Prove That You Love Me

The Christmas season has traditionally been a time for hopefulness. Families gather with hopes of joyful reunion. Christian families celebrate the birth of Christ with food, wine, laughter, gift giving, and religious services. But you don’t have to be a Christian to enjoy Christmas. The Christmas season delights us all with its music, twinkling lights, messages of peace on earth, and the holiday spirit of giving. Businesses reward their employees with company parties and bonuses. Retail shops and government offices close in observance of the holiday. Not this year.

The coronavirus has changed everything. Christmas in the time of coronavirus portends the future. The final outcome of the 2020 presidential election will determine if we celebrate Christmas past, or if Christmas present will be our Christmas future. Let me explain.

The fearmongering campaign of political medicine that deliberately terrified the American public into submission has served its purpose. Fear of COVID19 was used as the rationalization for Democrat swing states to unconstitutionally mail out millions of unsolicited ballots. We all know by now that only legislators have the constitutional authority to change election laws – not governors, not mayors, not city councilmen, and not secretaries of state.

Unverified mail-in ballots were the insurance policy used in conjunction with the massive election fraud executed by Dominion machines and Smartmatic software. Patrick Byrne, entrepreneur and tech billionaire assembled a cyber intelligence team to analyze the U.S. voting system. In a stunning December 16, 2020, Epoch Times article Byrne explains that election fraud is the secret “assassin’s mace” of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).

“Byrne says that stealing the national election doesn’t require cheating across the board. ‘There are six counties that you need to steal. If you steal these six counties around the country, that flips the six states they’re in, which flips the electoral college votes that come with them, which flips the nation,’ he said. ‘You’ve got to take six places and cheat like crazy there.’”

The country has been convulsed by the Democrat attempt to steal the 2020 election. But there’s more.

A stolen election requires public acceptance of the outcome. While we wait for the final decision, the politically motivated social engineers are busy trying to persuade us that the election was legitimate, and that we must “follow the science” to understand the necessity for lockdown even if it means no Christmas because, after all, we are submitting for the good of our loved ones.

In an extraordinary November 19, 2020, article, “Do or Die,” Judd Garrett explains the psychodynamics of the sinister manipulation, and how politicians use love to control us. Garrett writes:

In the movie, The Green Mile, when the bad guy “Wild Bill” Wharton breaks into a house to rape and kill the two young girls, he keeps the girls silent by telling them, “You love your sister? You make any noise, … I’m gonna kill her instead of you.” As the protagonist of the movie John Coffey observed, “He killed them with their love.” The killer used their love against them. Neither girl wanted to be responsible for their sister’s death, so both girls remained silent, and complied. And their silence allowed him to kill them both. That is the way evil works. Evil uses good people’s love against them, to control them, and to even kill them.

Since the start of the pandemic, when people have told us that we must wear masks, they would say, ‘you are not doing it to protect yourself, you are only doing it to protect other people’. I never understood the logic of that. Does the corona-virus only penetrate the blue side of the mask, and not the white side? Couldn’t we just flip our masks over? If the mask protects other people, it only follows that it would also protect the wearer. But we are told wearing the mask only protects the other person because the people who want to control us are using our love against us. They are using our love of our families or our fellow man to force us to comply with their wishes. They know if people were told that the mask protected the wearer, many people would say, ‘I’m not wearing it, I’ll take my chances of getting sick’. And there would be no guilt because other people would be protected by their own masks.

So it is in families today. Adult children are told they are protecting their parents and grandparents, parents are told they are protecting their children and parents. Love for each other is being used against them to end family gatherings, Christmas gatherings, business parties. Family love and loyalty is being manipulated to splinter families. What??

I will repeat, family love and loyalty is being used to splinter families. Consider the parents who reject the fearmongering of political medicine, and who realize its destructive political purpose. These parents are diametrically opposed to the views of their indoctrinated adult children whose source of information is the mainstream media and big-tech social media. The leftist media propaganda is reinforced by the anti-American educational curricula K-12 and university which undermines the nuclear family and supports loyalty to the state.

Parents are offered the choice of conforming to their children’s philosophical demands, or suffering family rupture. It is a childish demand to “Prove that you love me.” The choice is a lose/lose dilemma for the parents. The parents love their children but are being pressured to surrender their integrity to have a relationship with them. Emotional extortion is not love. The irony, of course, is that the children present themselves as tolerant. The left tolerates every variation of appearance – tall, short, thin, fat, white, black, brown, yellow, rich, poor, gay, straight – anything and everything except opposing thoughts or opinions. Leftist tolerance is all form and no content.

Today’s indoctrinated adult children are so fragile that they are unwilling to agree to disagree. Some even require safe spaces and distance to protect themselves and their young children from the toxic ideas of conservative grandparents. The generation gap is no longer defined by race or religion. The generation gap is defined by politics, and dramatized by the 2020 presidential ticket.

America’s indoctrinated adult children have become ideological warriors. What they have not yet understood is that they are participating in their own destruction. The objective of political medicine is social control, submission, and centralized global governance. Parents must ask themselves, is it more loving to surrender to your children’s demand to wear masks and social distance? Or is it more loving to reject their demands for conformity and stand for freedom? What is a lose/lose dilemma for parents is a win/win situation for the cunning social engineers.

The pillars of Americanism are loyalty to family, faith, and flag. A Biden administration rejects them all and embraces leftism and China-centric globalism. The enemies of America understand that the only way to defeat America is from within, and the best way to collapse America from within is to destroy the American family.

Political medicine is not about public health. Our indoctrinated adult children do not understand the malevolence and pathology of those who seek absolute control. Wearing masks and social distancing will not protect them, their parents, or grandparents any more than the sisters could protect each other from Wild Bill in The Green Mile.

“Prove that you love me” persuades many parents to accept their adult children’s destructive demands for conformity. The political social engineers can just sit back and watch virtue-signaling American families capitulate or implode. The precious individual freedoms our ancestors fought and died for are being surrendered in the name of love.

©Linda Goudsmit. All rights reserved.

Poland to Pass Law Protecting Online Free Speech Against Big Tech Censorship

‘Act for the Freedom to Express One’s Views and Obtain and Disseminate Information on the Internet’ will give social media users a statutory right to appeal bans and content removals on social media platforms such as Facebook on Twitter, which they will be able to escalate to a new Court for the Protection of Freedom of Speech in a streamlined, all-digital process.

Poland on the cutting edge of individual rights and liberty. Who’d a thunk it?

Poland to Pass Law Protecting Online Free Speech Against Big Tech Censorship

Poland’s national conservative government has detailed a new law protecting free speech online against Big Tech censorship, backed by a new court and big fines.

By, Jack Montgomery, Andrew Breitbart News, 26 Dec 202027

Minister of Justice Zbigniew Ziobro has announced the draft ‘Act for the Freedom to Express One’s Views and Obtain and Disseminate Information on the Internet’ will give social media users a statutory right to appeal bans and content removals on social media platforms such as Facebook on Twitter, which they will be able to escalate to a new Court for the Protection of Freedom of Speech in a streamlined, all-digital process.

If the new court rules that the tech censors have removed accounts or deleted posts for speech which is legal under Polish law, they must be restored — or the social media firms involved will face fines of as much as 1.8 million euros, enforced by the Slavic country’s Office of Electronic Communications, according to reports.

“In Germany, the Minister of Justice may arbitrarily decide what content needs to be eliminated from the Internet. This is the introduction of censorship. We want to balance the freedom of public debate,” Ziobro explained of the planned legislation recently.

“We want to regulate the relationship between social media users and their owners… It is primarily about censorship when expressing opinions that are consistent with Polish law”, added deputy minister Sebastian Kaleta elsewhere.

Many on the right in the United Kingdom and the United States have suggested that, while they are not happy with what Ziobro has described as “ideological censorship” by tech giants, they prefer the status quo to “the government getting involved” in the affairs of private businesses.

From the Polish government’s perspective, however, such so-called interference is a constitutional duty: “The Constitution… guarantees full freedom of expression… Therefore, any manifestations of limiting it must meet with the reaction of the state to enable protection against interference with this freedom,” Kaleta insisted.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Omar, Tlaib and AOC demand Facebook remove 100% of ‘anti-Muslim content’

YouTube Censors U.S. Senate Testimony on Voter Fraud in Nevada

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Rep. Brooks: ‘Baffled’ by Senate Hesitancy to Challenge 2020 Outcome

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1342974370822692867


We are already there if America stands by while the Democrat criminal syndicate gets away with the biggest theft in human history.

Mo Brooks: ‘Baffled’ by Senate Hesitancy to Challenge 2020 Outcome — U.S. Elections Could Reach a Point Akin to North Korea, China, Iran, Soviet Union

By Jeff Poor, December 25, 2020:

With less than two weeks to go until Congress certifies the Electoral College results that will officially make Joe Biden the next U.S. president, Rep. Mo Brooks (R-AL) says he is “baffled” by the reluctance of any member of the U.S. Senate to participate in his challenge of the results.During an interview with Mobile, AL radio’s FM Talk 106.5, Brooks maintained the manner some states had handled their elections was in violation of Article I, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution, which he said made “millions upon millions” of the ballots cast in the November 3 election illegal.Partial transcript as follows:I was relatively confident that this would be the way things would progress. When you’re looking at a crystal ball and trying to guess how things are going to play out, there’s always some degree of uncertainty. But the law is clear. Congress has the ultimate decision on any kind of election dispute involving election of the president of the United States. The question became what the facts are, and to me, having done the study, done the research, examined the facts — I have found the evidence to be compelling and completely overwhelming that there is one conclusion that can logically be reached, and that is the socialist Democrats engaged in massive voter fraud on a level never seen before in the history of the United States of America. Millions upon millions of illegal ballots were cast in direct conflict with Article I, Section 4 of the United States Constitution, the election clause, and statutes passed by Congress and legislatures pursuant to that clause, and that this has been an election theft like we’ve never seen.

I came to that conclusion, perhaps, earlier than others. But I came to the firm belief that if we just get the evidence out to the public and congressmen and senators, they would come to the right conclusion. Now the one misjudgment I had made was the hesitancy of the United States Senate to do their homework. They seem to want to be spoon-fed the evidence of voter fraud and election theft whether than engaging in their own investigative efforts, their own research, and reaching their own proper conclusion based on the results of that investigation and research. It has been baffling that the Senate has wanted to duck and hide and not do what needs to be doing in order to protect the foundation of any republic, which is whether you have an honest and accurate election system. It’s quite clear in America right now, we don’t. That’s not just me saying it. There have been studies and reports before that have reached the exact same conclusion that I have reached and that have gone so far as to warn the American people that we are going to have an election catastrophe unless we fix some of these systemic flaws.”

Perhaps the most notable warning was by Democrat President Jimmy Carter and Republican White House chief of staff James Baker in 2005, where they identified the same systemic flaws in our election system that the socialist Democrats successfully exploited and took advantage of and to engage in massive voter fraud and election theft. I don’t know what we can do with the senators. I’m baffled. I’m disappointed that at least as of this moment, there is not at least one that has stood strong for our country and said, ‘I’m going to take the lead. I’m going to co-sponsor this object, so we can have this floor debate auditing the problems associated with our election system so that the American people can get it first-hand and better understand what needs correcting, or else we’re going to go through this again and again and again.”

And ultimately, in my judgment and in my fear, we’re going to reach a point akin to the kinds of elections they have in North Korea, Iran, Communist China, the Soviet Union, Venezuela — where people can go vote, but there’s no way that the election results reported are going to reflect the truthfulness of the votes that were cast.

RELATED ARTICLE: PERFIDY: DIRTY GOP ‘Leaders’ Oppose Tuberville Objecting to Biden’s Electoral Fraud

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Rudy Giuliani: “Starting After Christmas This Is Really Going to Blow Up”

“You’re going to find out all at once. It’s going to be very shocking to the country.”

Rudy Giuliani: “Starting After Christmas This Is Really Going to Blow Up”

Christmas is not cancelled. We all know President Trump won the 2020 election. Rudy Giuliani offers his thoughts to date.

By Gateway Pundit, December 26, 2020:

Rudy Giuliani in his most recent ‘Common Sense’ discussion shared the following:

\You’re going to find out all at once. It’s going to be very shocking to the country.

The people at “WeLoveTrump.com” share this about the current state of the 2020 Presidential race:

Let’s put 2 + 2 together.

The White House has instructed Trump staff to STOP packing…

The Pentagon has stopped giving Joe Biden intelligence briefings…

More Republican representatives are on the record claiming they will contest the electoral votes…

Dan Scavino has been posting increasingly cryptic messages on Twitter…

And Kamala Harris STILL hasn’t left her Senate seat!

Now, Rudy Giuliani has given an explanation on the voter fraud:

“You’re going to find out all at once. It’s going to be very shocking to the country.”

There is hope.  We must continue to fight and pray for Trump and our country.  President Trump crushed Joe Biden in the 2020 election.

RELATED ARTICLES:

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

YouTube Censors U.S. Senate Testimony on Voter Fraud in Nevada

On December 16, Attorney Jesse Binnall testified before the U.S. Congress on what his team alleges were instances of voter fraud in Nevada. His five minute testimony is packed with details; it is a must-watch video for anyone wanting to learn more about what may have really happened during the 2020 presidential election, not only in Nevada, but across America.

Apparently YouTube agreed. Click here to get the message “This video has been removed for violating YouTube’s Community Guidelines.”

What guidelines?

Online videos of Binnall’s testimony can still be found, undoubtedly with suppressed views, on the Facebook page of the Nevada Republican Party, as well as probably on this C-Span archive if you’re willing to rut around until you find it, and even HERE – get this, on a sparsely viewed YouTube channel – 116 subscribers – called “Jazz Rock Fusion & Synthesizer Music.” Apparently this lover of music loves freedom as well, because this is the channel’s only political video among scores of soundscapes and jams and assorted tunes. Thank you!

Binnall’s road to the U.S. Senate passed through the courthouses of Nevada, where the cards were stacked and rigged against his team at every stage, from factfinding to getting a fair hearing. Here’s a transcript of Binnall and his team’s Nevada appearance before a Nevada judge on December 3. But what was a labored, obstructed and ultimately fruitless effort in Nevada was distilled into five minutes of some of the most damning testimony you will every hear on December 16 before a U.S. Senate committee.

Which is why YouTube banned it back when it was hot, back when it was going viral. This is a key strategy of online censors today – they stamp out the fire when it’s hot and spreading fast, but they let the embers of truth burn on the obscure sites and platforms. If a fire ever reaches critical mass, they turn back on the fire hose. And sadly, it’s working.

For those who won’t forget, or who don’t want to pretend that nothing happened, find these embers of truth. Find these source videos. And find the transcripts. A transcript of Binnall’s testimony can also be found on an official U.S. Senate website, but only in the less searchable PDF format. For that reason, Binnall’s five minute’s of remarks, in their entirety, are written here:

Jesse Binnall’s Opening Statement – U.S. Senate Hearing on Election Fraud – December 16, 2020:

Thank you Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Peters, and members of the committee.

This year thousands upon thousands of Nevada voters had their voices canceled out by election fraud and invalid ballots. Here’s how it happened:

On August 3, 2020, after a rushed special session, Nevada legislators made drastic changes to the state’s election law by adopting a bill known as AB 4. The vulnerabilities of this bill were obvious. It provided for universal mail in voting without sufficient safeguards to authenticate voters or ensure the fundamental requirement that only one ballot was sent to each legally qualified voter. This was aggravated by election officials’ failure to clean known deficiencies in their voter rolls.

Because of AB 4, the number of mailed ballots rocketed from about 70,000 in 2016 to over 690,000 this year. The election was inevitably riddled with fraud and our hotline never stopped ringing. While the media and the Democrats accused us of making it all up our team began chasing down every lead. Our evidence came both from data scientists and from brave whistleblowers. Here’s what we found:

Over 42,000 people voted more than once. Our experts were able to make this determination by reviewing the list of actual voters and comparing it to other voters with the same name, address, and date of birth. This method was also able to catch people using different variations of their first name such as William and Bill and individuals who registered both under a married name and a maiden name.

At least 1,500 dead people are recorded as voting as shown by comparing the list of mail voters with the Social Security death records.

More than 19,000 people voted, even though they didn’t live in Nevada. This does not include military voters or students. These voters were identified by comparing the list of voters with the US Postal Service’s National Change of Address database, among other sources.

About 8,000 people voted from non-existent addresses. Here we cross-reference voters with the coding accuracy support system [CASS], which allowed our experts to identify undeliverable addresses.

Over 15,000 votes were cast from commercial or vacant addresses. Our experts found these voters by analyzing official US Postal Service records that flag non-residential addresses and addresses vacant for more than 90 days.

Incredibly, almost 4,000 non-citizens also voted as determined by comparing official DMV records of non-citizens to the list of actual voters in the2020 election.

The list goes on. All in all, our experts identified 130,000 unique instances of voter fraud in Nevada, but the actual numbers are almost certainly higher. Our data scientists made these calculations not by estimations or statistical sampling, but by analyzing and comparing the list of actual voters with other lists, most of which are publicly available.

To put it simply, they explain their methods, so others can check their work. Our evidence has never been refuted, only ignored.

Two Clark County Technical employees came forward, completely independent of each other, and explained that they discovered that the number of votes recorded by voting machines and stored on USB drives would change between the time the polls were closed at night and when they were reopened the next morning. In other words, votes were literally appearing and disappearing in the dead of night.

When we attempted to verify the integrity of these voting machines, we were only allowed a useless visual inspection of the outside a USB drive. We were denied a forensic examination.

Finally, our investigation also uncovered a campaign to illegally incentivize votes from marginalized populations, by requiring people to prove that they voted in order to receive raffle tickets for gift cards, televisions, and more.

Our determined team verified these irregularities without any of the tools of law enforcement such as grand jury, subpoenas, or FBI agents. Instead, we had less than a month using critical thinking and elbow grease to compile our evidence. We tried to obtain testimony or documents from Clark County officials, but they obstructed and stonewalled. When we filed suit, state officials and even courts delayed proceedings for days, but then offered us merely hours to brief and argue our cases.

In wrapping up Mr. Chairman, these findings are disturbing, alarming, and unacceptable in a free society. Our free and fair election tradition is a precious treasure that we are charged with protecting. Government by the consent of the governed is hard to win and easy to lose. Every single time a fraudulent or illegal vote is cast, the vote of an honest citizen is canceled out. Thank you.

EDITORS NOTE: This Winston84 column is republished with permission. All rights reserved.

VIDEO: President Trump Demands an Honest Election in a Tweet — Watch!

In an Epoch Times column titled “Trump Shares Video Calling on Supporters to Contact Legislators to ‘Demand an Honest Election’ reporter Tom Ozimek wrote:

President Donald Trump shared a video on Thursday urging his supporters to contact state legislators with regard to allegations of voting irregularities in the Nov. 3 election and “demand an honest election and an honest count.”

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1342098544547794944?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1342098544547794944%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.citizensjournal.us%2Ftrump-shares-video-calling-on-supporters-to-contact-legislators-to-demand-an-honest-election%2F

Ozimek conclude with:

Peter Navarro, an adviser to Trump, last week released a detailed report summarizing election irregularity allegations in six battleground states, concluding that they are serious enough to warrant an urgent probe and substantial enough to potentially overturn the results.

Since Election Day, Trump and third-party groups have pursued legal challenges to the outcome of the election in the six battleground states. None of the efforts have so far borne fruit.

©President Donald J. Trump. All rights reserved.

RELATED VIDEO: Rudy Giuliani Speaks Out During Christmas Address ‘This is Really Going to Blow Up’

VIDEO: Congressman Ted Budd — What I’m doing in rejecting electoral votes on January 6th is ‘totally Constitutional’

Another member of Congress Rep. Theodore Paul “Ted” Budd (R-NC) joined the Republican led effort to reject electoral votes from states with rampant fraud. One American News Networks’ John Hines spoke with the lawmaker to learn more about his decision.

ABOUT CONGRESSMAN TED BUDD

Ted Budd represents North Carolina’s 13th Congressional District and is serving his second term in the 116th United States Congress.

Ted brings an outsider’s perspective to Washington, having never held elective office. When an opportunity presented itself after redistricting opened up North Carolina’s 13th Congressional District in 2016, Ted decided to run and bring a businessman’s outlook to our nation’s capital.

Ted sits on the Financial Services Committee, where he uses his real world experience to roll back the restrictive regulations that strangle job creation in our country. Working at a young age on his family’s cattle and chicken farm and for their janitorial and landscaping business, Ted learned the importance of work ethic and common sense decision making. He brings his strong belief in God, family, and country to his job each and every day.

Ted and his wife Amy Kate have three children and live in Davie County, NC. He holds an MBA from Wake Forest University and a Masters in Educational Leadership from Dallas Theological Seminary.

©One America News Network. All rights reserved.

New Legal Memo Outlines Path to Victory For Trump Supporters

Christmas gift or miracle, joy to the world.

New Legal Memo Brings Hope to Trump Supporters This Christmas

The Western Journal is presenting this memorandum, written by two prominent conservative legal scholars, essentially verbatim, with only enough editing to format it for the Op-Ed section of our website. This is the second memo by Messrs. Olson and McSweeney to be published exclusively by The Western Journal, and it, like the first, outlines a possible legal strategy for the Trump campaign to follow in the coming weeks. Prior to its publication here, it was sent to President Trump. — Ed. note

Overcoming the Court’s Abdication in Texas v. Pennsylvania

William J. Olson & Patrick M. McSweeney, December 24, 2020

In refusing to hear Texas v. Pennsylvania, the U.S. Supreme Court abdicated its constitutional duty to resolve a real and substantial controversy among states that was properly brought as an original action in that Court. As a result, the Court has come under intense criticism for having evaded the most important inter-state constitutional case brought to it in many decades, if not ever.

However, even in its Order dismissing the case, the Supreme Court identified how another challenge could be brought successfully — by a different plaintiff. This paper explains that legal strategy. But first we focus on the errors made by the Supreme Court — in the hopes that they will not be made again.

Texas v. Pennsylvania

The Supreme Court declined to hear the challenge brought by the State of Texas against four states which had refused to abide by Article II, § 1, cl. 2 — the Presidential Electors Clause, which establishes the conditions and requirements governing the election of the President of the United States. In adopting that provision, the Framers vested in each State legislature the exclusive authority to determine the manner of appointing Presidential electors. The Framers’ plan was shown to be exceedingly wise, because we have now learned that allowing other state and private actors to write the election rules led to massive election fraud in the four defendant states. Individuals can be bought, paid for and corrupted so much easier than state legislatures.

In refusing to hear the case, the sole reason given was that Texas lacked “standing.” In doing so, all nine justices committed a wrong against: (i) Texas and the 17 states that supported its suit; (ii) the United States; (iii) the President; and (iv) the People.

The Court’s Many Wrongs in Texas v. Pennsylvania.

As Alexander Hamilton explained in Federalist No. 78, courts have “neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment.” As such, in deciding cases courts have a duty to explain their decisions so the rest of us may know if they constitute arbitrary exercises of political power, or reasoned decisions of judicial power which the People can trust. In Texas v. Pennsylvania, all that the justices felt obligated to do was to state its — “lack of standing” — supported by a one sentence justification: “Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its election.” Resolving a case of this magnitude with one conclusory sentence is completely unacceptable.

The Supreme Court docket consists primarily of only those cases the High Court chooses to hear. However, just like when it agrees to decide a case, and in disputes where the original jurisdiction of the Court is invoked, it has a duty to decide cases properly brought to them. Two centuries ago, Chief Justice John Marshall construed the obligation of contracts clause in a decision where he wrote: “however irksome the task may be, this is a duty from which we dare not shrink.” Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 17 U.S. 518 (1819). Courts have a duty to resolve important cases even if they would prefer to avoid them. In Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803), Marshall described “the duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is” because “every right, when withheld, must have a remedy, and every injury its proper redress.” Abdication in a case of this sort is not a judicial option.

The Supreme Court’s reliance on standing as its excuse has had one positive result — provoking many to study the origins of that doctrine who may be surprised to learn that the word “standing” nowhere appears in the Constitution. There is compelling evidence to demonstrate it was birthed by big-government Justices during the FDR Administration to shield New Deal legislation, and to insulate the Administrative State from challenges by the People. Those who favored the Texas decision argue that standing is a conservative doctrine as it limits the power of the courts — but the true constitutionalist uses only tests grounded in its text. The true threshold constitutional test is whether a genuine and serious “controversy” exists between the States that could be resolved by a court.

The only reason given by the Supreme Court was: “Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its election.” In truth, Texas did make such a showing. When Pennsylvania violated the exclusive authority bestowed on state legislators in the Constitution’s Electors Clause, it opened the door to corruption and foreign intrigue to corrupt the electoral votes of Pennsylvania, and as Alexander Hamilton explained in Federalist 68, that is exactly why the Framers created the Electoral College. During the 2020 election cycle, changes to the election process in Pennsylvania were made by judges, state office holders and election officials which would never have been made by its state legislature.

If the process by which Presidential Electors are chosen is corrupted in a few key states, like Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan and Wisconsin by rigging the system in favor of one candidate, it becomes wholly irrelevant who the People of Texas support. That political reality presents a real “judicially cognizable interest” no matter what the Supreme Court decided. What happens in Pennsylvania does not stay in Pennsylvania, as electors from all States acting together select the President of the United States.

In the Federalist Papers, both James Madison and Alexander Hamilton recognized the need to combat “the spirit of faction” and the tendency of each State to yield to its immediate interest at the expense of national unity. They reasoned that the Constitution provided a solution to this centrifugal pressure while reserving a measure of sovereignty to each State. When differences arise between States that threaten to lead to disunion, the Republic can be held together, as Hamilton observed, either “by the agency of the Courts or by military force.” A constitutional remedy to enable the States to resolve their differences peacefully is the provision that permits any State to invoke the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to address and settle their differences.

In the vernacular, the Supreme Court blew it, threatening the bonds that hold the union together.

Round Two:  The United States Must Enter the Fray

Fortunately, that might have been only the first round in the fight to preserve the nation. A strategy exists to re-submit the Texas challenge under the Electors Clause to the Supreme Court in a way that even that Court could not dare refuse to consider. Just because Texas did not persuade the Justices that what happens in Pennsylvania hurts Texas does not mean that the United States of America could not persuade the justices that when Pennsylvania violates the U.S. Constitution, it harms the nation. Article III, § 2, cl. 2 confers original jurisdiction on the Supreme Court in any case suit brought by the United States against a state. Thus, the United States can and should file suit against Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan and Wisconsin. Like the Texas suit, that new suit would seek an order invalidating the appointment of the electors appointed by those four defendant States that refused to abide by the terms of the Presidential Electors Clause. That would leave it to the state legislatures in those four states to “appoint” electors — which is what the Constitution requires.

When those four States violated the Constitution by allowing electors who had not been appointed in the manner prescribed by the state legislature, the United States suffered an injury. Indeed, there could hardly have been a more significant injury to the nation than that which corrupted its Presidential election.

The United States has a vital interest and a responsibility to preserve the constitutional framework of the Republic, which was formed by a voluntary compact among the States. As with any contractual relationship of participants in an ongoing enterprise, no party is entitled to ignore or alter the essential terms of the contract by its unilateral action.

The President who has sworn to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution has the right and the duty to order the U.S. Department of Justice bring such an action in the Supreme Court — and should do so quickly.

Reasons for Great Hope at Christmas

In rejecting the invocation by the State of Texas of the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to resolve the dispute between Texas and four other States that refused to abide by the terms of the Presidential Electors Clause, for now, a majority of the Justices foreclosed the use of that constitutional safeguard by Texas to provide a peaceful means of resolving the controversy that has deeply divided States and the citizens of this Republic as at no time since the 1860s.

That consequence is too dangerous to be allowed to stand.

If the same case previously brought by Texas were now brought by the United States of America, there is every reason to believe that the Supreme Court would be compelled to understand it must hear it and decide it favorably.

Although outcomes are never certain, it is believed and hoped that a majority of the Supreme Court could never take the position that the United States has no business enforcing the process established in the Constitution by which we select the one government official who represents all the People — The President of the United States.

This article appeared originally on The Western Journal.

RELATED ARTICLES: 

150 House Democrats sign letter backing Biden to reenter Iran nuclear deal

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

GOP Blocks $2,000 Stimulus Payments, House To Hold Roll Call Vote On Proposal Monday

“Congress found plenty of money for foreign countries, lobbyists and special interests while sending the bare minimum to the American people who need it. It was not their fault.”  – President Donald J. Trump


House Republicans blocked legislation Thursday that would have sent $2,000 in direct payments to Americans, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said.

House Democratic and Republican leaders met early Thursday morning in a pro forma session and held a unanimous consent vote on the direct payments proposal, according to CNBC. Republican leadership voted the measure down, which required all lawmakers present to unanimously vote in favor for it to pass.

“Today, on Christmas Eve morning, House Republicans cruelly deprived the American people of the $2,000 that the President agreed to support,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said in a statement. “If the President is serious about the $2,000 direct payments, he must call on House Republicans to end their obstruction.”

Pelosi said during a press conference that the House would hold a recorded roll call vote on the measure Monday, Fox News correspondent Chad Pergram reported. If succesful, the measure would alter the the omnibus bill Congress passed Monday night by changing stimulus checks sent to Americans from $600 to $2,000.

Virginia Republican Rep. Rob Wittman attempted to get the House to vote on reconsidering the much-criticized foreign aid included in the omnibus bill, according to CNBC. Democrats blocked that proposal.

“Speaker Pelosi tried to use the American people as leverage to make coronavirus relief contingent on government funding – which includes billions of foreign aid at a time when there are urgent needs at home,” House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy said in a statement Wednesday night.

The coronavirus stimulus relief bill hangs in the balance after President Donald Trump announced Tuesday he wouldn’t sign the bill Congress passed. Trump criticized both the $600 direct payment, saying they were too small, and the foreign aid, saying it was wasteful.

“Congress found plenty of money for foreign countries, lobbyists and special interests while sending the bare minimum to the American people who need it. It was not their fault,” Trump said.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Trump Didn’t Make The Pardon A Political Tool, It Always Has Been

Trump Says He Won’t Sign Coronavirus Stimulus Into Law Without Major Changes On Direct Payments And ‘Wasteful Items’

Feds Say Latest US Government Hack ‘Poses A Grave Risk’ To National Security. How Might They Respond?

Trump Already Has A Successful Model For ‘MAGA TV’ — And It Might Give Him A Run For His Money

‘The High Priest Of The COVID Cult’: Tucker Carlson Pans DC Mayor’s ‘Dr. Anthony S. Fauci Day’ Declaration

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved. Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

POLL: 78% Of Republicans Believe Presidential Election Was Fraudulent

78% of Republicans believe that Joe Biden was illegitimately elected president, a USA Today/Suffolk University poll that was released Thursday found.

When asked if they believed Joe Biden was legitimately elected president, 96% of Democrats said yes, while only 20% of Republicans said the same. Just 3% of Democrats said that they did not believe Joe Biden was legitimately elected, the poll found.

Overall, 62% of respondents said that they believed Joe Biden was legitimately elected president, while 37% believed he was not legitimately elected.

President Donald Trump has repeatedly said that the results of the presidential election were fraudulent and called for investigations into allegations of voter fraud. Multiple lawsuits were filed attempting to overturn the results of the election in several states.

Republicans and Democrats were similarly split when asked if it was time for Trump to concede the election now that the Electoral College has cast a majority of their votes for Biden.

Just 37% of Republicans believed that it was time for Trump to concede, while 95% of Democrats said the same, according to the poll. 70% of the total respondents said that Trump should concede the election, while 26% said that he should not.

Both Republicans and Democrats said that they believed Joe Biden would “significantly dismantle” Trump’s legacy while in office with 74% of Democrats, 63% of Republicans, and 66% of respondents overall agreeing.

Half of all respondents said that history will view Trump as a “failed president.” 16% said that Trump will be viewed as a “fair president,” 13% said that he will be viewed as a “good president,” and 16% said that he will be viewed as a “great president.”

Only 1% of Democrats said that history will assess Trump as a great president, against 40% of Republicans who responded similarly.

The vast majority of Democrats – 87% – said that history will view Trump as a failed president, while 12% of Republicans agreed.

The USA Today/Suffolk University poll was conducted between Dec. 16 and Dec. 20. The poll surveyed 1,000 registered voters with a margin of error of +/- 3.1 percentage points.

RELATED ARTICLES:

GOP Blocks Standalone $2,000 Stimulus Payments Bill, House To Vote On Proposal Monday

‘The New Birtherism’: Biden Attorney Trashes Trump Lawsuits And Fraud Claims

VIDEO: Campaign 2020 — Post-Election Special — Massive Fraud

REPORT: Majority Of House Democrats Endorse Return To Iran Deal

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

VIDEO: How the 2020 Election was Presented to Us vs. How It Really Was

A demonstrator stands with supporters of President Donald Trump outside the Pennsylvania Convention Center where votes are being counted, on Nov. 6, 2020, in Philadelphia.

WATCH: How the election was presented to us vs. how it was.

RELATED ARTICLE: POLL: 78% Of Republicans Believe Presidential Election Was Fraudulent

EDITORS NOTE: This Vlad Tepes Blog entry was posted in Leftist election rigging by Eeyore. ©All rights reserved.

Has the Democrats’ push to depose Biden begun?

The contour lines of an approaching scenario in which Biden, exposed as both frail and mendacious, is forced to step down & concede the presidency to his radical Vice President, are gradually coming into focus

 A significant portion of the public does not believe that the November 3, 2020, presidential election was fairly conducted…Once again, four justices on this court cannot be bothered with addressing what the statutes require to assure that absentee ballots are lawfully cast Patience D. Roggensack, Chief Justice of the Wisconsin Supreme Court, December 14, 2020. 

 …a majority of this court unconstitutionally converts the…Elections Commission’s mere advice into governing “law,” thereby supplanting the actual election laws enacted by the people’s elected representatives in the legislature and defying the will of [the state’s]citizens. When the state’s highest court refuses to uphold the law, and stands by while an unelected body of six commissioners rewrites it, our system of representative government is subverted—Justice Rebecca Grassl Bradley, December 14, 2020.  

Investigators have been examining multiple financial issues, including whether Hunter Biden and his associates violated tax and money laundering laws in business dealings in foreign countries, principally China…Some of those transactions involved people who the FBI believe sparked counterintelligence concerns, a common issue when dealing with Chinese business—CNN, December 10, 2020.

The November 2020 elections were an extraordinary event in which the bizarre—even the outlandish—became an integral part of the everyday humdrum routine.

The implausible and even more implausible?

This is not a politically partisan observation—for it is valid no matter which side of the Democrat/GOP political divide one might happen to be. After all, it is difficult to know what is more implausibly far-fetched:

(a) that—as the Republicans claim—there was pervasive electoral fraud on a scale so massive that it determined—indeed, inverted—the outcome of the ballot; or
(b) that—as the Democrats claim—as a lackluster and lackadaisical candidate, perceptibly frail and aging, Joe Biden genuinely managed to amass the highest number of votes ever in a presidential election, surpassing Obama’s previous 2008 record by almost 12 million votes.

Making this latter scenario even more difficult to accept at face value is that Biden’s running mate, Kamala Harris, was hardly an electrifying voter getter, having being forced to drop out quite early on in her own party’s primaries for its choice of a presidential candidate. Indeed, Biden’s choice of Harris as his prospective vice president was, in itself, more than a little incongruous, as she had viciously excoriated him during the primaries for his record on race relations, complicity with segregationists, and sexual impropriety, adamantly proclaiming that she believed the women who had complained about his unwanted sexual advances.

“Many doubt the fairness of November elections…”

Indeed, in light of his anemic, largely “no-show” election campaign, in which he studiously avoided articulating his position on a number of crucial issues, Biden’s apparent electoral achievement is even mor bewildering. Indeed, referring to the Biden campaign, one media channel observed dourly: “There is no surge of feeling, zero passion…Instead, the closest thing to enthusiasm…among voters is resigned, faint praise. ‘He’s a decent man’…but you can’t move the needle of history with flaccid decency.”

Another channel noted: “Biden’s performance [in exceeding Obama’s 2008 record] is incredible considering the voter enthusiasm – especially among young people – that his former boss had…”.

Accordingly, the sentiment expressed by the Chief Justice of Wisconsin’s Supreme Court, Patience D. Roggensack, was hardly surprising when she warned that, A significant portion of the public does not believe that the November 3, 2020, presidential election was fairly conducted.” 

These words were part of Roggensack’s dissenting opinion in a hearing on several challenges by Donald Trump to Wisconsin’s election results. Although the motion was rejected by a 4-3 vote, at least one of the majority justices is on public record as being vehemently inimical to Trump, and the decision was severely criticized by the dissenting minority as being judicially unsound.

Thus, Justice Annette Ziegler, wrote, “The majority seems to create a new bright-line rule that the candidates and voters are without recourse and without any notice should the court decide to later conjure up an artificial deadline concluding that it prefers that something would have been done earlier…That has never been the law, and it should not be today.

Abdicating constitutional duty in the most important election of our time? 

Disapprovingly, she chastised: “It is a game of “gotcha.” I respectfully dissent, because I would decide the issues presented and declare what the law is.

Accusing the majority of “abdication of its constitutional duty”, she lamented: “Unfortunately, our court’s adoption of laches as a means to avoid judicial decisionmaking has become a pattern of conduct. A majority of this court decided not to address the issues in this case when originally presented to us … In concluding that it is again paralyzed from engaging in pertinent legal analysis, our court, unfortunately, provides no answer or even any analysis of the relevant statutes, in the most important election…of our time.” 

Ziegler was at pains to underline: “To be clear, I am not interested in a particular outcome. I am interested in the court fulfilling its constitutional responsibility.”

Expressing grave concern over the majority’s indecision, Ziegler chided: “While sometimes it may be difficult to undertake analysis of hot-button legal issues——as a good number of people will be upset no matter what this court does——it is our constitutional duty. We cannot hide from our obligation under the guise of laches.”

Accordingly, she concluded that: “the rule of law and equity demand that we answer these questions for not only this election, but for elections to come.

Indeed, given the relative proximity of the court hearing to the actual ballot process, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that, in order to comply with the majority conditions for the motion to be heard on its merits, the Trump legal team would have had to submit its case against the alleged infractions before those infractions were committed! 

Covering corruption…or not?

The apparent judicial reluctance to deal with allegations of widespread fraud leads us to another manifestation of partisan reticence, that of the mainstream media in their pre-election coverage of news highly pertinent to the voters’ decision at the ballot box—which seems to have drastically subsided in the wake of the elections.

Arguably, this was best capsulated in the December 10th headline in an established Tennessee daily:Uninterested before the election, national media now find Hunter Biden story worth mentioning.

The ensuing editorial shrewdly observes: “Too late to help the voting public form an objective opinion about their presidential choice, the national media has suddenly decided that the Chinese business dealings of Hunter Biden are worth mentioning.”

It continues: We have long believed— and said — that the younger Biden’s business dealings, and his father’s major or minor role in them, was at least a disqualifying criterion for the elder Biden’s presidential election. It is clear, after all, that the younger Biden would not have been involved with various businesses in the Ukraine and China over the last decade had his father not been vice president at the time.”

Indeed, it is clear!

In a grave reproach of the mainstream media, it asserted: “National media outlets knew before last month’s election that federal prosecutors had opened a criminal investigation into Hunter Biden’s business dealings with China, but they did not pursue the story.” 

In a stinging rebuke, it charged: “They also refused to further investigate the New York Post pre-election story about emails allegedly contained on the younger Biden’s laptop pointing to shady dealings between Joe Biden and Ukraine…In truth, they withheld critical information from readers and viewers so that Biden might beat President Donald Trump, the man they l[o]ve to hate.” 

“Too disgusting to repeat…” 

For example, leaked recordings exposed CNN’s president and political director blocking coverage of the New York Post’s explosive exposé on Hunter Biden’s shady business dealings overseas.

Thus, on October 14, political director David Chalian was heard on a conference call, instructing: “Obviously we’re not going with the New York Post story right now on Hunter Biden.

Just two days later (October 16), CNN’s president, Jeff Zucker informed his staff that: “I don’t think that we should be repeating unsubstantiated smears just because the right-wing media suggests that we should.

On October 22, in a televised discussion, CNN anchor Jeff Tapper told his colleague Bakari Sellers, that, “…the rightwing is going crazy with all sorts of allegations about Biden and his family. Too disgusting to even repeat here.

The Media Research Center (MRC) conducted a review spanning the period October 14-22 of ABC, CBS, NBC’s evening and morning shows and their Sunday roundtable programs, as well as ABC’s and NBC’s townhall events with Joe Biden and President Trump.

According to MRC: “Out of a total of 73.5 hours of news programming, there were less than 17 minutes (16 minutes, 42 seconds) spent on the latest scandals involving Joe Biden’s son.” To be precise, the media watchdog found that ABC devoted zero (!) seconds to the reported Hunter Biden scandals, NBC just 6 minutes, 9 seconds, while, CBS led the broadcast networks with a “still-measly 10 minutes and 33 seconds.” 

All-pervasive “Russian disinformation” 

Moreover, even when the Biden story was mentioned, it was, by and large, denigrated as “Russian disinformation” (see for example here and here). 

On October 19, Politico published a report, dramatically headlined Hunter Biden story is Russian disinfo, dozens of former intel officials say.

It commences with the following unequivocal pronouncement: “More than 50 former senior intelligence officials have signed on to a letter outlining their belief that the recent disclosure of emails allegedly belonging to Joe Biden’s son ‘has all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation’.”

However, in the letter itself, the “former intel officials”, who—unsurprisingly—included the ardently pro-Biden and fervently anti-Trump John Brennan (former CIA Director), and James Clapper (former Director of National Intelligence), seem to be far less unequivocally clear-cut and strident. Indeed, they were at pains to insert a paragraph, clearly formulated to protect their professional “rear-ends”: “We want to emphasize that we do not know if the emails, provided to the New York Post… are genuine or not and that we do not have evidence of Russian involvement…[However] there are a number of factors that make us suspicious of Russian involvement.” 

This, of course, leaves the reader to puzzle over that if the “former intel officials” had no clue whether or not the emails were, in fact, authentic or the product of “Russian involvement”, how could they possibly make the determination that they were—and why would they lend they names and reputations to create a politically partisan impression, which, by their own admission, they could not substantiate?

Or were they counting on the assumption that few ever read beyond the headlines and the opening paragraph?

Abrupt change of heart

With the election over, there seems to have been a perceptible shift in the media attitude towards the allegations of malfeasance in the Biden family’s overseas business activities.

For example, CNN anchor, Jake Tapper, seems to have undergone an abrupt change of heart as to the gravity of these allegations, having, prior to the election—as we have seen—dismissed them in the strongest possible terms. However, several weeks after the presidential election, with Biden preparing to become the 46th president, Tapper apparently had few qualms in raising the subject publicly and the Biden family’s business ties began to be gradually emerging as fair game to him (see here).

A similar shift in journalistic sentiment was evident in other media channels.

Take for example, the Los Angeles Times (LAT). As early as March 6, it ran an editorial headlined The GOP’s Senate investigation into Hunter Biden is a charade — and they know it, proclaiming that the entire probe into the Biden’s far-flung business dealings was little more than flimsily disguised political shenanigans.

However, soon after the elections, this changed markedly.

On December 9, LAT ran a report headlined Hunter Biden tax inquiry examining Chinese business dealings. It disclosed that: “The Justice Department’s investigation scrutinizing Hunter Biden’s taxes has been examining some of his Chinese business dealings, among other financial transactions.” 

Abrupt (cont.) 

The report continued: “…The investigation was launched in 2018, a year before his father, Joe Biden, announced his candidacy for president”—i.e. months before the LAT editorial board dismissed GOP claims regarding the existence of such a probe as “a charade.”

Indeed, a little over a month after the polls had closed, it conceded that, “The younger Biden has a history of business dealings in a number of countries, and the revelation of a federal investigation puts a renewed spotlight on the questions about his financial dealings that dogged his father’s successful White House campaign.”

Three days later (December 12), LAT again raised the subject in a piece entitled

Hunter Biden subpoena seeks information on Burisma, other entities” stating that, “A subpoena seeking documents from Hunter Biden asked for information related to more than two dozen entities, including Ukraine gas company Burisma…”  Significantly, it added: “The breadth of the subpoena, issued Tuesday, underscores the wide lens prosecutors are taking as they examine the younger Biden’s finances and international business ventures…”

The harbinger of far-reaching political change? 

This post-election metamorphosis of media mood could also herald the onset of a far-reaching political shift within the Democratic party.

After all, in contrast to the accusations against Trump of colluding with Russia and conniving with Ukraine, which were based largely on third party hearsay and innuendo, the evidence accumulating against the Biden family seems far more solid and compelling—including first-hand witness accounts and emails, whose authenticity has yet to be denied.

As coverage on the alleged Biden scandal continues—and certainly if it turns out that Biden has been untruthful over his complicity in his family’s questionable business operations—his continued incumbency is likely to be increasingly challenged until it is no longer tenable and he is compelled to transfer power to his radical Vice President, Kamala Harris.

Of course, there will be those who discount this possibility as being beyond the bounds of probability.  However, they would do well to bear in mind that the overwhelming preponderance of the ideo-political energy in the party comes from the more radical Left-wing, which has already proven that it can assert its will on the party apparatus in the past.

Recently, rumblings for changes in leadership within the party have begun, with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, calling for a structural change in the party and for the old guard to be replaced with younger legislators to promote the radical policies she advocates. Indeed, she has even called explicitly for the replacement of the party’s Congressional leadership–of both Chuck Schumer in the Senate and Nancy Pelosi in the House…

Will frailty & mendacity ensconce Harris as president?

The contour lines of an approaching scenario in which Biden, exposed as both frail and mendacious, is forced to step down and concede the presidency to Harris, are gradually coming into focus.

With an ever-more critical press and an ever-more radical intra-party opposition, we may well be on the cusp of a new American (or rather unAmerican) revolution—a revolution in which a cardboard cutout president is driven from office by people imbued with a  political credo, forged by figures and ideas not only different from, but entirely contrary to, those that made America, America.

It is indeed, a scenario that risks transforming America into a de-Americanized post-America—an unrecognizable shadow of its former self.

That will be the terrible price the American electorate has inflicted on itself for submitting to the fit of puerile and petulant pique that molded its choice this November.

©Martin Sherman. All rights reserved.

RELATED VIDEO: Tom Fitton: Justice Department engaged in effort to protect Joe Biden.

Pro-Israel Christian Group Torches Radical Hater Warnock in New Ad

A Radical’s Radical: Raphael Warnock is too radical for Georgia


Thank you, CUFI. Raphael Warnock is a dangerous and radical anti-Semite, and he must not be elected to the United States Senate.

Pro-Israel Christian Group Torches Warnock in New Ad

By Washington Free Beacon, December 23, 2020

The political arm of the largest pro-Israel membership group in the United States launched an ad campaign Wednesday targeting Rev. Raphael Warnock, the Democratic candidate for Senate in the Georgia runoff.

The 30-second spot from Christians United for Israel Action Fund takes aim at both Warnock’s record of statements critical of Israel and his recent attack on evangelical Christians, traditionally a staunchly pro-Israel denomination.

The ad calls him “Radical Raphael Warnock” and says he is “preaching a gospel of hate.” The voiceover says “Warnock demonized Christians who stand with Israel,” a reference to his sermon after the opening of the U.S. embassy in Jerusalem in 2018 in which he accused “mealy-mouthed evangelical preachers” of being “responsible for the mess that we found ourselves in … misquoting and misinterpreting the Scripture, talking about peace.”

A spokesperson for the group said the ad is backed by a six-figure digital and social media buy targeting pro-Israel voters in Georgia, where the organization has approximately 500,000 members, according to the spokesperson.

Last month, Pastor Jay Bailey, CUFI’s Georgia state director, published an op-ed criticizing Warnock’s “condemnations of Israel” as “disgusting.”

The organization announced this week it had reached 10 million members.

Warnock is locked in a tight race with incumbent senator Kelly Loeffler (R.). The runoff election will take place on Jan. 5.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Newt Gingrich: Warnock is ‘most radical’ candidate ever nominated for U.S. Senate

GA. Democrat Candidate Raphael Warnock’s Involvement in Child-Abuse Case at Church Camp Which Led to HIS Arrest

Video Leaks of U.S. Senate Candidate Warnock’s Encounter With Police After BEATING HIS WIFE

Georgia Democrat Senate Candidate Raphael Warnock Under Investigation

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Donald Trump Is The Babylon Bee’s Christian Of The Year 2020

For the third year in a row, The Babylon Bee is proud to present our coveted Christian of the Year award to Donald J. Trump.

In 2020, dedicated pastors led their churches through a brutal pandemic. Bold missionaries gave their lives to spread the gospel overseas. Anonymous Christians served their communities without fame or fanfare. But only one man has stood against the spiritual attack of fake news and rigged elections: Donald J. Trump.

The Devil threw everything he could at God’s chosen man, from a Russia hoax and phony impeachment to Twitter censorship and Antifa riots. Trump stood bravely against them all– fighting back with the light of truth and his massive rallies. He even managed to deliver us a lifesaving vaccine in record time, even though none of us will take it because it’s probably the Mark of the Beast.

This year we dedicate this award and our eternal gratitude to the man who did “more for black Americans than Lincoln” and “more for Christianity than Jesus.” He is the funniest president of all time, and perhaps the greatest man who ever lived.

Runners Up

Sidney Powell

Rudy Giuliani

Jerry Falwell Jr.

Rick Warren

Beth Moore

The Mandalorian

Ben Shapiro

Joel Osteen’s Inspiration Cube

Elon Musk

EDITORS NOTE: This column by The Babylon Bee column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

New York SINKS, Again, Leads Nation in Population Decline, Could Now Lose Two House Seats

We owe it all to Killer Cuomo and his Nazi sidekick Warren Wilhelm (De Blasio’s real name).

The upside? NY’s treacherous Democrat criminals lose political power.

New York, again, leads nation in population decline. And it could now lose two House seats.

Joseph Spector, New York State Team Published 10:10 a.m. ET Dec. 23, 2020 | Updated 10:10 a.m. ET Dec. 23, 2020

More New Yorkers are leaving for Florida than other states, new Census figures show. New York State Team

New York’s population continued to decline more than any state in the nation, new figures released Tuesday by the U.S. Census Bureau show.

The Empire State’s population fell by 126,355 people between July 2019 and July 2020, to 19.3 million, a drop of 0.65%, according to the preliminary figures. That’s the most of any state by total and by percentage.

Population decline continues to be a problem for New York, and it could play out in 2022 during federal reapportionment. At this rate, New York could lose as many as two U.S. House seats; it will certainly lose one, dropping it from 27 to 26 seats and impacting its clout in Washington.

New York could also be on the way to its first population decline in any decade since the 1970s, according to the Empire Center, a fiscally conservative think tank in Albany.

New York’s population has been boosted by immigrants and new births, but even that has tailed off in recent years, E.J. McMahon, the group’s founder, wrote.

“The 2020 estimated New York population represented a net decline of 41,326, or 0.21%, from the official decennial census count in 2010 — largely because foreign immigration into the state has fallen off sharply since 2017, in line with a national trend,” he wrote.
Dig Deeper

Florida surpassed New York in 2014 as the third largest state in the nation, and the gap has widened since then.

Florida gained 241,256 people since July 2019, bringing its population to 21.7 million. Only Texas, the second most populous state behind California, gained more people over the past year, the census data showed.

New York has had an exodus over the past decade of about 1.4 million people, and about 21% of them went to Florida, by far the most of any other state, data last year showed.

The latest drop in New York was part of an overall decline of 153,065 people in the Northeast between July 2019 and July 2020, the most of any region in the nation.

New Jersey, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont and Connecticut all had modest population declines over the past year.

Nationally, only Illinois neared New York in percent of population decline, down 79,487 people, or 0.63%, since last year.

Overall, the nation has gained nearly 21 million people since 2010, the Empire Center said, up 6.7%

Another economic blow: A slowdown in US population growth worsened by the coronavirus pandemic

Will San Francisco, New York and other big cities recover from COVID-19? What a post-vaccine city could look like

Gov. Andrew Cuomo has downplayed the population drop as the state faces criticism for high taxes driving people to less expensive states.

In 2018, Cuomo was knocked for saying upstate’s winter weather was a significant factor in people moving elsewhere, particularly the South.

“More people are leaving upstate net? Yes. People will make demographic choices about where they want to live,” Cuomo said two years ago.

“Some of them are climate-based. Some of them are based for personal reasons. So the diminishing population in upstate is not new. People were leaving upstate New York because they had to in the past.”

Cuomo has pointed to lower income taxes installed by his administration and a property-tax cap that has limited the growth since 2011 as ways the state has sought to lower the cost of living.

RELATED ARTICLE: ‘Disgraceful Slur’: Democrat Slammed for Attacking Trump Holocaust Memorial Council Appointee

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.