Tag: Election

  • Election Season, a Mental Roller Coaster that may Drive Us to Ruination…

    Election Season, a Mental Roller Coaster that may Drive Us to Ruination…

    We continue to hear that MAGA is trying to destroy democracy.  Not being a true democracy this is nothing more than rhetoric.  The fact that we are a Republic seems to totally escape the left, but delusionary thinking rules within the confines of the left’s mind.

    The following definitions are from “Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary”, copyright 1949. The quotes are from “Useful Quotations; a Cyclopedia of Quotations” copyright 1933.

    Democracy:

    1. Government by the people; government in which the supreme power is retained by the people and exercised either directly (absolute or pure democracy), or indirectly (representative democracy) through a system of representation.


    If there were a people consisting of gods, they would be governed democratically; so perfect a government is not suitable to men.  Jean Jacques Rousseau (1712 – 1778)     

                                 

    The devil was the first democrat.  George Gordon Noel Byron (1788 – 1824)  


    Republic:

    A state in which the sovereign power resides in a certain body of the people (the electorate), and is exercised by representatives selected by, and responsible to, the electorate.


    Republicanism is not the phantom of a deluded imagination. – On the contrary, under no form of government are laws better supported, liberty and property better secured, or happiness more effectually dispensed to mankind. George Washington (1732 – 1799)       

    Republics come to an end by luxurious habits; monarchies by poverty. Charles de Secondat Montesquieu (1680 – 1755)  


    Author’s Note – This nation is a Republic governed by an elected body; therefore a Representative Democracy.  The demise of our Republic will only happen when our elected officials are no longer responsible to, and or responsive to the electorate.  If we are to retain our Republic, it is incumbent on every citizen to elect officials who respond to and listen to “We the People”; not to a bunch of oligarchs and charlatans who feel they are there to rule over us; and certainly not to the unelected bureaucrats that dominate the federal agencies and write rules and regulations and then declare said rules and regulations are the “Law of the Land”!!! Nothing could be further from the truth!!!

    Our elections have become more akin to Beauty Contests rather than the responsible actions of an electorate that is both educated in the issues of the day and willing to put aside personal feelings and elect officials who have the best interests of the country at heart.  

    Sadly, I do not feel that is what is currently happening.  Too many are looking for a handout from the government with little regard for the consequences of such actions or have no idea what the person they have voted for believes and or stands for!!  Unfortunately, responsible citizenship is no longer in vogue and may indeed drive our Republic to ruin.

  • Full Audit and Recount in Georgia

    Full Audit and Recount in Georgia

    Georgia secretary of state Brad Raffensparger has ordered a full recount and audit of the election results in that State. All of Georgia’s 159 counties will be audited in the recount.

    https://twitter.com/bluestein/status/1326553137600032770?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1326553137600032770%7Ctwgr%5Eshare_3&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Ftownhall.com%2Ftipsheet%2Freaganmccarthy%2F2020%2F11%2F11%2Fga-sos-officially-orders-recount-n2579897

    Joe Biden has a slim 14000 vote lead in Georgia going into the recount.

  • It Is A ContestedElection

    It Is A ContestedElection

    The Fourth Estate is constructing a façade of legitimacy to cover up the widespread voting irregularities and outright fraud that gave us “President-Elect Biden.” 

    It matters not to them they refused to cover his history of racism, influence peddling, serial plagiarism, and conspicuous cognitive decline.  

    They called the election prematurely for the erstwhile Vice President. They expect the electorate to accept their word that Biden has won the presidency — a month before he is actually elevated to that office by the Electoral College.

    Since prematurely declaring the winner, they have been plaguing President Trump to concede. Although they never considered him a legitimate President, they expect him, they expect him to concede, because concessions are an honored American tradition. 

    There are many who ask why he should not concede. The answer is the myriad of voting irregularities. Should these issues be ignored, credibility in our electoral process would be gone.  Christian Mysliwiec wrote, in the Daily Signal

    “The reason our democratic republic has functioned as well as it has for the past 231 years is because of our trust in the electoral process.” 

    Should faith in the electoral process disappear, because the Democrats block attempts to verify the accuracy of vote counts and the media continue to make the utterly implausible claim that election fraud is virtually nonexistent, there will be a profoundly destabilizing effect.

    David Catron, writing for The American Spectator, said, 

    “AP has no more authority to declare Biden the winner of the election than does your cat. More importantly for the 2020 election, it provides no authority whereby a court may override the manner in which a state legislature chooses its electors. The Elections and Electors Clause is the primary cause of action in the lawsuit just filed by the Trump campaign against the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Trump will win this lawsuit and most of the others his campaign has filed because the states involved circumvented the Constitution. Trump would be crazy to concede the election. If only legal votes are counted, he will be reelected.” 

    I find his positivity lifting my spirits. 

  • Choose wisely

    Choose wisely

    “How little do my countrymen know what precious blessings they are in possession of, and which no other people on earth enjoy!”

     Thomas Jefferson

  • From General Flynn

    From General Flynn

    This is posted, as written, with no commentary.

    Exclusive from Gen. Flynn: 

    Stand with Me, 

    Renounce the Left 

    and Hold the Line on Nov. 3

    Michael Flynn

    We are a nation founded by leaders who fought tyranny and oppression to ensure that all American citizens be treated fairly and equally across this land.

    These constitutional and God-given rights should never be denied, stolen or silenced by false prosecutions or political persecutions driven by fear, hatred or animosity. Those who scowl at the very core of our republic and act from vengeance or revenge against one of us threaten the safety and security of all of us.

    Never should our nation, our president or any family or individual be so viciously targeted, maligned, smeared and threatened as we have all felt for the past four years and counting. This unconscionable and seditious direct attack by ideologically driven elitists strikes at the will of the American people who ensure our very freedoms through their vote and daily selfless actions.

    We cannot allow the opposing leftist agenda to continue enabling the fleecing of America, peddling connected-influence for cash, exploiting American innovation for an elitist self-serving purpose, wielding official power and influence as a means to ensure personal gain while exercising mass control and selling out our American ideals for ideologies to pursue what the leftists would like as “common and normal.”

    These all diminish the power and purpose inherent in “we the people” who constitute our republic.

    I ask that you stand with me today in renouncing this betrayal of trust that has burdened our nation and breached the foundation of our American ideals.

    Let us proclaim with one united voice across this land that we will hold the line and never allow the rightful power of the citizens of the United States of America to be uprooted, undercut, usurped or held hostage by a coup against our nation, a duly elected president, or any future president of these United States.

    I want you to think about this statement for one moment — it is inconceivable that America would ever experience a coup, but that is precisely what has been happening.

    The events of these past four years are testing the will of our nation. We fight not for a government, a political party, an oligarchy, a king or royal family, an ideology or a central committee — or to protect material possessions.

    As Americans, we fight for our own freedoms — for precious ideals built on a foundation of God-given rights that ensure our way of life and all around us; these are what we must be prepared to defend with our very lives.

    Our core American ideals and values codified by our Founding Fathers in the Declaration of Independence and by the framers of our Constitution have stood the test of time only with our support. It requires that we judiciously exercise our right to vote into office accountable officials as well as our responsibility to question and hold those elected, appointed and unelected officials to account.

    Together, all of America continues to overcome this enormous hurdle. While we may falter from time to time, we will not fail. When we do falter, we must help each other get back on our feet, dust ourselves off and face head-on whatever lies ahead.

    In the breach, we continue to be relentlessly tested with false accusations, untruths and hatred for our beliefs and for raising our voices, but we cannot be deterred, and our bonds of liberty must not break.

    On the strength of one link in the cable depends the might of the chain. Let the strength of your family be the first link; add to it your neighbors, your community and your friends. We are all one nation under God and one people: Americans.

    To all Americans, what we choose to do in this life should not be stopped by fear, an emotion manifested by illusion. Never allow fear into your heart or allow it to trick you.

    Instead, embrace uncertainty as a driving force for discovery and understanding; accept the risk that comes with daily sacrifice; work to overcome the sheer magnitude of life’s challenges, especially during this crucible of our nation’s history.

    Our very survival as the nation we were conceived to be — a constitutional republic — is at stake.

    Yes, America, we are under attack and on trial. The leftists question our greatness, our potential and the very rights all Americans enjoy. And, while we face what appear to be insurmountable odds, patriots united will win because we are the keepers of that shining city on the hill, and we will not be deterred from accomplishing our mission and performing our duty.

    Despite the extraordinary challenges faced, American patriots always “rise up” to defend our faith, our families, our homes, our honor and our nation. Today, perhaps more than ever before, America requires tried, true and tested patriots to lead the way and ensure the future of our children and grandchildren.

    As soon as the American majority rises up in one voice to hold evil to account, that is when evil will take the easy way out and implement its escape plan. Evil will drown in a sea of accountability.

    When our rule of law is seriously threatened, when our thin blue line is under grave assault, when our churches and synagogues are endangered, when socialism is pounding our gates down, we must stand firm in the breach and hold all bad actors to account.

    Even framer Benjamin Franklin, departing the Constitutional Convention in 1787, when asked if we were a monarchy or a republic, he stated, “A republic, if you can keep it.”

    Patriots, let’s keep it! Send a clear, loud and strong message to the world with our votes on Nov. 3 that we choose freedom. Vote in person, and vote for President Donald J. Trump and every Republican on the ballot. Never has your vote been more important.

    As we face Election Day in this time of trial, always remember that in the end, there is only one who is the ultimate judge of our American destiny. America must forever remain “one nation under God.”

    God bless America!

    The views expressed in this opinion article are those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by the owners of this website. If you are interested in contributing an Op-Ed to The Western Journal, you can learn about our submission guidelines and process here.

  • Snap Poll: When Are You Voting

    Snap Poll: When Are You Voting

    Election day is bearing down on us, only 14 days to go until November 3rd. So today we ask you when you’re planning on voting.

    [Total_Soft_Poll id=”10″]

    Let us know how (by mail, in person, absentee etcetera) you’re voting in the comments section below.

  • Election Law Round-up

    Election Law Round-up

    Let me start by saying you’re likely to see quite a few of this type of article over the next few weeks. There have been a bunch of district court decisions about election laws recently. Most are ripe for reversal by the various Circuit Courts. So instead of writing separate articles for each, I’ll do a Round-up every few days.

    Let’s start in Texas, where US district court judge Marina Garcia Marmolejo, an Obama appointee, ordered the restoration of “party line voting”.

    This one requires a bit of history to fully understand. Back in 2017 the Texas legislature approved a bill that was signed by the governor ending straight ticket voting. At the time, Texas was one of only 7 states to allow that practice. The law was set to go into effect for this election cycle.

    That is until Judge Marmolejo stepped in. After initially deciding against the plaintiffs in June, she issued the order in mid- September after an amended complaint was filed.

    Today the 5th Circuit Court weighed in. Not only did they reverse Marmolejo’s decision, they took a swipe at her personally. From the decision (bolding mine):

    The Supreme Court has “repeatedly emphasized that lower federal courts should ordinarily not alter the election rules on the eve of an election.” Republican Nat’l Comm. v. Democratic Nat’l Comm., — U.S. —, 140 S. Ct. 1205, 1207 (2020). Most recently … the Court granted an application for stay of a district court’s preliminary injunction to the extent that it changed election rules five days before an election because “[b]y changing the election rules so close to the election date . . . the District Court contravened this Court’s precedents and erred by ordering such relief.” Time and time again over the past several years, the Supreme Court has stayed lower court orders that change election rules on the eve of an election….

    The principle from these cases is clear: court changes of election laws close in time to the election are strongly disfavored. Bearing this principle in mind, our court previously has stayed orders changing election laws when an election is imminent…. Today too, in staying a preliminary injunction that would change election laws eighteen days before early voting begins, we recognize the value of preserving the status quo in a voting case on the eve of an election, and we find that the traditional factors for granting a stay favor granting one here..

    The district court states expressly in its order that “Plaintiffs . . . raise a challenge seeking to maintain the status quo.” On this mistaken premise, the district court writes that “the requested injunction would not impose such an onerous burden on election officials and merely allows a century-old practice to remain in place for one more election.” The district court repeats this mistake over and over, stating, for instance, that the injunction prevents “eliminating a practice that Texan voters have been accustomed to for 100 years” and enables “[a]dministering in-person voting the same way it has been administered for almost 100 years . . . .” The district court ignores the fact that in June 2017, a majority of the Texas legislature—composed of officials elected by Texan voters to represent them—passed a law that ended the long practice of straight-ticket voting. That law became the new “status quo,” and Plaintiffs had plenty of time over the past three years to challenge it. It is the district court’s eleventh-hour injunction that alters the status quo, not the Texas legislature’s 2017 duly enacted law. The fact that the status quo of Texas election law just prior to the district court issued the injunction was to not allow straight-ticket voting is demonstrated by the fact that Texas election officials, having had three years to adjust to HB 25, printed and mailed thousands of ballots without a straight-ticket voting option for the upcoming general election.

    You’ll start to notice a pattern with these decisions. First, there’s clear precedent that the last minute changes by judges get overturned with shocking regularity. And second, the higher courts take a dim view of an unexpected judge substituting their judgement for that of the people’s elected representatives.

    Next up we take a look at a case in Indiana. There, a district court judge declined to change election laws and the 7th Circuit Court upheld his decision.

    The Indiana Election Commission responded to the difficulties of voting during the COVID-19 pandemic by extending the absentee-voting privileges to all registered and qualified Indiana voters for the June primary, but the Commission did not renew its order for the general election this November. So of course the Democrats sued.

    When the district court judge ruled against them, the plaintiffs appealed to the 7th Circuit. And as I already noted, they upheld the verdict handed down by the District Judge. You can read the full decision here.



    Our last case for today comes out of Wisconsin. This one is a little convoluted, so stay with me.

    On September 21 Federal District Court Judge William Conley ordered that the Nov. 3 election day deadline for receipt of Wisconsin absentee ballots be extended to Nov. 9.

    As for the requests for preliminary relief, election workers’ and voters’ experiences during Wisconsin’s primary election in April, which took place at the outset of the COVID19 crisis, have convinced the court that some, limited relief from statutory deadlines for mail-in registration and absentee voting is again necessary to avoid an untenable impingement on Wisconsin citizens’ right to vote, including the near certainty of disenfranchising tens of thousands of voters relying on the state’s absentee ballot process. Indeed, any objective view of the record before this court leads to the inevitable conclusion that: (1) an unprecedented number of absentee ballots, which turned the predominance of in-person voting on its head in April, will again overwhelm the WEC and local officials despite their best efforts to prepare; (2) but for an extension of the deadlines for registering to vote electronically and for receipt of absentee ballots, tens of thousands of Wisconsin voters would have been disenfranchised in April; and (3) absent similar relief, will be again in November.

    So, the judge used “because it’s the right thing to do” as his legal basis for upending Wisconsin law. By the way, Conley is an Obama appointee, as are most of the other judges who’ve taken it upon themselves to rewrite election laws across the country.

    Now back to the story. . .

    The case was appealed to the 7th Circuit by the Wisconsin Legislature, the Wisconsin GOP, and the Republican National Committee. After initially issuing a stay, the 7th dismissed the appeal. 

    The dismissal of the appeal was based on a determination by the Seventh Circuit that none of the three parties had legal “standing” to file an appeal. The reasoning behind the lack of standing was a question about whether or not the legislature was able to represent the state in legal matters.

    Well, according to the Wisconsin Supreme Court they are. The Wisconsin Supremes took the case up on an emergency basis and issued their decision yesterday. According to them the Wisconsin Legislature was authorized to act as a litigant on behalf of the State of Wisconsin when the issue in dispute was defending the validity of a law passed by the legislature.

    So, that case heads back to the 7th Circuit for further adjudication. And given the short shrift activist judges have been given in regards to election laws, I don’t expect Conley’s decision to stand.

  • SCOTUS Issues Stay in SC Election Case

    SCOTUS Issues Stay in SC Election Case

    I told you yesterday to buckle up for a wild ride from the Supreme Court. Well, that ride started already.

    South Carolina law requires a witness for all mail-in ballots. The DNC and several others filed suit in federal court seeking injunctive relief from the witness requirements.

    Judge Julianna Michelle Childs, an Obama appointee, granted the injunction preventing the witness requirements from being enforced, citing the Chinese Coronavirus as a reason.

    Monday afternoon the Supreme Court issued an emergency stay in a South Carolina election law case. And boy oh boy, the decision is a doozy.

    The stay, authored by Justice Kavanaugh, reinstates the witness requirements, although it allows ballots not witnessed and received within two day to be counted. Read: (emphasis mine)

    SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES _________________ No. 20A55 _________________ MARCI ANDINO, ET AL. v. KYLON MIDDLETON, ET AL. ON APPLICATION FOR STAY [October 5, 2020] The application for stay presented to THE CHIEF JUSTICE and by him referred to the Court is granted in part, and the district court’s September 18, 2020 order granting a preliminary injunction is stayed pending disposition of the appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit and disposition of the petition for a writ of certiorari, if such writ is timely sought. Should the petition for a writ of certiorari be denied, this stay shall terminate automatically. In the event the petition for a writ of certiorari is granted, the stay shall terminate upon the sending down of the judgment of this Court. The order is stayed except to the extent that any ballots cast before this stay issues and received within two days of this order may not be rejected for failing to comply with the witness requirement. JUSTICE THOMAS, JUSTICE ALITO, and JUSTICE GORSUCH would grant the application in full. JUSTICE KAVANAUGH, concurring in grant of application for stay. The District Court enjoined South Carolina’s witness requirement for absentee ballots because the court disagreed with the State’s decision to retain that requirement during the COVID–19 pandemic. For two alternative and independent reasons, I agree with this Court’s order staying in part the District Court’s injunction. First, the Constitution “principally entrusts the safety and the health of the people to the politically accountable officials of the States.” South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom, 590 U. S. ___, ___ (2020) (ROBERTS, C. J., concurring in denial of application for injunctive relief) (slip op., at 2) (internal quotation marks and alteration omitted). “When those officials ‘undertake[ ] to act in areas fraught with medical and scientific uncertainties,’ their latitude ‘must be especially broad.’” Ibid. (quoting Marshall v. United States, 414 U. S. 417, 427 (1974); alteration in original). It follows that a State legislature’s decision either to keep or to make changes to election rules to address COVID–19 ordinarily “should not be subject to second- guessing by an ‘unelected federal judiciary,’ which lacks the background, competence, and expertise to assess public health and is not accountable to the people.” South Bay, 590 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 2) (citing Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority, 469 U. S. 528, 545 (1985)). The District Court’s injunction contravened that principle. Second, for many years, this Court has repeatedly emphasized that federal courts ordinarily should not alter state election rules in the period close to an election. See Purcell v. Gonzalez, 549 U. S. 1 (2006) (per curiam). By enjoining South Carolina’s witness requirement shortly before the election, the District Court defied that principle and this Court’s precedents. See ___ F. 3d ___, ___–___ (CA4 2020) (Wilkinson and Agee, JJ., dissenting from de- nial of stay). For those two alternative and independent reasons, I agree with this Court’s order staying in part the District Court’s injunction.

    That bolded section? Yeah, that’s a big deal. That’s Kavanaugh saying in no uncertain terms the issue is dead. The emergency stay will be in place until the case gets to the Supreme Court after it goes to the 4th circuit court. The election is in less than four weeks, it’s doubtful the case will make its way through the 4th Circuit, much less be granted cert by SCOTUS.



    The stay is also a blueprint on how to handle all the other activist judges decisions. Simply change out the names.

  • Hillary: Biden Shouldn’t Concede

    Hillary: Biden Shouldn’t Concede

    In an interview with The Circus with a former aide, Jennifer Palmieri, Clinton said that Joe Biden should not concede “under any circumstances.”

    https://twitter.com/therecount/status/1298023931790712832?s=20

    Anyone remember how she said back in 2016, that not accepting the results of the election was a threat to democracy? 

    Now, Clinton is making it clear the Democrats won’t accept the results if President Donald Trump wins a close election.

    “So we’ve got to have a massive legal operation, and I know the Biden campaign is working on that,” she said. “Joe Biden should not concede under any circumstances because I think this is going to drag out, and eventually, I do believe he will win if we don’t give an inch and if we are as focused and relentless as the other side is.”

    She’s admitting their plan up front: don’t accept the results, legally challenge everywhere and hope to win with mail in voting. 

    https://twitter.com/LizRNC/status/1298042276166406151?s=20

    The Democrats must think they’re going to lose, otherwise they wouldn’t be saying things like this. The plan, when they do lose, is to sow chaos and uncertainty over the election.

  • Man Who Has Been…

    Man Who Has Been…

    The Babylonbee, as posted below, has another of their excellent satire pieces. 

    Man Who Has Been In Government For Nearly 50 Years Promises To Fix Government

    August 20, 2020

    U.S.—According to sources at the DNC, Joe Biden, a man who has been part of government since before Jaws, Star Wars, the Walkman, the NES, and the publishing of The Silmarillion, is just the man for the difficult task of fixing the government.

    “This man who has been part of the broken system since 1972 is our last hope to fix the broken system,” said a DNC spokesperson. “See, since he’s been part of the problem for so long, only he knows how bad the problem is. So only he can fix it. If you got some outsider with, like, morals and stuff, they would be too horrified to even go to Washington in the first place.”

    “No, we need someone who’s been part of the swamp and has participated in much injustice, oppression, and bloodshed to fix the whole thing from the ground up.”

    He also has a cop helping him out, sources confirmed at publishing time.

    The Babylon Bee

    Related: Liars gonna lie


    In their usual inimitable fashion, they have found a way for the DNC to justify selecting a candidate, to fix all the problems, who has been part and parcel of creating many of said problems. Why would someone, who helped create a bloated system of over regulation, want to change the system? In fact, they want to add ever more regulation and bureaucracy. The agency heads have no intention of giving up their fiefdoms. The serfs enjoy higher pay and benefits, plus guaranteed job security. Do you believe they want improvements? Rhetorical question! Federal employment is the largest welfare program in the country. 30% of the serfs do the work. The remainder fiddle while the country deals with their mess of regulations. 

    Do we truly need a 77 year old with 40 plus years as a bureaucrat, as our next President?