WASHINGTON, D.C. — Congresswoman Elaine Luria, a member of the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6 Attack on the U.S. Capitol, today voted to find Stephen K. Bannon in contempt of Congress for failure to comply with a congressional subpoena. The matter will now be referred to the United States Attorney General for the District of Columbia.
Prior to her vote, Congresswoman Luria spoke on the floor with members of the select committee. You can watch her remarks here.
Mr. Bannon’s testimony is central to the select committee’s investigation and he is the sole witness refusing to engage with the committee at this time. According to published reports, and his own public statements, Stephen Bannon had specific knowledge about the events planned for January 6 before they occurred. On his January 5, 2021 podcast, Bannon said, “All hell is going to break loose tomorrow. … It’s not going to happen like you think it’s going to happen. OK, it’s going to be quite extraordinarily different. All I can say is, strap in … You made this happen and tomorrow it’s game day. So strap in. Let’s get ready. So many people said, ‘Man, if I was in a revolution, I would be in Washington.’ Well, this is your time in history.”
The contempt of Congress statute makes clear that a witness summoned before Congress must appear or be “deemed guilty of a misdemeanor” punishable by a fine of up to $100,000 and imprisonment for up to one year. The U.S. Supreme Court has emphasized that the subpoena power is a “public duty, which every person within the jurisdiction of the Government is bound to perform when properly summoned.”
An interesting article, all the way around, but not actually factually correct, but hey, these days, who’s bothering anymore to count.
First of all, let us go to the authorizing resolution for the WITCH HUNTERS committee that Virginia’s tough-talking Elaine Luria is a member of, to wit:
H.Res.503 – Establishing the Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol.
117th Congress (2021-2022)
Sponsor: Rep. Pelosi, Nancy [D-CA-12] (Introduced 06/28/2021)
In the House of Representatives, U. S., June 30, 2021.
Whereas January 6, 2021, was one of the darkest days of our democracy, during which insurrectionists attempted to impede Congress’s Constitutional mandate to validate the presidential election.
end quotes
Focus on the word “insurrectionists,” and then ask yourself what proof, what indisputable evidence Elaine Luria is possessed of, that proves beyond a doubt that anyone in Washington, D.C., including Steve Bannon, was an insurrectionist.
The answer is that she has none, but since we are dealing with DEMOCRATS here, actually, she doesn’t need proof, or evidence, anymore that Joe Stalin did back when.
Like Joe Stalin, these DEMOCRATS know who is naughty, they know who is nice, they know who is guilty of something, and who isn’t, and so, proof and evidence really are superfluous, which is really the way things should be in a DEMOCRAT DEMOCRACY, because it is the right thing to do.
And before the matter can go to the U.S. attorney, Nancy Pelosi has to certify the vote, but that’s just a detail.
What is important now isn’t anything that Elaine Luria has done herself – what is now important is how the DOJ is going to handle this, because now is when DUE PROCESS of law unavailable in the House of Representatives actually begins.
As to Congresswoman Luria’s statement that “(T)he U.S. Supreme Court has emphasized that the subpoena power is a ‘public duty, which every person within the jurisdiction of the Government is bound to perform when properly summoned,” focus on the key words “properly summoned.”
Was Steve Bannon properly summoned to appear before a KANGAROO COURT to testify about something that never happened, which was “insurrectionists” attempting to “impede Congress’s Constitutional mandate to validate the presidential election?”
And a corollary question as well, that being were the DEMOCRATS in the House of Representatives really following any kind of Constitutional mandate on 6 January 2021, or were they really, as the evidence in the Congressional Record indicates, burying OUR Constitution for once and for all as it is an impediment to their taking over all three branches of our national government so they can impose the FASCISM of ONE-PARTY RULE on us?
As to the term “properly summoned,” let us to to the United States Supreme Court in matter of BARENBLATT v. UNITED STATES (1959), MR. JUSTICE HARLAN delivering the opinion of the Court, to wit:
The congressional power in question concerns the internal process of Congress in moving within its legislative domain; it involves the utilization of its committees to secure “testimony needed to enable it efficiently to exercise a legislative function belonging to it under the Constitution.” McGrain v. Daugherty, 273 U.S. 135, 160 .
end quotes
And going back to this phrase about “insurrectionists” attempting to “impede Congress’s Constitutional mandate to validate the presidential election” from the authorizing resolution for the WITCH HUNTERS committee, called “select” because Nancy Pelosi hand-picked or “selected” the members for their loyalty not to RULE OF LAW, not to the CONSTITUTION, but to Nancy herself, is it valid legislative function belonging to Congress under OUR Constitution for Nancy Pelosi and her hand-picked WITCH HUNTERS loyal to her to pronounce American citizens guilty of serious crimes?
Going back to Barenblatt, we have further as follows:
Broad as it is, the power is not, however, without limitations.
Since Congress may only investigate into those areas in which it may potentially legislate or appropriate, it cannot inquire into matters which are within the exclusive province of one of the other branches of the Government.
Lacking the judicial power given to the Judiciary, it cannot inquire into matters that are exclusively the concern of the Judiciary.
Neither can it supplant the Executive in what exclusively belongs to the Executive.
And the Congress, in common with all branches of the Government, must exercise its powers subject to the limitations placed by the Constitution on governmental action, more particularly in the context of this case the relevant limitations of the Bill of Rights.
end quotes
CONGRESS AND NANCY PELOSI AND ELAINE LURIA AND ALL THE KING’S HORSES, AND ALL THE KING’S MEN CANNOT PASS LEGISLATION CONDEMNING AN AMERICAN CITIZEN FOR CRIMES THEY SAY THE CITIZEN COMMITTED WITHOUT EVIDENCE OF THE COMMISSION OF A CRIME, IN THIS CASE, INSURRECTION!
Which takes us back to Barenblatt once more as follows:
The congressional power of inquiry, its range and scope, and an individual’s duty in relation to it, must be viewed in proper perspective. McGrain v. Daugherty, supra; Landis, Constitutional Limitations on the Congressional Power of Investigation, 40 Harv. L. Rev. 153, 214; Black, Inside a Senate Investigation, 172 Harpers Monthly 275 (February 1936).
The power and the right of resistance to it are to be judged in the concrete, not on the basis of abstractions.
end quotes
And that to me sums up just about where we are right now in this matter of the DEMOCRAT MYTH, THE BIGGEST LIE EVER, that on 6 January 2021, “insurrectionists” attempting to “impede Congress’s Constitutional mandate to validate the presidential election.”
So, thanks to Elaine Luria, the game is now on, the ball is in the air, so there is still time to make a run to the frig for some snacks, and we’ll be right back after a word for station identification, so don’t touch that dial!
A HORNSWOGGLE (get the better of the American people by cheating or deception, as in “I mean to say we were hornswoggled!”), people, a GREAT BIG BAMBOOZLE (to deceive by underhanded methods; to confuse, frustrate, or throw off thoroughly or completely), that is what Virginia’s own Elaine Luria voted for in actuality with her vote in what has been a very transparent KANGAROO COURT to hold Steve Bannon in contempt of the KANGAROO COURT by not appearing before it, which is an effort on her part by her vote to try and give a patina of legitimacy to something that has absolutely no legitimacy whatsoever in a free country, that being a KANGAROO COURT that can condemn en mass thousands of American citizens whose names they do not even know as “insurrectionists,” a very serious criminal charge, based on nothing more than Nancy Pelosi declaring them to be insurrectionists in the CHARTER for the WITCH HUNTERS committee of which Virginia’s Elaine Luria is a rabid member.
The BIG BAMBOOZLE, of course, or the GREAT HORNSWOGGLE, are other names for the MASSIVE HUGE LIE being propagated by Democrats like Elaine Luria that on 6 January 2021 “insurrectionists” were attempting to “impede Congress’s Constitutional mandate to validate the presidential election” when in fact, according to the FACTUAL RECORD in the Congressional Record, what was really being validated was the GUTTING of OUR Constitution by the Democrats in the House of Representatives who delegated to Nancy Pelosi the choice of picking this nation’s next president.
What Virginia’s own Elaine Luria has voted for here is a SHOW TRIAL to keep us distracted from what really went on behind closed doors in the House of Representatives on 6 January 2021 after 1:00 PM when the joint session of Congress commenced with the members of the Senate led by Mike Pence as their president entered the Chamber of the House of Representatives, and the following exchange took place which set the tone for the adversarial process which resulted in the effective muzzling of the Republicans and the gutting of OUR Constitution that was to follow, to wit:
The joint session was called to order by the Vice President.
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES
Mr. GRIFFITH (Republican U.S. Representative for Virginia’s 9th congressional district since 2011).
Mr. Vice President, parliamentary inquiry.
The VICE PRESIDENT.
The gentleman from Virginia will state his parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. GRIFFITH.
Mr. Vice President, in order to follow the Speaker’s instructions that only a limited number of people be on the floor, may I ask how one would make an objection or make a parliamentary inquiry in the future if you are not on the floor but in the gallery.
The VICE PRESIDENT.
Under section 18 of title 3, United States Code, debate is not permitted in the joint session.
Mr. GRIFFITH.
Further parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. Vice President, I am not attempting to debate.
I am trying to find out how a parliamentary inquiry or a parliamentary point of order would be made in following with the Speaker’s request that most of us not be on the floor.
How do you make one of those points of order when you don’t know what is going to happen later?
The VICE PRESIDENT.
Respectfully, the gentleman’s parliamentary inquiry constitutes debate, which is not permitted in the joint session under section 18 of title 3, United States Code.
Madam Speaker, Members of Congress, pursuant to the Constitution and the laws of the United States, the Senate and House of Representatives are meeting in joint session to verify the certificates and count the votes of the electors of the several States for President and Vice President of the United States.
end quotes
And out of that beginning, we now have the MASSIVE HUGE LIE being propagated by the Democrats and their lapdogs in the media that the 2020 presidential election, in the words of Elaine Luria’s fellow Democrat WITCH HUNTER Zoe Lofgren in the joint session on 6 January 2021, was “the most secure election conducted in modern history,” to wit:
Madam Speaker, this day marks a crossroads for American democracy.
Those who object to the counting of the electoral college votes, which reflect the votes of the American people, want to substitute their preferences for the voters’ choice.
end quotes
And that is patently false, as a review of the actual record in the Congressional Register makes clear, but again, people, we are dealing with Democrats here and how they can twist the truth and facts is a wonder the behold.
Why the electoral votes were being objected to was made incandescently clear on the record on 6 January 2021 by Congressman Biggs of Arizona, to wit:
Mr. BIGGS.
Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the objection.
The SPEAKER.
The gentleman from Arizona is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. BIGGS.
Madam Speaker, I join the objection to counting votes of electors from my home State of Arizona, as well as Georgia, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Nevada, because election integrity is the heart of our American constitutional republic.
In a representative form of government, we must be able to trust that our elections accurately represent the will of the American voter.
This is the appropriate forum anticipated and provided for by our Founders to debate whether this election complied with the Constitution that we have all sworn to protect.
Every particular of the Constitution is to be protected, including Article II, Section 1.
The debate as to the legitimacy of the 2020 Presidential election has been suppressed by the left and its propagandists in the media until today.
State legislatures are required to determine the manner in which electors are chosen.
Arizona names its electors on the general election ballot and identifies what candidate those electors are required to vote for should that candidate obtain the majority of votes in the general election.
As part of the manner for determining electors, Arizona also establishes deadlines for voter registration.
The deadline has been in place for 30 years.
This year, that voter registration deadline was October 5.
Early voting commenced 2 days later.
Five days before the deadline, a group filed a lawsuit demanding that Arizona election officials not enforce the deadline.
The Federal District Court decided that since other States have a deadline later than Arizona’s and some even allow for registration when voting, that Arizona’s new deadline would be a time he chose, not the legislature’s timeline.
The appellate court effectively overturned the lower court ruling and noted that the Arizona deadline established by the State legislature was sound and appropriate and complied with the Constitution.
But the appellate court merely shortened the extension, the bypassing of the deadline to 10 days.
The appellate court, without legal justification, also decided that everyone who registered after the legal deadline, but before the deadline created by judicial fiat, could still vote.
Note that the Arizona legislature was no longer in control of determining the manner of appointing Presidential electors because the court had set a new deadline, even though the appellate court found the legislature’s deadline was constitutionally sound.
During that window, more than 32,000 voters registered in Maricopa County alone.
Here are copies of those voter registration records.
In going around the deadline set by the legislature, the court ignored the Arizona legislature’s obligation and right to direct the manner of choosing Presidential electors as set forth in Article II, Section 1.
As a consequence of that judicial usurpation, more than 32,000 people were allowed to unlawfully cast ballots in Arizona’s Presidential election in 2020.
The Arizona legislature seeks an independent audit of the election.
The Governor refuses now to call them into a special session.
The Maricopa County Board of Supervisors has refused to comply with legislative subpoenas.
In Arizona, the people who control the evidence related to the election have done everything possible to prevent an independent audit directed by the legislature.
Arizonans have used the limited amount of records available to investigate the 2020 Presidential election.
Of a limited sample of 1,000 addresses of voters, they found 539 voters did not live at the addresses on the voter rolls.
Here is a stack of 1,000 declaration of affidavits supporting that.
I object to counting the votes of Arizona electors because the Federal
courts went around the legislatively constructed mechanism for choosing Arizona’s Presidential electors, allowing tens of thousands of voters to unlawfully cast votes.
The court usurped a key component of the Arizona legislature’s manner of selecting Presidential electors, thus violating Article II, Section 1.
The legislature is being obstructed in its efforts.
And what little evidence we have and what little information we have has produced this kind of evidence, which indicates a significant problem with the integrity of the Presidential election.
end quotes
Every story paints a picture, don’t it?
A GRAND FLIM-FLAM (swindle someone with a confidence game, as in “the American people were flimflammed out of their Constitution”), people, the SNOOKERING (trick, entice, or trap, as in “the American people were snookered by the Democrats into buying into a MASSIVE HUGE LIE about what really took place in the House of Representatives on 6 January 2021”) of America!
That is exactly what we, the American people are being presented with here.
We are to believe that somebody, in this case a clown named Steve Bannon who took legal advice from Donald Trump as to his supposed immunity from having to appear before the WITCH HUNTERS, which was a real slick way for him to set up a subsequent insanity plea, was a mastermind of an alleged “insurrection” on 6 January 2021, as if somebody who would take their legal advice from Donald Trump was a real master criminal mastermind capable to actually overthrowing the government of the United States of America, as opposed to a pure goose fool for taking legal advice from Donald Trump, and if there was even a hint of real evidence that Steve Bannon was actually responsible to setting up an insurrection on 6 January 2021, the FBI would have been all over him long before now.
And if a clown like Steve Bannon was really capable of overthrowing not only the whole national government of the United States of America, but our whole democracy, as well, just think how absolutely rotten and corrupt that overthrown government and democracy would have to be to be overthrown by Steve Bannon, and since Steve Bannon never did overthrow the United States government, I think the concept itself that Steve Bannon could overthrow the United States government as propounded by Congresswoman Luria is absurd and preposterous, BUT, what a powerful distraction that show has turned out to be for the Democrats who staged a SOFT COUP on 6 January 2021, and dealt our Constitution as death blow, as if it were Caesar under the knife of Brutus and his murderous gang of senators, where in our political lexicon, a SOFT COUP, sometimes referred to as a silent coup, is a coup d’état without the use of violence, but based on a conspiracy or plot that has as its objective the taking of state power by partially or wholly legal means, to facilitate an exchange of political leadership and in some cases also of the current institutional order.
Except in this case, the plot, for plot it definitely was, had as its objective the taking of state power by totally unconstitutional means to facilitate an exchange of political leadership as well as a sea change in the current institutional order, as we become a socialist worker’s paradise, as we can see by going back to an article in THE HILL entitled “Pelosi sets up call on election challenge: ‘No situation matches Trump presidency’” by Joseph Choi on 01/03/21, where we had as follows the head plotter, Nancy Pelosi, discussing the plot with her fellow plotters in the Democrat party, to wit:
Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) in a Sunday letter told her Democratic colleagues they would discuss the process for expected challenges to the Electoral College results from House Republicans during a call on Monday.
“Over the years, we have experienced many challenges in the House, but no situation matches the Trump presidency and the Trump disrespect for the will of the people,” Pelosi wrote in her letter.
Pelosi outlined a plan for the Democratic lawmakers as they prepare to certify the Electoral College votes this week.
More than 100 House Republicans are expected to challenge the results of the election in various battleground states, and a dozen Senate Republicans have vowed to do so.
She said the result would end with President-elect Joe Biden and Vice President-elect Kamala Harris being “officially declared the next President and Vice President of the United States,” but acknowledged this declaration might have to take place in “the middle of the night.”
end quotes
And how right she was to be on all counts, which is a sign of both a good coup plotter, and a sound coup plan.
And in the meantime, while we are having our attention focused on what was taking place OUTSIDE the House of Representatives chamber on 6 January 2021, the real COUP was taking place INSIDE those very chambers, which is where our attention as LOYAL AMERICAN CITIZENS should really be focused, and thankfully, we have the Cape Charles Mirror to do that questioning in, because sadly, nowhere else in America is it even being considered, let alone actually happening by making direct reference to the Congressional Record for that day, which is the official record of what actually transpired that day in the House of Representatives, not what the Democrats intent on overthrowing our form of Republican government to replace it with ONE-PARTY RULE and a FASCIST system with the Democrats and Nancy Pelosi in charge and their lapdogs in the media say what happened.
Which takes us to this important existential elementary school civics question, to wit:
ON 6 JANUARY 2021, WERE CHALLENGES TO THE COUNTING OF ELECTORAL VOTES PERMITTED BY LAW IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA?
Where the Congressional Research Service, which serves the Congress throughout the legislative process by providing comprehensive and reliable legislative research and analysis that are timely, objective, authoritative, and confidential, thereby contributing to an informed national legislature in its bulletin titled “Counting Electoral Votes: An Overview of Procedures at the Joint Session, Including Objections by Members of Congress” updated December 8, 2020, in the Summary states that “The Constitution and federal law establish a detailed timetable following the presidential election during which time the members of the electoral college convene in the 50 state capitals and in the District of Columbia, cast their votes for President and Vice President, and submit their votes through state officials to both houses of Congress,” and “The electoral votes are scheduled to be opened before a joint session of Congress on January 6, 2021,” and “Federal law specifies the procedures for this session and for challenges to the validity of an electoral vote,” and “This report describes the steps in the process and precedents set in prior presidential elections governing the actions of the House and Senate in certifying the electoral vote and in responding to challenges of the validity of electoral votes,” and in the section “Objecting to the Counting of One or More Electoral Votes” states that “Section 15 establishes a procedure for making and acting on objections to the counting of one or more of the electoral votes from a state or the District of Columbia,” and “When the certificate or equivalent paper from each state or the District of Columbia is read, ‘the President of the Senate shall call for objections, if any,'” and “Any such objection must be presented in writing and must be signed by at least one Senator and one Representative,” and “The objection ‘shall state clearly and concisely, and without argument, the ground thereof,’” and “When an objection, properly made in writing and endorsed by at least one Senator and one Representative, is received, each house is to meet and consider it separately,” and “The statute states, ‘No votes or papers from any other State shall be acted upon until the objections previously made to the votes or papers from any State shall have been finally disposed of,’” was it lawful and proper on 6 January 2021 for Republican members of congress and the Senate to challenge the electoral votes from the state of Arizona on Constitutional grounds?
So what is the Congressional Record?
How do we know we can trust what is printed therein, when the same politicians, in this case Nancy Pelosi, are saying different things outside the House of Representatives than what the Congressional Record has them saying inside?
Like whether or not there was an “insurrection” on 6 January 2021?
Or what the actual purpose of that gathering of politicians at the Capitol was really all about on 6 January 2021, despite what any of OUR laws might have to say about it, or OUR Constitution, which really is no more?
According to the website of the U.S. Senate, we have as follows concerning the Congressional Record:
The Congressional Record is a substantially verbatim account of the remarks made by senators and representatives while they are on the floor of the Senate and the House of Representatives.
It also includes all bills, resolutions, and motions proposed, as well as debates, and roll call votes.
end quotes
Hmmmm.
So if the word “verbatim” means “in exactly the same words as were used originally,” then when the Congressional Record quotes Nancy Pelosi after the House was called to order by the Speaker at 9 o’clock and 2 minutes p.m. as saying “The Chair will address the Chamber,” and “Today, a shameful assault was made on our democracy,” and “We know that we are in difficult times, but little could we have imagined the assault that was made on our democracy today,” and “We will be part of a history that shows the world what America is made of, that this assault, this assault is just that,” did it really mean that Nancy was actually talking about an insurrection?
But if it is verbatim, then it would have had Nancy talking about an insurrection, would it not, and not merely an “assault?”
So, if it wasn’t an insurrection at a little after 9 P.M. on the evening of 6 January 2021, when exactly did it become an insurrection?
And what does the Congressional Record have to say about the purpose of the gathering in the Capitol that day?
Let’s look:
ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER
The SPEAKER.
The Chair will address the Chamber.
Today, a shameful assault was made on our democracy.
It cannot, however, deter us from our responsibility to validate the election of Joe Biden and KAMALA HARRIS.
For that reason, Congress has returned to the Capitol.
end quotes
And there it is in plain words right from the mouth of “BOSS” Nancy Pelosi, herself – the sole purpose of that empty ceremony on 6 January 2021 was to RUBBER STAMP Joe Biden’s alleged victory.
Despite anything to the contrary in OUR laws or OUR Constitution about challenging electors being both a right and a duty for our supposed “representatives,” Nancy said NO!
WHY?
Well, as the article in going back to an article in THE HILL entitled “Pelosi sets up call on election challenge: ‘No situation matches Trump presidency’” by Joseph Choi on 01/03/21 informed us, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) in a Sunday letter told her Democratic colleagues they would discuss the process for expected challenges to the Electoral College results from House Republicans during a call on Monday and Pelosi outlined a plan for the Democratic lawmakers as they prepared to certify the Electoral College votes that required each and every one of them to forsake their oaths to OUR Constitution and OUR laws, both very easy to do for a Democrat, because in the words of Nancy, “Over the years, we have experienced many challenges in the House, but no situation matches the Trump presidency and the Trump disrespect for the will of the people,” which situation demanded that OUR laws and OUR Constitution be set aside as being seriously flawed, given that those laws and that Constitution actually allowed Donald Trump to beat Barack Obama’s hand-picked successor and carrier-on of his Obama legacy, that being Hillary Clinton, and according, those laws and OUR Constitution had to be set aside on 6 January 2021, because they might allow Trump to win again, something Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats were dead set against, so they RIGGTED the system to not allow challenges, despite the law and the Constitution, so that in the words of Nancy in THE HILL on 3 January 2021, the result would end with President-elect Joe Biden and Vice President-elect Kamala Harris being “officially declared the next President and Vice President of the United States.”
And such was American history made, people!
From henceforth, ALL presidential elections are now to be determined by the DEMOCRATS in the House of Representatives who put Joe Biden into the White House by order of Nancy Pelosi.
Welcome to a brave NEW WORLD here in what used to be a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC, but has now been reduced to a Democrat-controlled democracy instead.
And if you want to know what laws apply today, be sure to check the website of Nancy Pelosi where our marching orders for today telling us what to think and what not to think should be posted, and if they are not up yet, then DO NOT THINK AT ALL!
And not only is the Congressional Record for 6 January 2021 interesting for what it does say, but also for what it does not say, which takes us back to a USA TODAY article entitled “Timeline: How a Trump mob stormed the US Capitol, forcing Washington into lockdown” by George Petras, Janet Loehrke, Ramon Padilla, Javier Zarracina and Jennifer Borresen on Jan. 15, 2021, where we had this following entry, to wit:
1:46 p.m.
Rep. Elaine Luria, D-Va., tweets she is being evacuated after reports of a pipe bomb outside.
“Supporters of the President are trying to force their way into the Capitol and I can hear what sounds like multiple gunshots.”
end quotes
All of which is interesting because the Congressional Record for 6 January 2021 is completely silent on that supposed “evacuation” of Congresswoman Luria at 1:46 P.M., when she made the “mystery TWEET” above mentioned.
Here is what the Congressional Record does have, to wit:
RECESS
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. MCGOVERN).
Without objection, pursuant to clause 12(b) of rule I, the Chair declares the House in recess subject to the call of the Chair.
There was no objection.
Accordingly (at 2 o’clock and 18 minutes p.m.), the House stood in recess.
end quotes
At 1:46 P.M., this is who we had speaking that day:
Mr. GOSAR.
Madam Speaker, I rise in support of my objection.
The SPEAKER.
The gentleman from Arizona is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. GOSAR.
Madam Speaker, I filed my challenge on the slate of electors from the State of Arizona that was actually put forward by Governor Ducey of Arizona.
My ask to you, the Speaker, through the Vice President, is simple.
Do not count these electors until and unless the secretary of state allows a forensic audit of the election, a request she has denied repeatedly.
We have been told over and over that even though this was a public election using public money and public machines utilizing public employees, the public today has no ability to simply double-check the veracity of these results.
If the Presidential election was a football game, we would get a slow-motion review from multiple angles and a correction of a controversial decision.
But not so, we are told by our secretary of state, for the Presidential election, no review for you.
No access to the Dominion voting machines with a documented history of enabling fraud through its now discredited adjudication system, a system that literally allows one person to change tens of thousands of votes in mere minutes.
In the only audit done in Arizona, a court found 3 percent error rate against President Trump.
Vice President Biden’s margin of error was one-tenth of that, at 0.03 percent.
By the way, a 3 percent error rate at minimum is 90,000 ballots.
After finding the 3 percent error rate, the court stopped the audit and refused to go further.
In Arizona, as my attachments make clear, mail-in ballots were altered on the first day of counting as shown in data graphs we have provided, as concluded by data analysts.
Over 400,000 mail-in ballots were altered, switched from President Trump to Vice President Biden, or completely erased from President Trump’s totals.
The proof is in the counting curves, the curves that cannot occur except with odds so rare and unlikely that winning the Mega Millions lottery is more probable.
Mr. Speaker, can I have order in the Chamber?
end quotes
Now, that last sentence is also interesting, because he is obviously referring to some kind of disorder in the House that was not allowing him to be heard.
That disorder is logically linked to the Luria “mystery TWEET,” which was a signal, but to whom, and for what purpose, other than some purpose put in motion by Nancy Pelosi three days earlier on 3 January 2021, when she guaranteed to her Democrats that when 6 January 2021 was over, Joe Biden would be president.
And then, according to the Congressional Record, the proceedings resumed as follows:
AFTER RECESS
The recess having expired, the House was called to order by the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. MCGOVERN) at 2 o’clock and 29 minutes p.m.
The SPEAKER pro tempore.
The gentleman from Arizona (Mr. GOSAR) has 2 3⁄4 minutes remaining.
The gentleman may proceed.
Mr. GOSAR.
Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, the probability of these ectopic curves, you have a better likelihood of winning the Mega Millions lottery than you do having statistical issues here.
Over 30,000 illegal aliens voted in Arizona using the Federal ballot, yet our secretary of state refused the public access to review the ballots.
Over a thousand residences were visited for proof of residency and address; 456 failed that test.
They were vacant lots.
Even the Recorder’s office was used as an address.
What are they hiding?
If the process was fair, these would be improbable.
These would be once-in-a-lifetime-type applications.
So let’s look at the ballots, the signatures, and the adjudicated records.
Until this is done, Mr. Speaker, we should not count this slate.
You have a letter from the Arizona Legislature stating its intent to review the issue on January 11.
Our Governor has refused to allow the State to properly convene to do its proper oversight.
Mr. Speaker, I ask you one question today: Are you a ceremonial figurehead in your current role, or did the drafters of the 12th Amendment and Congress, in the Electoral Count Act of 1887, envision a role where you made discretionary decisions about ballot fraud and fair elections?
If you are merely ceremonial, then let’s be done with this.
Let’s eat our tea and crumpets and witness our national decline.
But if you are not merely ceremonial but vested with discernment, rationality, and legal authority to not just count from 1 to 270, then do not accept Arizona’s electors as certified.
Remand the slate back to the secretary of state, back to the Governor, with the following instructions: Until a full, complete electoral forensic audit is allowed by the secretary of state, the electors currently certified will not be counted.
It will then fall on the State of Arizona to decide are its electors in the game or not.
Anything less is an abdication of our constitutional Republic and our ethos: one man, one vote.
We ask: Why?
What is there to hide?
Shouldn’t the lawful victor of an election be proud, open, and transparent about an election audit?
I would.
Instead, we are met with denials, cover-ups, and contempt of subpoenas.
There is too much evidence of fraud, demonstrated by statistical anomalies that experts have determined cannot happen in the absence of fraud, to accept such a slate.
I am not asking these electors never be counted; it is just that they need to be certified the proper way.
Our beloved Constitution is but a mere piece of paper if we do not follow the law, upholding the law.
But now, alas, we find ourselves lawless, destroying the very thread that binds us together.
But we need to get back to the rule of law.
That is what has been violated, truly, by the actions in these States.
RECESS
The SPEAKER pro tempore.
Without objection, pursuant to clause 12(b) of rule I, the Chair declares the House in recess subject to the call of the Chair.
There was no objection.
Accordingly (at 2 o’clock and 29 minutes p.m.), the House stood in recess.
end quotes
So Congressman Gosar’s concerns simply went under the rug, it would appear.
And why didn’t the Congressional Record reflect the fact that Congresswoman Luria was being evacuated at 1:46 P.M.?
A lingering mystery for our times today!
And here we are back to elementary school civics, people, to wit:
IF there are federal laws in place that governed the counting of electoral college ballots on 6 January 2021, was Nancy Pelosi, the Democrat Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, free to disregard those federal laws on 6 January 2021 during the Joint Session of Congress mandated by the Constitution and federal law for the counting of electoral college votes, because as the head lawmaker, Nancy Pelosi is entitled to decide what laws will apply to a certain situation, and what laws must be disregarded for the good of the nation and its RULING PARTY?
Does Nancy Pelosi really have that power, that authority, that discretion, that she can simply disregard federal law when she finds it inconvenient?
And is there really any federal law that covers the counting of electoral college votes, or is that just a bunch of hog swill being peddled by some rogue and renegade Republicans because they were disgruntled because Joe Biden really did win the election, even if it meant scrapping RULE OF LAW to do so, as the Republicans who are disgruntled claim?
Let’s go back and look at Congressman Gosar was saying while he was being interrupted by the noise the Democrats and Congresswoman Luria were making as they were being evacuated, although by whom or on whose orders the Congressional Record is silent, to wit:
Mr. Speaker, I ask you one question today: Are you a ceremonial figurehead in your current role, or did the drafters of the 12th Amendment and Congress, in the Electoral Count Act of 1887, envision a role where you made discretionary decisions about ballot fraud and fair elections?
If you are merely ceremonial, then let’s be done with this.
Let’s eat our tea and crumpets and witness our national decline.
But if you are not merely ceremonial but vested with discernment, rationality, and legal authority to not just count from 1 to 270, then do not accept Arizona’s electors as certified.
Remand the slate back to the secretary of state, back to the Governor, with the following instructions: Until a full, complete electoral forensic audit is allowed by the secretary of state, the electors currently certified will not be counted.
end quotes
Now, as we keep hearing over and over and over, ad infinitum, that these rogue Republicans who wouldn’t drink the Pelosi KOOL-AID and go with the Democrat flow were trying to substitute their choice for that of the electors, re-read that last sentence about “Remand (to remand something is to send it back) the slate back to the secretary of state, back to the Governor, with the following instructions: Until a full, complete electoral forensic audit is allowed by the secretary of state, the electors currently certified will not be counted,” and we can see that that FALSE CLAIM, part of the Democrat MASSIVE HUGE LIE they are peddling with respect to the events of 6 January 2021, is nothing more than pure horse crap.
And then we have this sentence from Congressman Gosar to consider, to wit, with respect to whether or not there actually was any federal law that appertained to the proceedings of the House of Representatives on 6 January 2021, to wit:
Mr. Speaker, I ask you one question today: Are you a ceremonial figurehead in your current role, or did the drafters of the 12th Amendment and Congress, in the Electoral Count Act of 1887, envision a role where you made discretionary decisions about ballot fraud and fair elections?
end quotes
Which raises another elementary school civics question in here:
SHOULD A LAW PASSED BY CONGRESS WAY BACK IN 1887, A WHOLE DIFFERENT CENTURY IN A DIFFERENT MILLENNIUM WHERE PEOPLE HAD DIFFERENT IDEAS ABOUT THINGS THAN THEY DO TODAY, BE APPLIED TODAY IN A PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION WHERE IT WAS IMPORTANT FOR THE GOOD OF THE NATION TO INSURE THAT DONALD TRUMP WOULD LOSE, IF IN THE JUDGMENT OF NANCY PELOSI AND THE DEMOCRATS ABIDING BY THE LAW MIGHT ALLOW DONALD TRUMP TO WIN INSTEAD?
Isn’t that reason enough for them to set aside the law this time, for the good of the nation, because it was well, you know, as Nancy herself said, and she would know, “no situation matches the Trump presidency?”
As to the laws set aside by Nancy Pelosi and her Democrats on 6 January 2021 to insure Donald Trump’s loss to Joe Biden, who represented TRILLIONS of dollars in graft and patronage for the Democrat Machine, they are as follows:
3 U.S. Code Chapter 1 – PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS AND VACANCIES
§ 1. Time of appointing electors
§ 2. Failure to make choice on prescribed day
§ 3. Number of electors
§ 4. Vacancies in electoral college
§ 5. Determination of controversy as to appointment of electors
§ 6. Credentials of electors; transmission to Archivist of the United States and to Congress; public inspection
§ 7. Meeting and vote of electors
§ 8. Manner of voting
§ 9. Certificates of votes for President and Vice President
§ 10. Sealing and endorsing certificates
§ 11. Disposition of certificates
§ 12. Failure of certificates of electors to reach President of the Senate or Archivist of the United States; demand on State for certificate
§ 13. Same; demand on district judge for certificate
§ 14. Forfeiture for messenger’s neglect of duty
§ 15. Counting electoral votes in Congress
§ 16. Same; seats for officers and Members of two Houses in joint meeting
§ 17. Same; limit of debate in each House
§ 18. Same; parliamentary procedure at joint meeting
§ 19. Vacancy in offices of both President and Vice President; officers eligible to act
§ 20. Resignation or refusal of office
§ 21. Definitions
And stop the presses here for an announcement from PARTY CENTRAL giving us the DICTA for how and what we are to think today if we want to be considered GOOD AMERICANS:
DICTUM NO. 1:
In our sacred Democracy, if established laws thwart the will of the American people, then the established laws are to be disregarded as being unlawful.
DICTUM NO. 2:
In our sacred Democracy, demanding that laws that thwart the will of the American people be enforced, knowing those laws thwart the will of the American people and are therefore unlawful, is an act of treason and those who make such demands are traitors.
And now we return to our regularly scheduled programming.
And how do we really know that I’m not just making things up and repeating some kind of grand conspiracy theory here, the BIG LIE as the Democrats and the hacks at The Guardian, a Brit publication call it, when I say that in our sacred Democracy today, now that the Democrats have effective control of all three branches of our national government, which really makes it their democracy, that if established laws thwart the will of the American people, then the established laws are to be disregarded as being unlawful?
And I would say, much like Joe Biden’s mouthpiece Jen Psaki says, now, that is a really good question, and I like good questions, and the easiest way to answer that is to go to the AUTHORITY, which in this case is the Congressional Register for 6 January 2021, and I would refer us to the testimony of congresswoman Luria’s fellow WITCH HUNTER, Jamie Raskin, who is a constitutional scholar, don’t you know, as well as the Democrat prosecutor who failed to convict Trump of insurrection in the famous Democrat SECOND IMPEACHMENT after fellow WITCH HUNTER and all-around loser Adam Schiff, the smarmy pencil neck Democrat congressman from Hollywood and Disneyland failed to convict Trump in the famous Democrat FIRST IMPEACHMENT, where we have as follows, and remember, people, he is a constitutional scholar, one of the very best in the world, they say, and they wouldn’t say it if it weren’t so, to wit:
Mr. RASKIN.
Madam Speaker, I claim the time in opposition to the objection.
The SPEAKER.
The gentleman from Maryland is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. RASKIN.
Abraham Lincoln, whose name is a comfort to us all, said: ‘‘We have got the best government the world ever knew.’’
It is best because the first three words of the Constitution tell us who governs here: We the People.
end quotes
And as a Democrat, what Jamie is really saying is that what governs here today is the emotions and passions of the howling mob that supports the Democrats because of all the free stuff the Democrats have promised them, along with free citizenship if they would help put Joe Biden into the white house, and would burn down America if they didn’t get exactly what the Democrats had promised them, and people, that is NO SECRET!
Getting back to Jamie’s passionate testimony in support of doing away with RULE OF LAW in connection with the 2020 presidential election awarded to Joe Biden by Nancy Pelosi, we have further from Jamie, a real honest-to-gosh constitutional scholar the like of which has never been seen before in America, so brilliant is he that his luminescence makes that of the sun look dim by comparison, as follows:
Today we are in the people’s House to complete the people’s process for choosing the people’s President.
We assemble into joint session for a solemn purpose that we have all sworn a sacred oath to faithfully discharge.
The 12th Amendment obligates each and every one of us to count the electoral votes to recognize the will of the people in the 2020 Presidential election.
end quotes
And stop right there, people, because that is PURE HOG**** spewing forth from out the mouth of Democrat constitutional scholar Jamie Raskin.
It is pure HOG**** because the 12th Amendment DOES NOT and DID NOT obligate each and every one of them to count the electoral votes to recognize the will of the people in the 2020 Presidential election.
What the Twelfth Amendment does say is as follows:
The Electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate; the President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted; The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President.
end quotes
Now, if ALL they were able to do that day was to do as Jamie Raskin said, simply count votes like automatons, then why did Mike Pence start the joint session as follows:
The VICE PRESIDENT.
Madam Speaker, Members of Congress, pursuant to the Constitution and the laws of the United States, the Senate and House of Representatives are meeting in joint session to verify the certificates and count the votes of the electors of the several States for President and Vice President of the United States.
After ascertainment has been had that the certificates are authentic and correct in form, the tellers will count and make a list of the votes cast by the electors of the several States.
After ascertaining that the certificates are regular in form and authentic, the tellers will announce the votes cast by the electors for each State, beginning with Alabama, which the Parliamentarian has advised me is the only certificate of vote from that State, and purports to be a return from the State, and that has annexed to it a certificate from an authority of that State purporting to appoint or ascertain electors.
Senator BLUNT.
Mr. President, the certificate of the electoral vote of the State of Alabama seems to be regular in form and authentic, and it appears therefrom that Donald J. Trump of the State of Florida received 9 votes for President and MICHAEL R. PENCE of the State of Indiana received 9 votes for Vice President.
The VICE PRESIDENT.
Are there any objections to counting the certificate of vote of the State of Alabama that the teller has verified appears to be regular in form and authentic?
There was no objection.
The VICE PRESIDENT.
Hearing none, this certificate from Alaska, the Parliamentarian has advised me, is the only certificate of vote from that State that purports to be a return from the State and that has annexed to it a certificate from an authority of the State purporting to appoint and ascertain electors.
end quotes
IF the 12th Amendment required them to only count votes as Democrat constitutional scholar Jamie Raskin was claiming on 6 January 2021, then why was Mike Pence asking if anyone had objections?
That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever for Mike Pence to be asking for objections on 6 January 2021 IF the 12th Amendment does not allow them to make objections!
But it doesn’t, and Jamie Raskin is simply full of crap, which takes us back for more of his BULL**** spiel, to wit:
We are not here, Madam Speaker, to vote for the candidate we want.
We are here to recognize the candidate the people actually voted for in the States.
Madam Speaker, the 2020 election is over and the people have spoken.
Joe Biden received more than 80 million votes.
Seven million more than President Trump.
A number larger than any other President has received in U.S. history.
The sweeping popular victory translated into an electoral college victory of 306–232, a margin which President Trump pronounced a landslide when he won by those exact same numbers in 2016.
So now we count the electoral votes that were just delivered to us in the beautiful mahogany cases brought by those hardworking Senate pages.
These mahogany cases contain only the 538 electoral votes that were sent in by the States, not the 159 million ballots that were cast by our constituents.
Those were counted 2 months ago by hundreds of thousands of election officials and poll workers across America who risked their health and even their lives in the time of COVID to deliver what our Department of Homeland Security called the most secure election in American history.
Many of these officials have endured threats of retribution, violence, and even death just for doing their jobs.
Just as the popular vote was for Biden, so was the electoral vote.
Yet, we have seen escalating attacks on our election with unfounded claims of fraud and corruption.
There is no basis in fact or law to justify the unprecedented relief that is being requested of nullifying these elections.
We are here to count the votes.
Let us do our job.
HUCKSTERISM, people, plain and simple, where a huckster in this case is defined as a person, Democrat constitutional scholar and Pelosi-ite WITCH HUNTER Jamie Raskin specifically, who employs showy methods to win votes, as in “the crass methods of political hucksters like Democrat Jamie Raskin,” and hucksterism is defined as “the condition of being a huckster,” or “hucksterish behavior,” and here I am referring to Jami’s inane and very ignorant comments on 6 January 2021 that “The 12th Amendment obligates each and every one of us to count the electoral votes to recognize the will of the people in the 2020 Presidential election, we are here to count the votes, let us do our job,” arguments that fellow Pelosi-ite WITCH HUNTER Elaine Luria bought into, hook, line and sinker, given she voted against the objection, and to see just how very stupid those arguments were and are, let us go back in the transcript of the Congressional Record for that day to see what Pelosi-ite WITCH HUNTER Jamie Raskin, deemed by Nancy Pelosi to be an AUTHORITY FIGURE whose word most people would take without questioning it, him being a constitutional scholar and all that, was even speaking to, to wit:
The VICE PRESIDENT.
Hearing none, this certificate from Arizona, the Parliamentarian has advised me, is the only certificate of vote that the State purports to be a return from the State and that has annexed to it a certificate from an authority of that State purporting to appoint or ascertain electors.
Senator KLOBUCHAR.
Mr. President, the certificate of the electoral vote of the State of Arizona seems to be regular in form and authentic, and it appears therefrom that Joseph R. Biden, Jr., of the State of Delaware received 11 votes for President and KAMALA D. HARRIS of the State of California received 11 votes for Vice President.
The VICE PRESIDENT.
Are there any objections to counting the certificate of vote of the State of Arizona that the teller has verified appears to be regular in form and authentic?
Mr. GOSAR.
Mr. Vice President, I, PAUL GOSAR from Arizona, rise for myself and 60 of my colleagues to object to the counting of the electoral ballots from Arizona.
The VICE PRESIDENT.
Is the objection in writing and signed by a Senator?
Mr. GOSAR.
Yes, it is.
Senator CRUZ.
It is.
The VICE PRESIDENT.
An objection presented in writing and signed by both a Representative and a Senator complies with the law, chapter 1 of title 3, United States Code.
The Clerk will report the objection.
end quotes
That, of course, is the very same 3 U.S. Code Chapter 1 – PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS AND VACANCIES, mentioned in a post above here, and my goodness, but you would think a crackerjack constitutional scholar like Jamie Raskin would be all over that!
But he wasn’t?
So why?
And that answer is quite simple – because it was Nancy Pelosi’s plan three days earlier to have Jamie do exactly what he did, which was to engage in a FLIM-FLAM where in fact, because the law thwarted the will of those people who wanted Joe Biden to be president, the law was unlawful, and couldn’t be followed, which BULL**** argument we also see being made by Joseph D. Neguse, born May 13, 1984, an American lawyer and Democrat politician serving as the U.S. Representative for Colorado’s 2nd congressional district since 2019, who is the first Eritrean-American elected to the United States Congress, which is probably why he doesn’t know ****-all about our Constitution of our laws, nor would he care about them being a Democrat, to wit:
Mr. NEGUSE.
Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the objection.
The SPEAKER.
The gentleman from Colorado is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. NEGUSE.
Madam Speaker, to my colleague from Pennsylvania, I will say this: I carry the same Constitution that you do.
And the Constitution, sir, does not allow you, me, or any Member of this body to substitute our judgment for that of the American people.
It does not allow us to disregard the will of the American people.
Because under this Constitution, under our Constitution, Congress doesn’t choose the President.
The American people do.
And they have chosen in resounding numbers, as every single Member of this body well understands.
end quotes
Except quite obviously since he is dead wrong, and there were people in the House of Representatives that day who were not drinking that poisonous and toxic Pelosi KOOL-AID being served up by Jamie Raskin, Joe Neguse and a host of other Democrats that fateful day, when by imperial decree of Nancy Pelosi, RULE OF LAW in the United States of America was struck down by the Democrats including Virginia’s Elaine Luria so that the Democrats could thwart the will of the American people who wanted RULE OF LAW to prevail, and by doing away with RULE OF LAW, the Democrats were able to make Joe Biden into the next president, although in fact an illegitimate one.
As to the objection Joe Neguse was speaking to, it was as follows:
The SPEAKER.
The Chair will endeavor to alternate recognition between Members speaking in support of the objection and Members speaking in opposition to the objection.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. PERRY) for 5 minutes.
Mr. PERRY.
Madam Speaker, this is a somber day for the defense of the Constitution.
You see, the Constitution is just a piece of paper.
It cannot defend itself.
That is why our leaders swear an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, and that is what I am doing here this evening.
The Constitution states: ‘‘The times, places, and manner of holding elections . . . shall be prescribed . . . by the legislature’’ — not the courts, not the Governor, not the secretary of state or other bureaucrats or elected officials, the legislature.
In Pennsylvania, the supreme court unilaterally extended the deadline for ballots to 3 days after the election.
They actually wanted 10.
The supreme court is not the legislature.
The supreme court mandated un-postmarked ballots to be received, destroying the validity of all the votes that were cast timely.
The supreme court action defied the law, the legislature, and the will of the people.
The supreme court authorized the use of drop boxes, where ballot harvesting could occur.
The legislature never authorized that form of voting, and the court had absolutely no right to do so.
Responding to the secretary of state, Kathy Boockvar, the supreme court ruled that mail-in ballots need not authenticate signatures.
Once again, the court not only defied the Constitution and the will of the people, but by so doing, they created a separate class of voters, thereby violating the Equal Protection Clause prescribed in the Constitution.
How can we have two legally separate classes of voters?
Yet, the court made it so, not the legislature.
The Constitution doesn’t mention the court when determining the time, place, and manner of elections because they are not authorized to make those decisions.
Yet, they did it.
And the U.S. Supreme Court has refused to hear the case, denying the evidence and denying the demands for justice from the people of Pennsylvania and America.
These aren’t my opinions.
These aren’t partisan viewpoints.
These are irrefutable facts.
Six days before the election, guidance emailed from the secretary of state required that the counties shall not pre-canvass or canvass any mail-in or civilian absentee ballots received between 8 o’clock Tuesday and 5 o’clock Friday and that they must be kept separately.
That was 6 days before the election.
Madam Speaker, 2 days before the election, counties received new guidance from the secretary of state, informing counties that they shall canvass segregated absentee and mail-in ballots as soon as possible upon receipt.
The secretary of state is not elected by the people.
She is not a member of the legislature.
Yet, she, and she alone, determined the time and manner of elections.
That was unconstitutional.
In defiance of a U.S. Supreme Court order that all ballots received after election day be segregated, the secretary of state knew, once they were canvassed, that is opened and commingled with all the other ballots, they would be counted with all the rest.
And what is the remedy for this defiance, for this lawbreaking?
So far, the court has decided there is no remedy.
There is no penalty for this lawlessness, this dilution of lawfully cast votes, this defiance of the Constitution — no remedy.
When the State legislature requested the Governor to convene a special session to address the unanswered questions and try to provide a remedy, he refused.
When votes are accepted under unconstitutional means without fair and equal protection for all, the only result can be an illegitimate outcome — illegitimate.
The voters did not create this mess, but the will of the people is absolutely being subverted by the deliberate and willful actions of individuals defying their oath, the law, and the Constitution.
In Pennsylvania, we use the Statewide Uniform Registry of Electors, or SURE, system as the basis of determining who can vote.
Unfortunately, a recent attempted audit by the Democrat State auditor general concluded that he was unable to establish with any degree of reasonable assurance that the SURE system is secure and that Pennsylvania voter registration records are complete and accurate.
That is what we are relying on.
That right there.
This is the very same system used to certify the election in the contest for President of the United States.
This is the very same system that the State used to certify the 2020 election, even though its figures do not match more than half of Pennsylvania’s 67 counties.
To this day, right now, while we stand here, how can this election be certified using a system that after 2 months still displays that over 205,000 more votes were cast in Pennsylvania than people who voted in the November election?
Let me say that again: 205,000 more votes than voters.
end quotes
Which is what Joe Neguse is calling the “will of the American people.
So yes, people, the SNOOKERING of the American people – a Democrat party specialty, and now, as a result, Joe Biden is president, because truth be told, that was the only way he was going to get there.
And having established the indisputable fact based on the testimony of Democrat all-around legal and constitutional WHIZ KID and Pelosi-ite WITCH HUNTER Jamie Raskin, the now-famous author of the SECOND FAILED TRUMP IMPEACHMENT, and the further testimony of Joe Neguse, who is a lawyer, that in making Joe Biden the president, the Democrats who voted against the objections to Joe Biden’s electors in Arizona and Pennsylvania by doing so voted AGAINST OUR federal election law on the specious grounds that adhering to OUR election law would thwart the will of all the people who voted to make Joe Biden their president by hook or crook, by any means possible, regardless of how unconstitutional or unlawful those means actually were, what about Pelosi-ite POLITICAL DICTUM NO. 2, that being that in our sacred Democracy today, and this is as of 6 January 2021, when there was indeed a REVOLUTION and a COUP at the Capitol, the victim of which was our RULE OF LAW and OUR Constitution, demanding that laws that thwart the will of the American people be enforced, knowing those laws thwart the will of the American people and are therefore unlawful, is an act of treason and those who make such demands are traitors?
Is that just HYSTERICAL HYPE?
Is that some type of Trumpist political paranoia?
Or is it exactly true as stated?
For that answer, let us simply go to the testimony of Ruben Marinelarena Gallego, born November 20, 1979) who is an American politician who is the U.S. representative for Arizona’s 7th congressional district, and as good a Democrat as they come, which means he knows what he is talking about with respect to treason and traitors in the House of Representatives trying to thwart the will of the Democrats who put Joe Biden into power by making demands that federal election law be followed, to wit:
Mr. GALLEGO.
Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the objection.
The SPEAKER.
The gentleman from Arizona is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. GALLEGO.
Madam Speaker, I am the proud son of immigrants.
Growing up, I heard stories about parties, politicians, and Presidents invalidating elections when the people took power for themselves.
That is why, when I joined the Marine Corps, the most sacred part of my oath was to protect the Constitution of the United States.
I never thought I would have to do that on the floor of Congress, but here we are.
The people have spoken, and the power of the people, the Constitution, will be preserved.
Madam Speaker, I left my youth, I left my sanity, I left it all in Iraq for this country because there is this one precious idea that we all had, that we all believed: that this country was going to protect everyone’s individual rights, that you were going to be able to vote, that you were going to be able to preserve democracy and pass it on as a legacy, as an inheritance to every American.
But today — today — there was treason in this House.
Today, there were traitors in this House.
So I am not asking my Republican colleagues to help me and stop this objection to Arizona; I am asking you to get off all these objections.
It is time for you to save your soul.
It is time for you to save your country.
Be the good American.
Be the American you want.
Preserve this democracy; reject this movement; and stop this terrorism that is happening from the White House.
The SPEAKER.
Members are reminded to address their remarks to the Chair.
end quotes
Be the GOOD AMERICAN?
By rejecting RULE OF LAW as the Democrats demand?
Hardly sounds like being a TRUE GOOD AMERICAN to me.
Sounds like being just another Democrat willing to sell out this nation in exchange for the promise of TRILLIONS in graft and patronage in exchange for putting Joe Biden into the white house.
And save their souls?
The only way for them to save their souls and their country according to the Democrats was to stop being traitors to the cause of putting Joe Biden into the white house, no matter how unlawful or unconstitutional the means of doing so – stop objecting to the Democrats literally abolishing the Constitution and federal election law with it to make Joe Biden the next president.
That is the way the Democrats offered them to save their souls – SELL OUT THE AMERICAN people by agreeing to put Joe Biden into the white house despite the insult to OUR Constitution that agreement would do.
And those are the facts of the matter, straight from the Congressional Record!
So yes, people, the COVER-UP of the BIG SELL-OUT of the American people by the Democrats in the House of Representatives on 6 January 2021, when they set aside RULE OF LAW and OUR Constitution to make Joe Biden the president of the United States of America by any means possible, no matter how unlawful or un-constitutional they were.
That is what Virginia Congresswoman Luria is trying to sell us here with her false narrative about the clown Steve Bannon holding the key to the violence on 6 January 2021 that the Democrats were then able to capitalize on as they put RULE OF LAW and OUR Constitution to death on the House floor, the supposed “people’s house,” which is really the Nancy house.
So, another question arises here as we LOYAL AMERICAN CITIZENS who are not Biden KOOL-AID drinkers, or Pelosi KOOL-AID drinkers, nor are we Luria KOOL-AID drinkers, and that is when did the assault on the Capitol on January 6, 2021, which is what Nancy herself called it on 6 January 2021 in her ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER when she said, “The Chair will address the Chamber, today, a shameful assault was made on our democracy, we will be part of a history that shows the world what America is made of, that this assault, this assault is just that,” become the INSURRECTION that Congresswoman Luria would have us believe Steve Bannon, a clown is responsible for?
Or asked a different way:
WHEN DID THE HOUSE DEMOCRATS UNDER NANCY PELOSI BEGIN TO CAPITALIZE ON THE ASSAULT ON THE CAPITOL ON 6 JANUARY 2021 AS A POLITICAL WEAPON WITH WHICH TO DEMONIZE AND CRIMINALIZE THEIR OPPONENTS, THE HATED REPUBLICANS, THE WAY HITLER AND THE NAZIS WERE ABLE TO CAPITALIZE ON THE REICHSTAG FIRE TO DEMONIZE AND CRIMINALIZE THE COMMIES IN GERMANY?
For that answer, let us go back to the transcript for 6 January 2021 that is the Congressional Record, to the testimony of BIG DOG DEMOCRAT Steny Hoyer, who spoke on the record right after Nancy did that evening, where we have as follows from BIG DOG Steny to wit:
Mr. HOYER.
Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the objection.
The SPEAKER.
The gentleman from Maryland is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. HOYER.
Madam Speaker, it is a sad day in America.
It is a wrenching day in America.
It is a day in which our words and our actions have had consequences of a very, very negative nature.
We ought to watch our words and think what it may mean to some.
My remarks were written before the tragic, dangerous, and unacceptable actions — and ‘‘unacceptable’’ is such a tame word.
My remarks started with, ‘‘Madam Speaker, the American people today are witnessing one of the greatest challenges to our democracy in its 244-year history.’’
Little did I know that this Capitol would be attacked by the enemy within.
end quotes
Ah, yes, the people – THE ENEMY WITHIN!
And who is that “enemy within?”
It would be the Republicans, of course, who were FOR RULE OF LAW and OUR Constitution, and by extension, each and every LOYAL AMERICAN CITIZEN who themselves are FOR RULE OF LAW and OUR Constitution.
If we are not for Joe Biden, and if we are not for the manner in which the House Democrats put Joe Biden into office, then we are collectively “THE ENEMY WITHIN!”
Some serious business indeed, and what a dark day 6 January 2021 really was for OUR nation, our RULE OF LAW and OUR Constitution, and it had absolutely nothing to do with the clown Steve Bannon.
But please, stay tuned, because BIG DOG DEMOCRAT Steny Hoyer has just started the DEMOCRAT HATE TRAIN rolling here, and there is much more of the DEMOCRAT HATE CAMPAIGN against everybody in America who was not for Joe Biden on 6 January 2021 yet to come.
And knowing what we know now about what was occurring INSIDE the House of Representatives, “NANCY’S HOUSE,” on 6 January 2021, where we have the Democrats trying to pin the violence that occurred in the Capitol not on Trump, but on the “ENEMY WITHIN,” as BIG DOG DEMO(CRAT Steny Hoyer informed us through the Congressional Record, a reference not to Trump, but to each and every Republican objecting to the electors of Arizona and Pennsylvania, as was their DUTY to the American people pursuant to federal election law, which was being set aside by the Democrats as being “UNLAWFUL” because it thwarted the will of the Democrats, and knowing of Nancy Pelosi’s obvious plot three (3) days earlier to subvert the 2020 presidential election by handing it to Joe Biden, which she did on 6 January 2021, thanks in some great part to the “violence,” and the labeling of Republicans as the “ENEMY WITHIN,” let’s go back to the original post where congresswoman Luria is telling us that according to published reports, and his own public statements, Stephen Bannon had specific knowledge about the events planned for January 6 before they occurred.
In response, I would take us back to 3 January 2021 and an article in THE HILL entitled “Pelosi sets up call on election challenge: ‘No situation matches Trump presidency’” by Joseph Choi where we head plotter Nancy Pelosi discussing her plot to subvert OUR Constitution with her fellow plotters in the Democrat party, to wit:
Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) in a Sunday letter told her Democratic colleagues they would discuss the process for expected challenges to the Electoral College results from House Republicans during a call on Monday.
“Over the years, we have experienced many challenges in the House, but no situation matches the Trump presidency and the Trump disrespect for the will of the people,” Pelosi wrote in her letter.
Pelosi outlined a plan for the Democratic lawmakers as they prepare to certify the Electoral College votes this week.
More than 100 House Republicans are expected to challenge the results of the election in various battleground states, and a dozen Senate Republicans have vowed to do so.
She said the result would end with President-elect Joe Biden and Vice President-elect Kamala Harris being “officially declared the next President and Vice President of the United States,” but acknowledged this declaration might have to take place in “the middle of the night.”
end quotes
Given that, I would say that many of us in America had a good idea of what Nancy had planned for 6 January 2021, and how “specific” Bannon’s knowledge was has never been proven.
Congresswoman Luria then continues as follows: On his January 5, 2021 podcast, Bannon said, “All hell is going to break loose tomorrow.”
And seriously, based on what Nancy Pelosi had said two (2) days prior on 3 January 2021 about subverting the election, how could anyone not know that?
Getting back to how congresswoman Luria is indicting Bannon here, making him into a criminal for knowing what a goodly percentage of the American people knew as well, that thanks to Nancy Pelosi, there was going to be serious trouble at the Capitol on 6 January 2021, we have further as follows: “… It’s not going to happen like you think it’s going to happen.”
Now, people, this is from something called a “podcast,” so how does congresswoman Luria know what he is referring to, since she has no idea who the audience for the podcast was, or even if anyone actually bothered to listen to it?
What is it that those people, if they even exist, were thinking was going to happen?
And that takes us back to the podcast as reported by congresswoman Luria, as follows: “OK, it’s going to be quite extraordinarily different.”
So, OK, congresswoman Luria, tell us, since you seem to know – what is that supposed to mean – “it’s going to be quite extraordinarily different.”
What was going to be quite extraordinarily different?
The fact that for the first time in our history as a nation, Nancy Pelosi was going to subvert OUR federal law and OUR Constitution in order to award the presidency to Joe Biden?
Which takes us back to the supposedly incriminating podcast that is supposed to make out the idiotic clown Steve Bannon as a criminal mastermind who orchestrated an INSURRECTION in Washington, D.C. on 6 January 2021, where we have as follows: “All I can say is, strap in …”
“You made this happen and tomorrow it’s game day.”
“So strap in.”
“Let’s get ready.”
“So many people said, ‘Man, if I was in a revolution, I would be in Washington.’”
“Well, this is your time in history.”
end quotes
So what does this term “strap in” mean in OUR language here in the United States of America?
Let’s look:
1. To secure oneself to or into something with a strap, harness, or seat belt, as in “I just need to strap in before you start driving.”
2. To secure someone or something to or into something with a strap, harness, or seat belt, as in “Make sure you strap the kids in properly,” or “He didn’t strap in the cargo and it all ended up falling over and breaking in transit.”
3. slang Brace yourself; get ready, especially for something shocking or surprising, whether in a good or a bad way, as in “Strap in, ladies and gentlemen—these financial results are not great,” or “Strap in for one of the wildest action films of the year!”
So what was Steve Bannon really telling people when he told them “strap in?”
Means sit back and watch, does it not?
Which then takes us to this from congresswoman Luria, to wit: The contempt of Congress statute makes clear that a witness summoned before Congress must appear or be “deemed guilty of a misdemeanor” punishable by a fine of up to $100,000 and imprisonment for up to one year.
Actually, if one actually bothered to research the contempt statute, one would find it doesn’t say that at all.
For there to actually be contempt of Congress, it must be clear on the record that the witness was being contumacious, which means “stubbornly or willfully disobedient to authority.”
In the case of Bannon, who rightly or wrongly claimed executive privilege, believing that he was entitled to it, there is as of yet no evidence that he was being contumacious, hence, no contempt of Congress.
But there is plenty of contempt by the Democrats in congress for the American people who are not Democrats, so stay tuned as this drama continues to unfold courtesy of the Cape Charles Mirror, a grand palladium of OUR LIBERTY, and thankful we all should be that we have it!
And staying for the moment with this premise put forth in the original post by congresswoman Luria that the clown Steve Bannon was an honest-to-gosh criminal mastermind who put together an insurrection on 6 January 2021 to overturn the peaceful transfer of power over to Joe Biden, do we have any evidence from the actual record in the Congressional Record for 6 January 2021 that this violence at the Capitol on 6 January 2021 helped Trump while hurting Joe Biden?
Or does the record demonstrate that it was Joe Biden who benefitted from the violence?
For that answer, let’s go to the strange case of Republican Elise Stefanik, herself, all 35 stone of her, a BIG DOG REPUBLICAN in the party of Trump who after joining the objection against counting the electoral votes of Arizona, reversed herself, perhaps out of fear of being labeled an insurrectionist or terrorist herself by the Democrats who were quite freely hurling those epitaphs around aimed at Republicans after the session to count votes resumed a little after 9:00 P.M on 6 January 2021.
Going back to the record, that began as follows:
The VICE PRESIDENT.
Are there any objections to counting the certificate of vote of the State of Arizona that the teller has verified appears to be regular in form and authentic?
Mr. GOSAR.
Mr. Vice President, I, PAUL GOSAR from Arizona, rise for myself and 60 of my colleagues to object to the counting of the electoral ballots from Arizona.
The VICE PRESIDENT.
Is the objection in writing and signed by a Senator?
Mr. GOSAR.
Yes, it is.
Senator CRUZ.
It is.
The VICE PRESIDENT.
An objection presented in writing and signed by both a Representative and a Senator complies with the law, chapter 1 of title 3, United States Code.
The Clerk will report the objection.
The Clerk read the objection as follows:
OBJECTION TO COUNTING THE ELECTORAL VOTES OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA
We, a Member of the House of Representatives and a United States Senator, object to the counting of the electoral votes of the State of Arizona on the ground that they were not, under all of the known circumstances, regularly given.
PAUL GOSAR, Representative, State of Arizona.
TED CRUZ, Senator, State of Texas.
end quotes
That started the series of debates between the Biden Democrats and the PRO-CONSTITUTION Republicans that takes us to here:
Ms. STEFANIK.
Madam Speaker, I rise to support the objection.
The SPEAKER.
The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. STEFANIK.
This hallowed temple of democracy is where generations of Americans have peacefully come together to face our Nation’s greatest challenges, bridge our deepest fissures, and create a more perfect system of government.
This is the appropriate place we stand to respectfully and peacefully give voice to the people we represent across our diverse country.
The Representatives of the American people in this House are standing up for three fundamental American beliefs: The right to vote is sacred, that a Representative has a duty to represent his or her constituents, and that the rule of law is a hallmark of our Nation.
And in the spirit of healing — those are not my words — those are the words of you, Madam Speaker, from this very Chamber, when some of my colleagues and friends across the aisle objected to the 2005 electoral college certification.
In fact, there were objections on this floor to the certification of nearly every Republican President in my lifetime: In 1989, in 2001, in 2005, and in 2017.
So history is our guide that the people’s sacred House is the appropriate venue for a peaceful debate.
Tens of millions of Americans are concerned that the 2020 election featured unconstitutional overreach by unelected State officials and judges ignoring State election laws.
We can and we should peacefully and respectfully discuss these concerns.
In Pennsylvania, the State supreme court and secretary of state unilaterally and unconstitutionally rewrote election law eliminating signature matching requirements.
In Georgia, there was constitutional overreach when the secretary of state unilaterally and unconstitutionally gutted signature matching for absentee ballots and, in essence, eliminated voter verification required by State election law.
In Wisconsin, officials issued illegal rules to circumvent a State law, passed by the legislature as the Constitution requires, but required absentee voters to provide further identification before obtaining a ballot.
In Michigan, signed affidavits document numerous unconstitutional irregularities: Officials physically blocking the legal right of poll watchers to observe vote counts, the illegal counting of late ballots, and hand-stamping ballots with the previous day’s date.
My North Country constituents and the American people cherish the Constitution.
They know, according to the Constitution, elected officials closest to the people in State legislatures have the power of the pen to write election law, not unelected bureaucrats, judges, Governors, or secretaries of state.
To the tens of thousands of constituents who have reached out to me, thank you.
Please know that I am listening and I hear you, both those who agree and those who disagree.
I believe that the most precious foundation and the covenant of our Republic is the right to vote, and the faith in the sanctity of our Nation’s free and fair elections.
We must work together in this House to rebuild that faith so that all our elections are free, fair, secure, safe and, most importantly, that they are according to the United States Constitution.
end quotes
So, there, we had Elise Stefanick supposedly standing up not for Trump, but for the American people by objecting to the electoral votes of Arizona on the grounds object to the counting of the electoral votes of the State of Arizona on the grounds that they were not, under all of the known circumstances, regularly given.
So what happened after that, then?
Back to the record we go, where we have as follows on that pertinent question, to wit:
Mr. GRIJALVA.
Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Colorado for yielding time.
I will be very brief, Madam Speaker.
There is really nothing left to say.
This challenge brought by Members of this House, Republican Members from this House from Arizona and a Senator from Texas, the whole discussion today, this challenge to the 11 electoral votes that are designated for President Biden and Vice President Harris, the discussion today proves there is no merit to denying those electoral votes.
There is no legal standing.
The courts have proven that in Arizona time and time again.
There is no precedent.
There was no constitutional violation.
But we are here today, Madam Speaker, because of one man and those who are desperate to please him.
So what do we have to show for this process today?
Fear, a lockdown, violence, and, regrettably and sadly, death, arrests, present and real danger, threats, an assault on our institution, this House, this Congress, and the very democracy that we practice here.
And to what end?
What did we accomplish?
The reality is that the challenges will be defeated.
Come January 20, President Biden and Vice President Harris will be the President and Vice President of the United States.
So what have we accomplished?
To further divide this Nation?
To continue to fan the same rhetoric of division and us versus them?
To paralyze and dismantle our democracy?
Is that what we attempted to accomplish today?
The mob that attacked this institution, I hold no Member specifically responsible for that madness that was around us, but we do share a responsibility, my friends, to end it.
It is past time to accept reality, to reaffirm our democracy and move on.
I would urge my colleagues from Arizona who filed this challenge to withdraw their challenge to this, to Arizona and to the electors that have been chosen to give their 11 votes to the winners in that election.
But if that doesn’t happen, then I would urge my colleagues to reject this challenge and defend all voters, defend the voters of Arizona and that democracy that we practice daily in the representation of our constituents.
That is what is at stake today.
Ms. DEGETTE.
Madam Speaker, on Sunday, every Member in this Chamber took an oath to uphold the Constitution, and there is only one vote tonight for those who took that oath, and that vote is to reject this challenge.
The SPEAKER.
All time for debate has expired.
The question is, Shall the objection to the Arizona electoral college vote count submitted by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. GOSAR) and the Senator from Texas (Mr. CRUZ) be agreed to.
The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. JORDAN.
Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The SPEAKER.
Pursuant to section 3(s) of House Resolution 8, the yeas and nays are ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were — yeas 121, nays 303, not voting 7, as follows:
[Roll No. 10]
NAYS—303
Stefanick
Messrs. MOONEY, WITTMAN, VICENTE GONZALEZ of Texas, YOUNG, and GROTHMAN changed their vote from ‘‘yea’’ to ‘‘nay.’’
So the objection was not agreed to.
And such was American history made!
An illegitimate presidential election was turned into a legitimate presidential election, just like that!
So, was Steve Bannon the criminal mastermind who sank any hopes Trump might have had about declaring the election illegitimate, so that there was no winner, since no one can be the winner of an illegitimate election?
Stay tuned!
And to inject some much needed reality into this discussion, we first need to go back to 6 January 2021 and the speech of Raúl Manuel Grijalva, born February 19, 1948, a Democrat politician and activist who has served as the U.S. Representative for Arizona’s 3rd congressional district since 2003, where he stated on the record as follows:
Mr. GRIJALVA.
But we are here today, Madam Speaker, because of one man and those who are desperate to please him.
So what do we have to show for this process today?
Fear, a lockdown, violence, and, regrettably and sadly, death, arrests, present and real danger, threats, an assault on our institution, this House, this Congress, and the very democracy that we practice here.
And to what end?
What did we accomplish?
The reality is that the challenges will be defeated.
Come January 20, President Biden and Vice President Harris will be the President and Vice President of the United States.
So what have we accomplished?
To further divide this Nation?
To continue to fan the same rhetoric of division and us versus them?
To paralyze and dismantle our democracy?
Is that what we attempted to accomplish today?
end quotes
And of course, the only way to answer any of those important questions is to fast forward to today, and that takes us to a Newsweek article entitled “Joe Biden Could Face Midterm Wipeout as Omens Mount” by Jacob Jarvis on 28 October 2021, where we get a real good glimpse at exactly what the Democrats who put Joe Biden into office on 6 January 2021 did accomplish for themselves and the nation they have so seriously fractured and divided, putting our CONSTITUTIONAL REPPUBLIC at grave risk thanks to their democracy which is committing suicide before our eyes, as democracies have been wont to do since the beginning of time, to wit:
With just more than a year until the midterms, there are ominous signs for President Joe Biden’s Democratic Party as it faces losing control of Congress.
President Joe Biden’s approval has trailed off, with indications that the public perception of him is tied to that of his party.
His approval rating remains underwater, according to trackers from FiveThirtyEight and RealClearPolitics — having been above 50 percent during a honeymoon period in his first few months in office.
Separate polling has also shown his rating drop significantly among independents — a crucial group in any tight elections, particularly given the polarization between Democrats and Republicans.
Meanwhile, Democratic infighting is seeing Biden’s agenda stall — and putting internal divides on full display.
As such wrangling persists, the view of Congress from Democrats polled has plummeted.
Gallup polling from October 1 to 19 saw Americans’ approval of Congress overall drop to 21 percent, among 832 U.S. adults — the lowest so far for 2021.
Among Democrats asked, this went from 55 percent in September to 33 percent in the October polling.
end quotes
Yes, people, the future is now, and thank a Democrat for it!
And to continue to put some necessary reality into this thread to balance out the record, given the generous amount of time we have given to the “winning” arguments of Anti-Constitution/Pro-Biden Democrat radical Raúl Manuel Grijalva, an activist who was an Arizona leader of Partido Nacional de La Raza Unida (National United Peoples Party or United Race Party) a former Hispanic political party centered on Chicano (Mexican-American) nationalism who according to Armando Navarro’s history of the party, “was so militant that he alienated some members of Tucson’s Mexican-American community, and after losing in his first bid for elective office, a 1972 run for a seat on the school board, he began to cultivate a less radical image,” who now has served as the U.S. Representative for Arizona’s 3rd congressional district since 2003, this as the play action is shifting back to the WITCH HUNTERS thread “Rep. Luria Named To Select Committee to Investigate January 6 Insurrection at U.S. Capitol” http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/rep-luria-named-to-select-committee-to-investigate-january-6-insurrection-at-u-s-capitol/#comment-376883 let us go over to arguments of the losing side, the Pro-Constitution/Pro Law and Order side, which arguments were summed up quite well by Warren Earl Davidson, born March 1, 1970, an American politician and former military officer serving as U.S. Representative for Ohio’s 8th congressional district since 2016, who before entering politics, was an officer in United States Army Special Operations after enlisting in the Army after graduating from high school in 1988, and who after training was stationed in Germany with the 3rd Infantry Division, where he witnessed the fall of the Berlin Wall, and soon thereafter, attended the United States Military Academy, graduating in 1995, leaving with an officers’ commission and a degree in American history, minoring in mechanical engineering, who after West Point, went to Army Ranger School and ROP indoctrination in 1996, subsequently spending time in the elite 75th Ranger Regiment, 101st Airborne Division and The Old Guard, separating honorably from the Army in 2000, who spoke on the record on 6 January 2021 in defense of OUR Constitution and OUR Rule of Law, as follows:
Mr. DAVIDSON of Ohio.
Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this objection.
The SPEAKER.
The gentleman from Ohio is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. DAVIDSON of Ohio.
Madam Speaker, every one of us swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, both foreign and domestic.
I swore that oath in uniform, and the first part of that oath is the same as what we swear here in Congress.
end quotes
That is in response to all the Anti-Constitution/Pro-Biden Democrats wrapping themselves in the American flag while touting themselves as uber patriots defending “democracy” as well the only true Americans because they are the only ones who understand that what the Constitution says is not really what the Constitution says at all, as if the millions of those of us who are veterans who swore an oath to the same Constitution could not possibly understand what the Constitution really says and means, only Anti-Constitution/Pro-Biden Democrats can do that, which takes us back to the 6 January 2021 speech of Army veteran Warren Earl Davidson, as follows:
The last time we needed to defend our Constitution against a domestic
enemy, we fought a civil war.
end quotes
Well said, and let us interject here that the domestic enemy then, as now, was the Democrat party, which party left the United States, OUR United States, to form their own country where they could own Black people as their slaves.
Getting back to the speech, we have:
And at the conclusion of that Civil War we passed the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments that make clear that no State is so sovereign that they can deprive their citizens of equal protection of the laws.
end quotes
And there is what this really was all about, people!
IT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH TRUMP, regardless of how the Democrats and their lapdogs and purse dogs in the complaint media try to spin things.
It was about whether the Constitution still meant something, in which case, the 2020 presidential election was illegitimate, which means nobody won, not Trump and not Biden, which takes us to the Twelfth Amendment of OUR Constitution, the same Constitution rejected on 6 January 2021 by the Pro-Biden Democrats, where we have as follows with regard to a contested election like the flawed and illegitimate presidential election of 2020, to wit:
And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President.
end quotes
And here, the right of choice clearly did devolve upon them, and that Constitutional language makes it patently clear that on 6 January 2021, there was no Constitutional necessity to choose Joe Biden, and the Constitution in that case clearly made a peaceful transfer of power from Trump to Mike Pence, until such time as the Constitutional issues with Arizona and Pennsylvania were rectified, but since the Pro-Biden Democrats rejected that Constitutional language as being un-constitutional, Joe Biden was awarded the presidency instead by Nancy Pelosi, which takes us back to the Davidson Pro-Constitution speech of the losing side, to wit:
When it comes to elections, that means one person gets one vote.
It doesn’t mean that other citizens can dilute the votes of other citizens and deprive them of equal protection.
end quotes
But as of 6 January 2021 and the Biden victory over Rule of Law and Constitutional government, that is exactly what it means – that Democrats can dilute the votes of other citizens who aren’t Democrats or Biden supporters and deprive them of equal protection.
Getting back to the speech:
And it doesn’t mean that a State can do that by law or by practice.
end quote
But again, as of the Biden victory over OUR Constitution on 6 January 2021, that is exactly what it means.
Getting back to the speech:
So whether the law was changed and made it such that there is no way to provide equal protection — one person, one vote — or the practice was corrupted, it cannot stand.
end quote
But it did, people – and Joe Biden is the president as a result, which takes us back to the conclusion of that speech, to wit:
Frankly, lastly, it must guarantee that there is a proof that it was equal protection under the law.
None of that happened in a number of States.
The people of America, tens of millions of them who came out to vote, have been unheard by this body and by far too many courts.
We need to show them the respect they are due by the Constitution of the United States of America, the Constitution that we fought to sustain to end the era of Jim Crow to pass civil rights legislation, the Voting Rights Act, the Civil Rights Act, and so many other pieces of jurisprudence.
end quotes
Too bad the Anti-Constitution/Pro-Biden Democrats never heard a word he said.
What a different world in would then be!
But they didn’t, so it isn’t, and that is exactly how history is made.
The Democrats in scrapping OUR Constitution and OUR Rule of Law to put Joe Biden into the white house have cast a die and crossed the Rubicon.
So stay tuned to the Cape Charles Mirror as history continues to be made, for here is where you are most likely to hear about it first.