of mere convenience? What can we possibly have in common, besides proximity? How can we possibly feel any kind of loyalty to one another?

“Why do so many Americans think the election was stolen?” Mr. Douthat asks himself. I ask myself, Why do so many Americans think unborn children aren’t people? Why do so many Americans think a little boy should be surgically castrated because he likes wearing dresses? Why do so many Americans turn a blind eye to the epidemic of black-on-black violence in our major cities? Why do so many Americans care more about blaming one another for putting migrant children in cages than about reuniting those children with their parents? Why do so many Americans think we should be allowed to eat at restaurants and shop at malls, but not worship in churches?

Why do so many Americans get it so wrong? And why can’t I even begin to understand what they’re thinking?

Over the years, I’ve gotten into the habit of saying that Americans talk about politics so much because it’s the only thing we have in common. I’m totally unlike a fundamentalist Baptist from Georgia, or a liberal atheist from California, or a Chinese immigrant in New York—except that we live under the same government. Now, we don’t even have that. Whoever occupies the White House come February, a little less than half of the country isn’t going to recognize him as the legitimate president. And I don’t see why that should change in 2024, or 2028, or 2032.

I don’t have a solution to this problem, but I think Our Lord gave us a good place to start. “Love your enemies,” He said, “and pray for those who persecute you.”

No, that doesn’t mean that we stop fighting for the unborn, or for fair elections, or for our First Amendment rights. But as the Catholic philosopher Charles Péguy wrote, “It is not arguments that are wanting. It is charity.” Pretty soon, there may be nothing else to hold our country together—nothing except love. And not love as in feeling good about everyone, as the hippies say. Not love as in lust, as the Sexual Revolutionaries say. Love as in charity, as the Christians say: the absolute, unconditional desire for another person’s good.

❧

Crisis Magazine takes seriously the possibility that political violence will become a fixture of public life. Some have made fun of us for doing so. But it wasn’t our idea. We’re simply taking groups such as Antifa and the Boogaloo Boys at their word. They want civil war. They’re openly advocating for mass political violence. And, judging from the events of the last year, they’re not joking.

Crisis Magazine take seriously the possibility that different political factions will use the power of the state to suppress their opponents. Some have made fun of us for doing so. But this wasn’t our idea, either. Joe Biden has said that he would make it a priorityof his administration to force the Little Sisters of the Poor to pay for contraception as part of the healthcare package they offer to their employees.

Now, the Little Sisters run twenty-eight care homes throughout the country. That’s a lot, but they’re not exactly a corporate powerhouse. Why would Mr. Biden single them out? It’s all about revenge. Revenge for humiliating the progressive establishment in the Supreme Court. Revenge for opposing the Obamacare mandate, which Mr. Biden helped draft.

That’s one of the reasons Joe Biden won’t be a Catholic president in any meaningful sense of the term. It’s not only because he supports abortion. It’s not only because he would force nuns to pay for contraception. It’s because he’s openly embracing the Politics of Revenge. He sees the government as a means to punish and humiliate his opponents. He has no interest in winning over conservatives. He has no obvious desire to govern for our good, too, as well as the good of his supporters.

I’ve written in these pages before about the need for a Politics of Charity—to govern for the good of the American people, especially those who have been abandoned by our financial and political elites. That goes for poor, right-wing white folks in West Virginia as well as poor, left-wing black folks in Detroit.

But before we can embrace a Politics of Charity, we must embrace charity. We must truly desire the good of our countrymen, regardless of their party affiliation. Regardless of how much they desire to punish or humiliate us. Regardless of how they persecute us. Especially if they persecute us.

Saint Peter asked Our Lord, “How often shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? As many as seven times?” Jesus replied, “I do not say to you seven times, but seventy times seven.” That isn’t only sound spiritual advice: it’s the only way human beings can coexist peacefully in a civilized society. We have to learn how to forgive one another, to love one another, to desire only good for one another.

And we Christians, we Catholics, must take the first step. It’s only when we forgive that we ourselves are forgiven, and not before.

It would be easy enough to say all of this if we ourselves had power. It would be easy to say if Mr. Trump were to remain in office through 2024. That seems unlikely now—not impossible, but unlikely.

Can we endure the next four years with longanimity? Can we seek to regain power, not for the sake of punishing our enemies (they will give us more reasons than we can count), but so that we can serve them? So that we can work for their good as well as ours?

The poet W.H. Auden came to regret his most famous line, “We must love one another or die.” He felt it was too sentimental. In fact, just the opposite is true. It’s brutally pragmatic. There are only two choices: love one another, or die.

Charity will make America great again, or nothing will.

[Photo credit: Olivier Douliery/AFP via Getty Images]https://www.facebook.com/v2.10/plugins/like.php?action=like&app_id=485814248461205&channel=https%3A%2F%2Fstaticxx.facebook.com%2Fx%2Fconnect%2Fxd_arbiter%2F%3Fversion%3D46%23cb%3Df9ae9bd70776f4%26domain%3Dwww.crisismagazine.com%26origin%3Dhttps%253A%252F%252Fwww.crisismagazine.com%252Ff3ed121768b3704%26relation%3Dparent.parent&container_width=660&href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.crisismagazine.com%2F2020%2Fcharity-or-death&layout=button_count&locale=en_US&sdk=joey&share=true&show_faces=false9

By Michael Warren Davis

Michael Warren Davis is the editor of Crisis Magazine. He is a frequent contributor to The American Conservative and author of The Reactionary Mind (Regnery, 2021).