"Your Honor, I will prove that sin rots the brain. I will submit, as my primary evidence, America."
The Left is up in arms against people who are up in arms. They're lobbing shots over the wall at the president to get him out of office because if they can just eliminate this loon and firmly ensconce themselves in power, the world will be safe once again. Sin rots the brain.
I spoke to a fellow Christian who told me with great relief that he was finally at peace amidst the political turmoil of the last 12 months. "I got a word from God that Trump will be our president for the next 4 years." Mind you, he didn't have a "how" in hand -- "It's a God thing" -- but he was supremely confident that the Constitution and the laws of the land would all be suspended for the betterment of him and America. Sin rots the brain.
According to the FBI, "Armed protests are being planned at all 50 state capitols from 16 January through at least 20 January, and at the US Capitol from 17 January through 20 January." Because nothing says "rule of law" and "democracy" like nationwide armed insurrection. Sin rots the brain.
President Trump called on his vice president to overrule the Electoral College vote even though no such possibility exists in the Constitution and Pence stood instead on his vow to defend the Constitution, so Trump called him a coward (for upholding the Constitution against the president) and the crowds sought to hang him for it because they were the defenders of the Constitution (by ignoring everything in it and storming the Capitol). Sin rots the brain.
And how about that show? "We're the side of right and law and peace, so we'll invade the Capitol, assault the police (and kill one), bring guns and fire and explosives to threaten every member of Congress because, if we do this just right, they'll all say, 'Well, since you put it that way, we will indeed eliminate the Constitution and vote the way you tell us to.'" Sin rots the brain.
"America is great because she is good, and if America ever ceases to be good, she will cease to be great." Welcome to the new america (lowercase because she is working hard to cease to be good). If the goal was to "make America great again," descending into armed revolt and incendiary rhetoric on both sides goes a long way toward the opposite. Demonstrating that sin rots the brain.
Even so, come quickly, Lord Jesus.
8 comments:
I really believe that the claim of violence to come is a false flag.
Would this be the same FBI whose upper level people were solidly in the "remove Trump" camp? Hmmm.
I saw an article...which I haven't read yet (hope I remember where I saw it)...which suggested in its title that any calls to bring arms to state capitols are is a set up to further the gun control/anti-2nd Amendment agenda.
I would also point out that what Trump was likely referencing was not for Pence to do something for which he has no authority, but just the opposite. Despite the rather ceremonial ritual of what he is tasked with doing, he does have the authority to NOT count the votes if he believes the state in question did not follow the law in conducting its election. Said another way, if it is judged a state did not follow election law, as was the case in several of the battleground states, no election took place. For an election to have taken place, it must run its election according to the law governing how it is to be done. I can provide more detail if need be, but what this means is that Trump was not mistaken, even if he...again...didn't articulate properly what he meant. In rejecting the Electoral votes of a state that didn't follow established election law, Pence would indeed have been abiding the Constitution, of not only the state, but the nation as well.
Oh...I meant to add: The disruption by those said to be typical Trump followers by Trump detractors interfered with the ability for those members who intended to object to the Electors of the battleground states. Had the jerks not acted like lefties, the process would have played out differently and likely allowed Pence to indeed reject the ballots from the states that failed to follow their own laws and the US Constitution as pertains to who gets to decided how elections are run. As to how badly the process was disrupted, I don't know. Could Pence still have made that decision to reject those votes, or was he denied the full measure of objections that would have justified such an outcome? I don't know.
From everything I read in the Constitution on the subject, nothing allows the vice president to intervene in the certification of the Electoral College votes. The only constitutional role of the vice president in the Electoral College process is "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." Since no such thing occurred, the vice president's presence was purely ornamental and nothing in the text allows for anything different.
And Pence wasn't denied anything. Pence, as vice president, already said that he had sworn to uphold the Constitution and, as a lawyer, that the Constitution made no provision to decertify the result. And the speed at which Trump lovers turned on the man is phenomenal ... and that was largely the work of the president.
I would direct your attention to the following article. It better describes the conditions to which I alluded in my original comments. There are four links within the article, though the first three seem to require subscriptions to access. I have not subscribed so I didn't read them. The author seems to suggest that they simply give more detail to the premise of his argument. The fourth link, however, is accessible and provides detail as well which is quite compelling and finds that Pence does indeed have some say in whether or not a state's electoral vote is acceptable or not, with the power to reject it altogether without regard to who won or lost, but only that the electoral votes are invalidated by virtue of the transgression of election law.
And yes, Pence was denied the ability to hear all the objections that were intended to be presented at that function, with arguments in support of those objections, due to the disruption by rioters. I won't swear to this being entirely accurate, but it's as I understand it. To have heard all the objections may have led Pence to find that it was proper to reject the electoral votes from those states where established law was ignored. And again, in doing so Pence would have been in concert with his Constitutional authority.
As to those who turned on Trump, that was more due to them than he. It must be recalled that he was elected because he wasn't a politician. It's what folks have been demanding for a long time, and now they got one with Trump. It is absurd to then react to him negatively because he's not a politician. And while many have made that case, I insist that because such a case can be made, it's a far greater indictment on the political animals that have so quickly abandoned him, as well as those of the electorate that have as well. His quirks and eccentricities are meaningless against both his stellar record in four years as well as against what Harris/Biden & Co are already bringing down upon us. It seems clear to me that those who oppose him are far more obsessed with him than are his followers who are simply overjoyed that someone's finally listening to them and reflecting the same concerns and then acting to address them.
If it was actually possible for the President of the Senate (the VP's job in this instance) to overturn an election for "illegal voting" in this case, he would have had to do it in direct opposition to all the findings of all the courts that had examined the question to date. That is, he would have had to do it on a bald-faced "because I said so" position. No good lawyer can do that. Besides, Pence had already said he saw nothing in the Constitution that allowed it and, therefore, he wouldn't do it.
So it depends on who you believe. Trump haters will believe without examination articles that say it can't be done and Trump lovers will automatically accept articles (like the one you referenced) that say it can. You believe he can; Pence believed he couldn't. (Nothing I read suggests he can, but no one is particularly concerned about my opinion.)
I guess I don't get your last paragraph. I don't know who you're referring to with "those who turned on Trump." My comment was about Trump turning on Pence for standing by the Constitution.
First, I'm a fan of McCarthy, and I don't have a problem with anything he says in his piece with one caveat: It doesn't address the point made in the link I provided. Pence is not overturning an election that never took place if he refuses to count Elector votes from those states which did not run their election by their own laws...laws only the legislature can alter. Imagine if an Arizona court decided to reject your mail-in ballot because they don't like the name "Stan". Would you regard that as a legitimate election? An election at all under such terms not decided by the legislature? Of course, it would be unConstutional in any case as far as I'm concerned. But the point is that altering the rules of an election is not authorized for any BUT the legislature and any vote counted in those states that did not meet the requirements set for by the legislature are invalid. Counting them contrary to state law means, in effect and reality, no election took place.
Nothing I said should be construed as an opinion on whether or not there was election fraud. I didn't say there was no fraud. From what I read in the Constitution the role of the President of the Senate in the proceeding in question is a figurehead. He takes the certified votes from the state representatives, opens them, and counts them. Certification is done by each state, not by the President of the Senate. (12th Amendment) But, of course, two facts are clear. 1) It's moot. It's over. No one gets to do anything more about it. 2) You are most likely to agree with the argument that supports your side. Good arguments that say that it was not constitutional to void votes will likely be rejected.
Post a Comment