Friday, November 27, 2020

DC’s Corrupted Legislative Process & Why The UniParty Dismisses Your Opinion


CTH often describes the background DC motives with the phrase: “There are Trillions at Stake.” Here we take a look at what that really means, and how DC politics is not quite based on the ideas that frame many reference points.

With people taking notice of DC politics for the first time; and with people not as familiar with the purpose of DC politics; we end up within two different references. Perhaps it is valuable to reset the larger frames of reference and provide clarity.

Most people think when they vote for a federal politician -a House or Senate representative- they are voting for a person who will go to Washington DC and write or enact legislation. This is the old-fashioned “schoolhouse rock” perspective based on decades past. There is not a single person in congress writing legislation or laws.

In modern politics not a single member of the House of Representatives or Senator writes a law, or puts pen to paper to write out a legislative construct. This simply doesn’t happen.

Over the past several decades a system of constructing legislation has taken over Washington DC that more resembles a business operation than a legislative body. Understand this dynamic and you understand how politicians become multi-millionaires on much lesser salaries; and why ‘We The People’ are insignificant and annoying gnats to their business model.  Here’s how it works right now.

Outside groups, often called “special interest groups”, are entities that represent their interests in legislative constructs. These groups are often representing foreign governments, Wall Street multinational corporations, banks, financial groups or businesses; or smaller groups of people with a similar connection who come together and form a larger group under an umbrella of interest specific to their affiliation.

Sometimes the groups are social interest groups; activists, climate groups, environmental interests etc. The social interest groups are usually non-profit constructs who depend on the expenditures of government to sustain their cause or need.

The for-profit groups (mostly business) have a purpose in Washington DC to shape policy, legislation and laws favorable to their interests. They have fully staffed offices just like any business would – only their ‘business‘ is getting legislation for their unique interests.

These groups are filled with highly-paid lawyers who represent the interests of the entity and actually write laws and legislation briefs.

In the modern era this is actually the origination of the laws that we eventually see passed by congress. Within the walls of these buildings within Washington DC is where the ‘sausage’ is actually made.

Again, no elected official is usually part of this law origination process.

Almost all legislation created is not ‘high profile’, they are obscure changes to current laws, regulations or policies that no-one pays attention to. The passage of the general bills within legislation is not covered in media. Ninety-nine percent of legislative activity happens without anyone outside the system even paying any attention to it.

Once the corporation or representative organizational entity has written the law they want to see passed – they hand it off to the lobbyists.

The lobbyists are people who have deep contacts within the political bodies of the legislative branch, usually former House/Senate staff or former House/Senate politicians themselves.

The lobbyist takes the written brief, the legislative construct, and it’s their job to go to congress and sell it.

“Selling it” means finding politicians who will accept the brief, sponsor their bill and eventually get it to a vote and passage. The lobbyist does this by visiting the politician in their office, or, most currently familiar, by inviting the politician to an event they are hosting. The event is called a junket when it involves travel.

Often the lobbying “event” might be a weekend trip to a ski resort, or a “conference” that takes place at a resort. The actual sales pitch for the bill is usually not too long and the majority of the time is just like a mini vacation etc.

The size of the indulgence within the event, the amount of money the lobbyist is spending, is customarily related to the scale of benefit within the bill the sponsoring business entity is pushing. If the sponsoring business or interest group can gain a lot of financial benefit from the legislation they spend a lot on the indulgences.

Recap: Corporations (special interest group) write the legislation. Lobbyists take the law and go find politician(s) to support it. Politicians get support from their peers using tenure and status etc. Eventually, if things go according to norm, the legislation gets a vote.

Within every step of the process there are expense account lunches, dinners, trips, venue tickets and a host of other customary financial way-points to generate/leverage a successful outcome. The amount of money spent is proportional to the benefit derived from the outcome.

The important part to remember is that the origination of the entire process is EXTERNAL to congress.

Congress does not write laws or legislation, special interest groups do. Lobbyists are paid, some very well paid, to get politicians to go along with the need of the legislative group.

When you are voting for a Congressional Rep or a U.S. Senator you are not voting for a person who will write laws. Your rep only votes on legislation to approve or disapprove of constructs that are written by outside groups and sold to them through lobbyists who work for those outside groups.

While all of this is happening the same outside groups who write the laws are providing money for the campaigns of the politicians they need to pass them. This construct sets up the quid-pro-quo of influence, although much of it is fraught with plausible deniability.

This is the way legislation is created.

If your frame of reference is not established in this basic understanding you can often fall into the trap of viewing a politician, or political vote, through a false prism. The modern origin of all legislative constructs is not within congress.

“we’ll have to pass the bill to, well, find out what is in the bill” etc. ~ Nancy Pelosi 2009

“We rely upon the stupidity of the American voter” ~ Johnathan Gruber 2011, 2012.

Once you understand this process you can understand how politicians get rich.

When a House or Senate member becomes educated on the intent of the legislation, they have attended the sales pitch; and when they find out the likelihood of support for that legislation; they can then position their own (or their families) financial interests to benefit from the consequence of passage. It is a process similar to insider trading on Wall Street, except the trading is based on knowing who will benefit from a legislative passage.

The legislative construct passes from K-Street into the halls of congress through congressional committees. The law originates from the committee to the full House or Senate. Committee seats which vote on these bills are therefore more valuable to the lobbyists. Chairs of these committees are exponentially more valuable.

Now, think about this reality against the backdrop of the 2016 Presidential Election. Legislation is passed based on ideology. In the aftermath of the 2016 election the system within DC was not structurally set-up to receive a Donald Trump presidency.

If Hillary Clinton had won the election, her Oval Office desk would be filled with legislation passed by congress which she would have been signing. Heck, she’d have writer’s cramp from all of the special interest legislation, driven by special interest groups that supported her campaign, that would be flowing to her desk.

Why?

Simply because the authors of the legislation, the originating special interest and lobbying groups, were spending millions to fund her campaign. Hillary Clinton would be signing K-Street constructed special interest legislation to repay all of those donors/investors.

Congress would be fast-tracking the passage because the same interest groups also fund the members of congress.

President Donald Trump winning the election threw a monkey wrench into the entire DC system…. In early 2017 the modern legislative machine was frozen in place.

The “America First” policies represented by candidate Donald Trump were not within the legislative constructs coming from the K-Street authors of the legislation. There were no MAGA lobbyists waiting on Trump ideology to advance legislation based on America First objectives.

As a result of an empty feeder system, in early 2017 congress had no bills to advance because all of the myriad of bills and briefs written were not in line with President Trump policy. There was simply no entity within DC writing legislation that was in-line with President Trump’s America-First’ economic and foreign policy agenda.

Exactly the opposite was true. All of the DC legislative briefs and constructs were/are antithetical to Trump policy. There were hundreds of file boxes filled with thousands of legislative constructs that became worthless when Donald Trump won the election.

Those legislative constructs (briefs) representing tens of millions of dollars worth of time and influence were just sitting there piled up in boxes under desks and in closets amid K-Street and the congressional offices. Legislation needed to be in-line with an entire new political perspective, and there was no-one, no special interest or lobbying group, currently occupying DC office space with any interest in synergy with Trump policy.

Think about the larger ramifications within that truism. That is also why there was/is so much opposition.

No legislation provided by outside interests means no work for lobbyists who sell it. No work means no money. No money means no expense accounts. No expenses means politicians paying for their own indulgences etc.

Politicians were not happy without their indulgences, but the issue was actually bigger. No K-Street expenditures also means no personal benefit; and no opportunity to advance financial benefit from the insider trading system.

Without the ability to position personal wealth for benefit, why would a politician stay in office? The income of many long-term politicians on both Republican and Democrat sides of the aisle was completely disrupted by President Trump winning the election. That is one of the key reason why so many politicians retired immediately thereafter.

When we understand the business of DC, we understand the difference between legislation with a traditional purpose and modern legislation with a financial and political agenda.

Lastly, this is why -when signing legislation- President Trump often says “they’ve been trying to get this through for a long time” etc. Most of the legislation passed by congress and signed by President Trump in his first term is older legislative proposals, with little indulgent value, that were shelved in years past.

Example: Criminal justice reform did not carry a financial benefit to the legislative bodies, and there was no financial interest funding the politicians to pass the bill. If you look at most of the bills President Trump has signed, with the exception of a few economic bills, they stem from congressional construction many years ago.

When you understand that any changes to this system will not be accepted by those who command power and affluence; when you accept their willingness to deploy military tanks around themselves in order to protect them from you; and when you realize they will use every system, including the ballot counting machines, to stop the American people from disrupting this corrupt system of self-aggrandizing elitism; you start to realize the diminished options for removing them from office…


Keith Olbermann: Turn Trump hotels into prisons for 'enablers'

 

 

Keith Olbermann

Article by World Net Daily Staff
 

Keith Olbermann: Turn Trump hotels into prisons for 'enablers'

'You're [bleep] right that we want to criminalize policy differences'

Warning: Embedded videos include profane language:

Already known as a poster child for Trump Derangement Syndrome, former ESPN and MSNBC host Keith Olberman continues to outdo himself, calling for criminalizing policy differences and turning "Trump buildings" into prisons for members of the president's administration.

Olberman said he wants "as many members as possible of this corrupt, immoral, anti-democratic outgoing administration indicted, arrested, tried and imprisoned."

"We want enough of them in there they could hold reunions and birthday parties. We want the prison so filled with Trumps and Trump flunkies and Trump apologists and Trump enablers, that we have to convert Trump buildings into new [bleep] Trump prisons," he said Tuesday in his ongoing video series posted on Twitter called "Olbermann vs. Trump."

Last week, he accused Trump supporters of committing "treason against humanity," asserting they should be imprisoned.

Offensive language warning:

 

 

On Tuesday, Olbermann insisted that in Trump's case, criminalizing policy differences is legitimate.

"When the policy differences are between maintaining American democracy and substituting racist one-party rule, you're [bleep] right that we want to criminalize policy differences that might exist between the outgoing administration and the administration that is about to take over," he said.

"We not only want that when it comes to an outgoing administration which is criminally guilty of trying to privatize the government, which is criminally negligent in the deaths of 250,000 Americans so far and which is criminally liable for the current attempted coup, we also want as many members as possible of this corrupt immoral anti-democratic outgoing administration indicted, arrested, tried and imprisoned," said Olbermann.

He wants Trump, Attorney General William Barr, Vice President Mike Pence, Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and others to be "prosecuted."

He even wants the "clerks who caged the kids" as part of the nation's response to a surge of illegal aliens to be imprisoned. He didn't mention that that the policy was created by President Trump's predecessor, Barack Obama.

He counts himself among those "who have fought and strived" to protect the nation, calling others "scumbags."

He lashed out at the U.S. Supreme Court as "Bible-thumping political toadies."

Anyone who supports Trump, he said, "must face going to prison," and they must live in "abject fear of prison."

He wants "400 special prosecutors" to go after anyone who may have supported President Trump.

His full rant is here (Warning: offensive language): 

Last week, Olbermann tore into anyone responsible for electing Trump and keeping him in office.

“History will also ask what was in the hearts of the men and women who continued to support this creature Trump after his defeat, after his repudiation, after the national wildfire that was COVID-19 accelerated into this hellscape of conflagration in the days after the 2020 election," Olbermann said. "Who let Trump stay manifestly insane as he is in office? Who refused to risk anything? Who refused to risk even a momentary loss of power to instead be certain death ruled this nation.

"Who were these people? Did you put them on trial? Did any of them go to prison? What did you do to Trump after it was clear he knew what was ahead and lied, and lied, and lied, and lied, and lied? What did you do to ensure that no kind of leader could commit this treason again? And not against the country, treason against humanity.”

Shortly after the election, he said it's "necessary to remove, and arrest, the president of the United States," immediately.

https://www.wnd.com/2020/11/keith-olbermann-turn-trump-hotels-prisons-enablers/



Don't Forget to Recommend
and Follow us at our

W3P Homepage


President Trump to hold rally in Ga. for Senators Loeffler and Perdue

 

OAN Newsroom

UPDATED 9:45 AM PT – Friday, November 27, 2020

President Trump will travel to Georgia to rally support for two Republican senators in the state’s highly-anticipated runoff races.

The President will visit the Peach State on December 5 to hold a rally for Sen. Kelly Loeffler (R-Ga.) and Sen. David Perdue (R-Ga.)

 

 

The two Republicans are facing off with Democrats Raphael Warnock and John Ossoff in a pair of runoffs, which will determine which party controls the Senate next year.

During a press conference Thursday, President Trump doubled down on his support for the Republican senators.

“It’s very important that we win those races. These are two great people,” the President stated. “I know them both very well.”

President Trump went on to emphasize the importance of the runoff races and said he may hold a second rally if needed.

 

https://www.oann.com/president-trump-to-hold-rally-in-ga-for-senators-loeffler-and-perdue/ 

 

 


 

 


 

 

 

Don't Forget to Recommend
and Follow us at our
W3P Homepage

Iran's top nuclear scientist Mohsen Fakhrizadeh assassinated near Tehran

 

Iran's most senior nuclear scientist Mohsen Fakhrizadeh has been assassinated near the capital Tehran, the country's defence ministry has confirmed.

Fakhrizadeh died in hospital after an attack in Absard, in Damavand county.

Iran's Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, has condemned the killing "as an act of state terror".

Western intelligence agencies view Fakhrizadeh as being behind Iran's covert nuclear weapons programme

 

 

"If Iran ever chose to weaponise (enrichment), Fakhrizadeh would be known as the father of the Iranian bomb," one Western diplomat told Reuters news agency in 2014.

News of the killing comes amid fresh concern about the increased amount of enriched uranium that Iran is producing. Enriched uranium is a vital component for both civil nuclear power generation and military nuclear weapons.

 

 

Iran insists its nuclear programme is exclusively for peaceful purposes.

Between 2010 and 2012, four Iranian nuclear scientists were assassinated and Iran has accused Israel of complicity in the killings.

Fakhrizadeh's name was specifically mentioned in Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu's presentation about Iran's nuclear programme in May 2018.

What happened to Mohsen Fakhrizadeh ?

In a statement on Friday, Iran's defence ministry said: "Armed terrorists targeted a vehicle carrying Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, head of the ministry's research and innovation organisation.

"After a clash between the terrorists and his bodyguards, Mr Fakhrizadeh was severely injured and rushed to hospital.

"Unfortunately, the medical team's efforts to save him were unsuccessful and minutes ago he passed away.
 
 

Iranian media reports said the attackers opened fire on the scientist in his car.

Fars news agency earlier reported there was a car explosion in Absard town, with witnesses reporting that "three to four individuals, who are said to have been terrorists, were killed".

What has the reaction been?

"Terrorists murdered an eminent Iranian scientist today," Iran's foreign minister said in a tweet.

"This cowardice - with serious indications of Israeli role - shows desperate warmongering of perpetrators."

Mr Zarif called on the international community to "condemn this act of state terror".

Iran's government congratulated Fakhrizadeh on his "martyrdom".

 

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-55105934 

 


 

 


 

 

 

Don't Forget to Recommend
and Follow us at our
W3P Homepage

 

What the Election Will Come Down To

 

Article by David Solway in The American Thinker
 

What the Election Will Come Down To

We need to begin with what most people almost surely know, despite the predictable disclaimers and pro forma expressions of doubt emerging all over the infoscape, namely, the 2020 election is in process of being stolen in what amounts to an insidiously deceptive coup d’état. It is fair to assume that this is common knowledge.

The circumstantial evidence is dispositive.

  • Biden was rarely able to manage a rally of more than a dozen or two stalwarts while Trump’s rallies could top 50,000;
  • Biden garnered more votes than even Obama did, a sublime unlikelihood;
  • the media called for Biden when Trump was comfortably ahead in the ballot count;
  • a sudden and nigh-miraculous manna drop of late-arriving ballots in the wee hours tilted the scale for Biden;
  • the virtual expulsion of Republican scrutineers at the voting booths and the obstruction by State authorities of monitored recounts;
  • and the use of Dominion voting systems allegedly calibrated to favor Biden and erase Trump.

Veteran lawyer Robert Kirk is convinced that the facts are

“…the kind and quality of substantial evidence, which, if presented to a jury, would easily result in a unanimous verdict by all twelve jurors, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the re-election of Donald J. Trump was stolen through the use of the Dominion voting software systems installed in states throughout our country.”

The so-called system “glitches” privileging Biden turn out to constitute an unmistakable pattern, a veritable constellation of effects. Moreover, the contest is far from over and the kraken has yet to be released.

Reviewing the reams of evidence available to date, Joe Hoft at Gateway Pundit rehearses the obvious: “Within the first 24 hours after the election we knew it was stolen. President Trump sets the record for the most votes ever and somehow the guy in the basement who is quickly failing in intellectual abilities…somehow broke the all-time vote record to beat the President’s win.

Naturally, much has been made of the media-hyped imbroglio between lawyer Sidney Powell and the President. While the fissure is obviously troubling, adverse or gloating commentary sits in the realm of pure speculation. For all we know, the breach between the two legal teams may argue a strategy to damp down criticism of Powell as “unhinged,” reflecting poorly on Trump, or perhaps to prepare for a pincer movement in deposing evidence before adjudicating bodies. Time will tell.

Additionally, as Andrea Widburg points out, Trump’s approval of U.S. General Services administrator Emily Murphy's decision to make resources available to the Biden transition team does not imply surrender, but a signal that “he is not some madman determined to stay hunkered down in the White House.” Rather, it is a wise tactical move “tak[ing] the wind out of the sails of every person who asserts that he is acting as a nascent tyrant. It's the Obamas of this world, not the Trumps, who makes their successor's transition a nightmare.”

When all is said and done, the outcome of an irremediably tainted election will come down to two critical factors: The Supreme Court and the military. If Trump does not have the military behind him, his disadvantage will likely be terminal. There can then be no question of invoking the Insurrection Act should it become necessary or that licit arrests on grounds of treason can even be contemplated.

If the Supreme Court refuses to hear the case or agrees to consider it but concludes there is not sufficient evidence to validate Trump’s deposition, the election will be over, Trump will have lost, and America will head down the road to the installation of a totalitarian socialist regime -- what Trump promised he would never allow. It will make no difference whether Biden packs the court or not, for it will already have semaphored its weakness, its inherent lack of juridical integrity, and its ultimately quixotic nature. Republican and Democrat alike would know that fraud so massive that it is practically incalculable had demonstrably occurred, and that no one in authority, including the Supreme Court, would want to confront a political cataclysm and ignite the wrath and violence of a ruthlessly aggressive and homicidal Left.

The argument would be that civil unrest must be avoided at all costs and that it is preferable to turn a blind eye to electoral theft than to preside over the fracturing of the nation and the abrogation of the civil contract. The argument, of course, would be disingenuous, self-serving and cowardly, the ultimate sophistry. For the nation is already fractured, the civil contract has effectively ceased to exist, and the corruption has gone so deep that, if it is not met head-on and scoured clean, there would be no nation remaining whose civil character could be assumed to exist. The electoral malady would have been fatal.

But the Fat Lady has not yet begun to warble. There has been some encouraging news just breaking. The Supreme Court has announced that three conservative justices, Amy Barrett, Brett Kavanaugh, and Samuel Alito, have been assigned to oversee circuit court cases in key swing states. The Court has now become profoundly involved. What this may augur for the future is another matter.

I have met people who agree that the election has indeed been stolen and approve of the theft -- anything to get Trump out of the White House is legitimate. In their books vice is the higher virtue, the ends justify the means and a statistically improbable, pre-determined result is to be applauded irrespective of how it may violate conscience and ethical principle, a sentiment shared by millions, which does not make it any less immoral. A lie is a lie and the truth is the truth, no matter how we scumble the picture. As noted, any reasonable person suspects, almost to a practical certainty, that a gargantuan electoral swindle is happening before their very eyes, and the same is surely true of committed Democrats. Honor among thieves may be the greatest dishonor imaginable. They do not care. The arc of injustice bends toward a desired conclusion.

 

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2020/11/what_the_election_will_come_down_to.html





Don't Forget to Recommend
and Follow us at our

W3P Homepage


Analysis - PA Judge Blocks Election Certification Over Constitutionality of Mail-in Voting



As I detailed in this earlier story, several individuals — led by GOP House Member Mike Kelly — filed suit in Pennsylvania state court alleging that the “no excuse” absentee voting procedures adopted by the Pennsylvania General Assembly violate Sec. 14 of the Pennsylvania State Constitution.  That provision establishes four narrow categories of “electors” who are eligible to request and vote by absentee ballot.  The Plaintiffs — including two individuals who lost election contests for the United States House of Representatives and Pennsylvania House of Representatives — claim that all votes cast by individuals who were not eligible to vote under the provisions of the Sec. 14 of the Constitution, are invalid and should be removed from vote totals in all races.

The “no excuse” absentee ballot option was passed as part of Act 77.  But at the same time, the legislators passed an identical amendment to Sec. 14 of the State Constitution to alter the language of that Section regarding authorized Absentee voting.  The problem is that constitutional amendments must be passed in two successive sessions of the Pennsylvania Assembly, published in newspapers of general circulation in each County of Pennsylvania, and then be adopted by a majority of voters in the next general election before the amendments become effective. The proposed amendments to Sec. 14 have only been passed in one session of the Assembly, and have never been published or voted on by the public.  Nevertheless, the state government put the provisions of Act 77 into immediate effect as if Sec. 14 had been amended.

The case is filed in the Court of Common Pleas in Allegheny County.  This is the trial court level of the Pennsylvania court system.  The judge assigned to the case is the Hon. Patricia McCullough.

As was reported earlier today by my RedState colleague Jennifer Oliver O’Connell, Judge McCollough issued an order early this morning in which she ordered the following:

  1. She set an evidentiary hearing for this Friday, November 27, 2020.
  2. To the extent there are any further steps to be taken in certifying the results of the Presidential election, the defendants — the State of Pennsylvania, the Pennsylvania General Assembly, Governor Frank Wolf, and Secretary of the Commonwealth Kathy Boockvar, are all enjoined from doing so pending the evidentiary hearing.
  3. Defendants are directed to file an answer and memorandum of law responding to the complaint by 5:00 pm today.

Among the curiosities of the Pennsylvania state court system is the fact that judges at all levels in the state judiciary are elected to office, and they do so as partisan members of political parties.  Many other states elect judges — or re-elect judges after they are first appointed — but few have judgeships filled as a partisan political exercise with members of political parties competing with each other in a general election.

Allegheny County is an overwhelmingly Democrat county that voted 59% to 39% for Joe Biden.

Yet, Judge McCullough was elected as a Republican.  She was first appointed to the bench in 2005 and was last re-elected in 2019.  Her current term of office expires in 2030.

Even though the various defendants in the case have now been ordered by Judge McCullough to file an answer and memorandum of law in response to the plaintiffs’ filing, on November 23, they opted to instead file a response and objections in the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania — which is one of two intermediate appeals courts in the Pennsylvania judicial system. The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania is given authority by statute to hear all appeals concerning of final orders of certain state agencies and certain designated cases from the Courts of Common Pleas involving governmental legal questions and regulations.

Again, the nine Judges of the Commonwealth Court are elected to those positions.  Currently, there are seven Republicans and two Democrats on this Court.

The response makes the following claims:

  1. The Legislature included in Act 77 a provision that any challenge had to be brought within 180 days of its passage, and that time period expired before this suit was brought.
  2. The plaintiffs lack standing because the complaint sets forth no particularized interest of the plaintiffs that is different than the generalized interest of all voters.
  3. Challenges to Act 77 on constitutional grounds could only be filed in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court pursuant to a provision in the statute.
  4. Resolutions and remedies in election disputes are provided for by statute, and no statute authorizes the remedy sought by plaintiffs.
  5. The equitable doctrine of “laches” bars relief — “laches” provides that a litigant cannot “sit on their rights” with regard to a known legal claim if the delay works to the unfair disadvantage of the opponent.
  6. Act 77 did not alter the provision of the Constitution for “absentee voting.” It simply created a new class of electors in Pennsylvania — those who prefer to vote by mail and not physically appear at voting precincts.

As noted, it was after this response was filed in the Commonwealth Court that Judge McCullough issued her order directing the defendants to file a response in her Court.  The first issue that is going to need to be resolved is where this litigation will take place.

As for the claims raised by the defendants, it strikes me as odd — as a legal matter — that a legislature can place some meaningful time limit on the ability of litigants to challenge the constitutionality of legislation.  If it was unconstitutional when passed, it doesn’t become constitutional by virtue of the passage of time. If Act 77 runs contrary to the provisions of the Pennsylvania Consitution, it did so no less on day 181 than it did on day 1 following passage.  I think the same response would apply to the “laches” defense.

As for the standing claim, I would need to do more research but I am again scratching my head over the idea that a legislature can pass, and a governor can sign an unconstitutional law, but no one has standing to bring that to the attention of the courts to seek redress because all citizens of Pennsylvania are equally burdened?

And the response ignores the fact that two plaintiffs lost their elections, and can likely show factually that they did so by margins that would evaporate if no-excuse mail-in ballots that cast votes in their races were invalid on the basis that they were unconstitutional.  On that basis, those two plaintiffs clearly have suffered an injury distinct from all electors in Pennsylvania.

The next 48 hours will be interesting to watch unfold with regard to this matter.


Doug Ross Journal Creates Infographics of Sidney Powell Georgia Lawsuit


CTH good friend Doug Ross has created a series of great INFOGRAPHICS that outline the stunning evidence, discoveries and allegations within the recent lawsuit filed by Sidney Powell.

SEE GRAPHICS HERE

Sometimes a graphic can encapsulate the more specific details within legal filings.  Doug Ross Journal has done a great job with this set of infographics. Check them out.


Joe Biden's Playtime Fun House


Article by Jeff Davidson in Townhall
 

Joe Biden's Playtime Fun House

My daughter was completely overjoyed on her 8th birthday when she received Barbie’s ‘playtime folding fun house.’ She couldn't wait to assemble it, arrange the furniture, and position her various Barbies all over the house. For an eight-year-old, this was not merely a wonderful time, it was pure bliss. 

With the White House as his ‘presumed’ playhouse, Joe Biden, in his fluctuating mental state, likely is experiencing the same thing at this moment. Biden might well be in the White House in the future, but merely as a guest at some function, for a few hours or less, and that’s it. 

I suspect on some level, Democrats and those on the Left already know that they have lost the presidency. That is why the ‘mainstream’ media is pushing so hard and so fast in articles and features, around the clock, portraying Joe Biden as the president-elect. 

Fast and Furious

The media machine is coughing up a detailed analysis of Biden’s ‘cabinet’ picks, senior advisors, White House staff, diplomatic corps, and so on. As Jenna Ellis, on the Trump campaign legal team said on Twitter, “All this media chatter of Joe Biden picking his cabinet is like fantasy football. Meaningless in the real game.”

Meanwhile, the inner sanctum, Biden, and Harris likely included, know that it's merely a matter of weeks before the massive Democrat election and voter fraud is exposed, particularly in the six swing states of Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Georgia, Arizona, and Nevada, but perhaps elsewhere.

CNN and MSNBC, more vigilantly than ever, are denying that any election fraud took place. Chris Cillizza, a highly compromised CNN Editor-at-Large and 'journalist,' who focuses on national politics, including the presidency, congress, and congressional districts, wrote that Wednesdays’ the Pennsylvania voter fraud hearing was lame. 

Mr. Cillizza, congenitally incapable of rational reporting, ignored detailed testimony and mountains of evidence proving election and voter fraud. He stated that there is no evidence of election fraud whatsoever, this in the face of documented item after item of gross illegalities. Apparently, in his zeal to anoint Joe Biden as the President of the United States and to deny Donald Trump a rightfully earned second term, Mr. Cillizza, as with legions of other 'mainstream' 'reporters,' know no bounds.

Under Penalty of Perjury

If you are among those who tuned in to the Pennsylvania hearing, you would have seen detailed, deliberate, and emphatic testimony from numerous witnesses who encountered voter fraud on November 3rd, and in some cases, before and after that date. These people, who had signed sworn affidavits, under penalty of perjury, bravely stepped up to the mic and testified in this public forum. In an organized and compelling manner, they laid it all out on the line for Pennsylvania legislators. 

After watching even three or four of the dozens of witnesses, one couldn't help but be convinced that Democrat massive election fraud did take place, throughout the state of Pennsylvania, and most likely, throughout the United States.

I'm not a psychologist and I don't even portray one on television. I do know that when a huge portion of the populace, in this case, roughly half of the United States is in deep, deep denial, some type of super-psychological phenomenon is occurring. 

Mass Delusion, or Effective Brainwashing?

With whatever psychological rationalization is required, many of those on the Left continue to regard obvious Democrat election fraud as a lie, ‘Russian disinformation,’ or Trumpist propaganda. Why? The ‘mainstream’ media has a monopoly on the news to which those on the Left are exposed. Still, authentic reports of voter fraud surely must have leaked out even among the most zealot Democrats.

Attorney Sidney Powell's two lawsuits, recently filed in Georgia and in Michigan are breathtaking in scope and boggle the imagination. Each document is voluminous, stuffed with details, and leaves nothing to the imagination. Some of the defendants are state governors. In detail, the lawsuits cite the specific ploys to undermine the elections in each state. Each document is presented with appropriate statutes and laws, pertinent to each state, that was grossly violated.

For Leftists to remain in denial much longer portends an ominous trend. I fear that these people have been brainwashed. Perhaps their cases are beyond hope, and they possibly can never be restored to become functioning members in the world of reality. I have friends who fall into this camp, and I am concerned. They are dupes of a media machine that has controlled them for years, if not decades, if not for their entire lives.       

 

https://townhall.com/columnists/jeffdavidson/2020/11/27/joe-bidens-playtime-fun-house-n2580734 


Don't Forget to Recommend
and Follow us at our

W3P Homepage


Mitt Romney Chats With David Axelrod, and It's Exactly How You Got Trump



Mitt Romney did Mitt Romney things yesterday, sitting for an interview with former Obama hitman David Axelrod. The interview was exactly what you’d expect, with Axelrod professing his new found respect for Romney while Romney himself sings the praises of his political adversaries as lovers of the country.

In other words, it’s exactly how you got Trump.

How very convenient that Axelrod only came to “admire” Romney after he relentlessly lied about him on the 2012 campaign trail. Recall that the Obama campaign accused Romney of everything from giving a woman cancer to wanting to re-enslave black Americans. In fact, that election is often cited as the moment our politics broke irreparably. The left were absolutely vicious, and because they were able to accuse someone as milquetoast as Romney of such horrors, the right finally threw their hands up and said they are done being suckers. That’s how you got a billionaire playboy who was willing to actually fight as the nominee in 2016. It’s also how he eventually became president. Had Trump run in 2008, I doubt he’d have won. But people like Axelrod so thoroughly destroyed our politics that it took a bull in a china shop to reset the deck.

And what’s Romney’s response? To go on Axelrod’s podcast and pretend as if none of that happened. This is why much of the Republican party can’t stand him. It’s not because they are turned off by his “fundamental decency,” nor do they expect him to be as brash as Donald Trump. What they do expect is for the representatives of their party to understand their woes and respond to them. Instead, Romney is one of the first politicians I’ve ever seen who was an outsider and specifically went to D.C. just so he could join the cocktail circuit and receive faint praise from CNN flacks.

To be frank, even if you don’t like Trump’s style, there was always a middle ground. Figures like Ron DeSantis populate it with relative ease and have bright futures because of it. Romney has no interest in that though. He’d always rather attack his own side while fluffing his opponents because it makes him feel morally superior. It also happens to be an extremely easy thing to do as a Republican in Washington. Doing what Trump did, standing up to the left in so many areas, takes actual fortitude. Meanwhile, Romney can only be counted to release a statement of disapproval of anything when he’s attacking another Republican.

As we forge into the next four years of what looks to be a Joe Biden administration, Republicans are going to have to make a choice. Do they pursue the politics of the past in vain, or do they recognize that the party has moved past the pointless virtue signaling of 2008 and 2012? Republican voters want a fighter who is going to prioritize them over getting backslaps from people like David Axelrod.