A crisis two hundred years in the making

Dan Crenshaw, or as he's aptly known in gun rights circles, "Fuddshaw," is apparently on a copy/paste campaign defending the GOP's capitulation to the Communist left. Crenshaw accused other Republicans, specifically Senators Cruz and Hawley, of lying to millions. The legislature of the United States has no part to play, constitutionally, in deciding the outcome of this election according to Dan. 

And he'd be right in saying that there's nothing in the Constitution that delineates what Congress is to do under those circumstances. But I'm afraid it's not so simple as arguing that omission necessitates accepting a fraudulent election. 

One thing that struck me during this entire ordeal was the use of the word "unprecedented." I kept hearing opponents of objections to the certification use that word, for the blatant purpose of absolving themselves of any obligation, or even ability to address the issue. Some of you may have heard the election of 1820 broached during all of this. Here's why. Missouri was in the process of becoming a state when the election of 1820 transpired (November). The United States Congress passed a law the previous March instructing Missouri to form a government in conformity with the U.S. Constitution, upon which it would be admitted into the Union as an equal member.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That the inhabitants of that portion of the Missouri territory included within the boundaries herein after designated, be, and they are hereby, authorized to form for themselves a constitution and state government, and to assume such name as they shall deem proper; and the said state, when formed, shall be admitted into the Union, upon an equal footing with the original states, in all respects whatsoever. - An Act to authorize the people of the Missouri territory to form a constitution and state government, and for the admission of such state into the Union on an equal footing with the original states, and to prohibit slavery in certain territories, March 6, 1820.

This would naturally confer upon Missouri, like every other state, the right to appoint presidential electors. A dispute arose over whether or not Missouri had met all the obligations of the Act at the time of the election however, and whether or not its votes should be counted. Some were in favor of including them and others were opposed. Ultimately the legislature decided not to address the matter at the time, because the votes of Missouri would have been nugatory to the outcome. Incumbent James Monroe had won every state then in the Union, and every elector save one, who voted for Adams. What's perhaps more important, is that some in Congress acknowledged that this incident exposed a Constitutional deficiency, referring to it as a casus omissus (a gap in the law), and even argued it should be addressed contemporaneously to prevent future controversy.

"Mr. C. (Henry Clay) said there was no mode pointed out in the Constitution of settling litigated questions arising in the discharge of this duty; it was a casus omissus; and he thought it would be proper, either by some act of derivative legislation, or by an amendment of the Constitution itself, to supply the defect."

"Mr. (James) Barbour said that, on the present occasion, as the election could not be affected by the votes of any one state, no difficulty could arise; and that it was his intention hereafter to bring the subject up, to remedy what he considered a casus omissus in the Constitution, either by an act of Congress, if that should appear sufficient, or, if not, by proposing an amendment to the Constitution itself."

Joseph Story, appointed by Constitutional architect James Madison, who wrote the first treatise on the U.S. Constitution acknowledges this incident in his own work, and also refers to the absence of explicit protocol as a "defect in the Constitution."

"In the original plan, as well as in the amendment, no provision is made for the discussion or decision of any questions, which may arise, as to the regularity and authenticity of the returns of the electoral votes, or the right of the persons, who gave the votes, or the manner, or circumstances, in which they ought to be counted. It seems to have been taken for granted, that no question could ever arise on the subject; and that nothing more was necessary, than to open the certificates, which were produced, in the presence of both houses, and to count the names and numbers, as returned. Yet it is easily to be conceived, that very delicate and interesting inquiries may occur, fit to be debated and decided by some deliberative body. In fact, a question did occur upon the counting of the votes for the presidency in 1821 upon the re-election of Mr. Monroe, whether the votes of the state of Missouri could be counted; but as the count would make no difference in the choice, and the declaration was made of his re-election, the senate immediately withdrew; and the jurisdiction, as well as the course of proceeding in a case of real controversy, was left in a most embarrassing situation." - Commentaries on the Constitution of The United States, 1833.

Why am I pointing this out? To illustrate something. Despite what you're being told by your representatives, challenging the votes of presidential electors is not "unprecedented," and they do have the means to remedy the "defect." They've simply chosen not to. The Congress proposed no legislation, no Constitutional Amendment to that end, despite knowing this crisis was imminent for weeks in advance. Instead they conspired to band together in dereliction. When the time comes we will cite precedent, or lack thereof, as an excuse to do nothing. The Democrats used the "casus omissus in the Constitution" to sustain a fraudulent election, and the GOP establishment used it to justify capitulation to the Democrats.

Time has proven Representative William Trimble's sentiments on the matter incredibly sagacious, and indeed, made of them prognostication. Stating their course of action would be:

"Cited hereafter as precedent; and precedents were becoming important things in the public transactions. The House might set an example by this vote, as ruinous in its consequences, as any decision which could be made."

He could not have been more correct, as the 116th Congress did the same thing when confronted with this problem, as the 16th Congress. Nothing. Like the 16th Congress, they not only didn't use any discretion in addressing the matter, they also didn't correct the defect. But unlike the 16th Congress, they don't have the excuse of it being a new/unforeseen problem, and the consequences of their apathy have far greater ramifications. The votes of Missouri would not have changed the outcome of the election of 1820. But in this election the outcome was at stake. 

The GOP establishment seems to want you to believe that by choosing to do nothing they took no side. That they were merely hapless bystanders. But that's not true. Scores of Republicans chose Joe Biden by voting against objections to the result of the election by multiple states. They chose Joe Biden by ignoring the electors appointed by multiple state legislatures.

"It is observable, that the language of the constitution is, that 'each state shall appoint in such manner, as the legislature thereof may direct,' the number of electors, to which the state is entitled. Under this authority the appointment of electors has been variously provided for by the state legislatures. In some states the legislature have directly chosen the electors themselves; in others they have been chosen by the people by a general ticket throughout the whole state; and in others by the people in electoral districts, fixed by the legislature, a certain number of electors being apportioned to each district. No question has ever arisen, as to the constitutionality of either mode, except that of a direct choice by the legislature. But this, though often doubted by able and ingenious minds, has been firmly established in practice, ever since the adoption of the Constitution." - Commentaries on the Constitution of The United States, 1833.

Several states appointed alternate electors, in response to what they believed was significant voter fraud in their states, and your representatives at the Capitol simply chose to ignore them and certify Joe Biden. That's not inaction. Republican lawmakers used the precedent of inaction to justify doing nothing, but disregarded that this as an issue the Congress can, and should address. 

I've broached the topics of federalism, of federal encroachment upon state sovereignty and autonomy, etc., before. And I've illustrated how, in the event that state governments fail to protect the liberties of their citizens, it falls to the federal government to assume that responsibility. And this in my opinion lies at the crux of this issue as well. I have no interest in the federal government nullifying the result of state elections. But what is to be done in the event that states using compromised voting systems render illegitimate election results, and appeals to those state governments by their citizens are ineffectual? Our representatives love to laud the virtues of democracy, and purport to be proponents of it, but what is democratic about a handful of (battleground) states determining the outcome of elections for the entire Union? Particularly when those states are suspected of engaging in fraud?

What the GOP establishment essentially told us on the 6th, is that in the interest of preserving state's rights, it's standing aside as the party that's been working for generations to establish unfettered federal supremacy assumes control of the federal government. That for the purpose of adhering to the Constitution, it's surrendering the federal government to two people that have openly expressed their intent to ban guns unconstitutionally through executive decree, for example.

Thankfully, guys like Dan took a stand against despotic federal usurpation on the 6th, by facilitating the elevation to power of two people hellbent on exercising despotic federal usurpation. But Dan can sleep sound at night knowing he adhered to the Constitution, when he stepped aside to hand over power to a party that won't.

Dan goes on to basically accuse the legislature of cowardice, observing the "same members of Congress who called people to fight, they were nowhere to be found." And I don't actually disagree with this; I made a similar statement that day, after seeing them all scurry from the room like rats. But where were you, Dan, when the Democrat party engaged in a year long terror campaign to unseat a duly elected president? 

Democrat politicians openly endorsed Democrat mobs terrorizing the country for months on end, whose members at times openly admitted their actions were for the purpose of affecting the outcome of this election. They marched through neighborhoods terrorizing ordinary citizens in their homes. They vandalized, looted, and burned businesses to the ground. They robbed, raped, and murdered with nigh impunity in "autonomous zones," that annexed American soil, and operated completely independently of the local and state governments and the laws thereof. And what was the Democrat response?

That wasn't fomenting "insurrection." That wasn't a "coup." (Even as "protesters" took over government property and invaded and vandalized the homes of city officials.) "Protestors" tried to take the federal building in Portland every night for months, blinded cops with lasers, used IEDs, tried to set the building on fire with police inside (attempted murder). The Democrat mayor called it a "summer of love." There was a violent Communist revolution, being openly aided and abetted (if not orchestrated) by the Democrat Party, raging across the country for months. And where was the GOP establishment? Where was Dan? I surmise with the rest of the GOP watching in silence, or at best dispensing dulcet platitudes, from Capitol Hill.

Platitudes don't put fires out. They don't restore property. They don't un-rape or un-murder people. You'd think Dan, as a former combat veteran, would have realized the visceral and tangible reality of what was transpiring in this country throughout 2020, and the futility of trying to solve tactile problems with mellifluous rhetoric. But apparently not. Apparently the diminutive amount of time he's spent in DC, has already turned him into a delusional marshmallow.

On the farce of January 6, 2020, and the inherent problem with the GoP

I don't think I've ever been more disgusted with my government than I was watching what took place on Capitol Hill yesterday. I don't think I've ever seen a more repugnantly pretentious spectacle than the insufferable and seemingly interminable political grandstanding and self-aggrandizing of the legislature of the United States. Apparently, the legislature of the United States is appalled, that the people who own the building in which they endlessly verbally auto-fellate themselves, dared enter it without their permission. You have to love the irony of people pontificating on "democracy," using the word hundreds if not thousands of times, after expelling the very people who own the building and pay their salaries. The legislature is flagrantly under the impression that the people being present is a threat to freedom. When the converse is true. It is the legislature, far too often operating completely independently of the people and without their supervision, that is the problem.

It seems completely forgotten by all that the Democrat Party is guilty of the greatest perfidy in American history.

"Disloyalty, before unsuspected, suddenly became bold, and treason astonished the whole world by bringing at once into the field military forces superior in numbers to the standing army of the United States. 

Every department of the Government was paralyzed by treason. Defection appeared in the Senate, in the House of Representatives, in the Cabinet, and in the Federal courts. Ministers and consuls returned from foreign countries to enter the insurrectionary councils or land or naval force. Commanding and other officers in the army and in the navy betrayed their councils or deserted their posts for commands in the insurgent forces. Treason was flagrant in the revenue and the post office services, as well as in the Territorial Governments and in the Indian reserves. 

Not only Governors, judges, legislators, and ministerial officers in the States, but even whole States, rushed one after another, with apparent unanimity, into rebellion. The capital was beleaguered, and its connection with all the States cut off. 

Even in the portions of the country which were most loyal, political combinations and societies were found furthering the work of disunion; while, from motives of disloyalty or cupidity, or from excited passions or perverted sympathies, individuals were found furnishing men, money, materials of war, and supplies to the insurgents' military and naval forces. Armies, ships, fortifications, navy-yards, arsenals, military posts and garrisons, one after another were betrayed or abandoned to the insurgents. Congress had not anticipated, and so had not provided for, the emergency. The municipal authorities were powerless and inactive. The judicial machinery seemed as if it had been designed, not to sustain the Government, but to embarrass and betray it. 

Foreign intervention, openly invited and industriously instigated by the abettors of the insurrection, became imminent, and has only been prevented by the practice of strict and impartial justice, with the most perfect moderation, in our intercourse with nations." - Edwin M. Stanton, Secretary of War, Feb 14, 1862.

I saw zero acknowledgment of this fact. I saw zero moderation (for fear of hypocrisy) from the party that perpetrated it, as it (assisted by a cabal of complicit Republicans) farcically construed people casually loitering within the Capitol, as the greatest act of treason to ever occur on American soil. Instead I watched as the same side that's been portraying cops as racists for months, celebrating their deaths, and calling for the defunding and/or outright abolition of the police, stood in the Capitol building and praised the "brave" Capitol Police for expelling the people from the people's house. I watched as the party that supported harassment of political opponents, assault, theft, vandalism, the burning of cities for months, completely lawless "autonomous zones," and called those who perpetrated all of these things "peaceful protestors," referred to those who entered the capitol as "domestic terrorists." 

Democrats wanting Trump removed from office, at times openly admitting their efforts were for the purpose of affecting the outcome of this election, tried to storm the federal court house in Portland every night for months. They blinded cops with lasers, employed IEDs, and tried to set the building on fire with police inside. And Democrat politicians not only didn't condemn it, some even personally attended "protests" (riots).

The Democrat Party openly supported people screaming "ACAB" in the streets, and scrawling it all over anything they could reach, for the better part of a year.

And then all of a sudden there was "such thing as a good cop," according to the people previously calling the police terrorists for arresting "protestors."

Enforcing law bad for Democrat Party yesterday so police bad. Enforcing law good for Democrat Party today so police good now. I've yet to hear any Democrats denounce the police using lethal force in the Capitol building yesterday (to protect mere "property") by the way. For months they've been puking rhetoric that property is replaceable, but people are not, in defense of violent Communist terrorist groups engaging in massive property destruction. 

I saw this sentiment being parroted by Biden supporters over and over for months. Yesterday? Nothing. There were no appeals for the magnanimity they wanted following their actual insurrection. Those "traitors" got what they deserved, and deserve still much worse, was the sentiment I heard from virtually all Democrats.

Democrats, who either tacitly or even vocally endorsed abject anarchy for months on end, bloviated on "rule of law" yesterday on Capitol Hill. Democrats, who've been the spearhead of virtually every unconstitutional initiative in our lifetime (and for generations prior), who merely weeks ago openly stated their intent to pack the Supreme Court for example, stood with straight faces and feigned a reverence for the "Constitution" after having engaged in widescale voter fraud to circumvent it. I watched as a Democrat lamented seeing the Confederate Flag at the Capitol. Never mind that the Confederacy was run by Democrats. Like Democrat, and Vice President of the Confederacy, Alexander Stephens.

"Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner-stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth." - Cornerstone Address, March 21, 1861.

I watched as the same party that has called Donald Trump a "fascist," "Hitler," and his supporters "white supremacists" assiduously for four years, referred to Trump as a "demagogue." I watched as those who call themselves "Republicans," many of which did little to nothing to counter that wildly fallacious and insidious rhetoric, basically did the same thing. Socialist Republican hacks like Mitt Romney, who saw an opportunity to simultaneously elevate themselves while claiming vengeance against a man they personally loathe, did what they so often do; crossed the aisle to stand in unity with the Communist Democrats. If you don't believe me, simply look at the vote.

Zero Democrats broke rank with their party. Fifty nine Republicans crossed the aisle to stand with the Communist Party. This is almost always the case. The Democrats always, eventually, get what they want; because even when Republicans have a majority it's negated by GoP turncoats. "Bipartisan support" has consistently merely been another name for the GoP betraying its constituents. 

I watched as numerous public servants, stated the Capitol was "desecrated" by the presence of the people they serve, and chided them for some alleged act of violence that took place there. Because obviously our noble legislators, chosen from among us, and yet somehow so much better than us, would never sully that hallowed structure with such odious comportment. Never mind that in 1856 Democrat slavery supporter Preston Brooks, beat Republican Charles Sumner with a cane nearly to death on the senate floor after an anti-slavery oration, causing Sumner traumatic brain injury and chronic pain stemming from such for the rest of his life.

None of our esteemed historian legislators, incessantly referencing this or that historical event or figure for the purpose of ostentatiously illustrating their superiority to us mere peasants, saw fit to broach that incident for some reason. They were too busy calling Trump a tyrant, and his followers no good filthy racist bastards unfit to step foot upon their Capitol, while comparing themselves to men like Churchill, Lincoln, et al.

The hypocrisy, narcissism, duplicity, and cowardice on display was enough to gag a maggot. The Democrats used the incident at the Capitol to portray Trump supporters as racists trying to establish a despot. And the GoP did what it does best, and used it (along with state autonomy) as an excuse to grab their ankles, and let the Democrats do as they please. (Did you see these champions of federalism take a stand, when the Supreme Court legislated from the bench, and effaced laws banning "gay marriage" legitimately passed through referendum throughout half the Union? Me either.) Both parties used what transpired at the Capitol as a scapegoat to completely ignore or dismiss the objections and the issue of election fraud. I saw legislator after legislator use virtually their entire allotted time to talk about themselves. My daddy did this. When I was a kid I did that. I ran for office to do this. As if such meandering anecdotes had anything to do with the matter at hand. Not a single one, not one, mentioned that a forensic audit of voting machines discovered that the data for this election was gone. Deleted. The data for older elections, two, and even four years ago, was still present. But not this one. There's only one reason for that to be the case.

I said the Republican Party was a useless cabal of cowards, and needed to be abolished, years ago. Probably on this very blog even. People scoffed at me and called me a Democrat. If this doesn't wake them up, nothing will. It's always the same song and dance with these two parties. Democrats break the rules, they lie and cheat to get what they want. And Republicans, who insist on following the rules to their own and our detriment, let them. You can argue that breaking the rules would make us no better than the Democrats, and in the strictest sense, I'd agree with you. But I also know, that you cannot win against an enemy who ignores the rules, by being that only one that follows them. You are operating within constraints against an opponent that is not. Adhering to rules is only beneficial for both sides when both sides are doing it. If you insist on adhering to the Constitution, for example, when your enemies do not, then you are bound by the Constitution and they are not. Their disregard for those rules benefits them, and your insistence on adhering to those rules also benefits them. If a rule is an obstacle, they will circumvent it. Conversely, they know you will follow the rules even when it's to your detriment.

Imagine a football game in which your team is the only team following the rules. The other team demands to start with a 21 point lead because your team is "privileged." Your team allows it. The other team demands that their captain flip the coin, in their locker room, without anyone from your team observing. And your team insists on accepting the outcome of that toss. The other team throws the ball through the field goal posts. But your team insists on kicking it. The other team runs out of bounds to avoid tackles and keeps going. Your team insists on staying inside the lines. When you protest it falls on mostly def ears, as many of the referees are fans of the other team and were selected by it. And your team insists on respecting their decisions. Etc., etc., etc. It should be obvious to anyone not a vegetable, that you no longer have a fair game occurring, and that it would be incredibly difficult for your team to win under such circumstances. (And yes, some of the above being blatantly analogous to the election was intentional.). You were the honorable team in this scenario. You followed the rules. And you will suffer an honorable defeat because of it.

It needs to be understood this is how our two party system, and therefore our government, currently operates. (And has for generations.) We operate upon the (correct) premise that rules mean what they originally meant and are always binding. The left operates upon the premise that the rules mean whatever you want them to mean and are selectively binding. When the Constitution permits their agenda the Communist Democrats cite it as binding to induce compliance from our side. When it doesn't they simply pretend it doesn't exist. If someone reminds them that it does exist, and doesn't permit what they want, they simply engage in historical revisionism or subjectively reinterpret it to accommodate the exigencies of the moment. We cannot win under this paradigm. And no one, not in the GoP, or anywhere else, is doing a damn thing about it. The Democrats are never held accountable for anything, and the GoP establishment, as evinced once again yesterday, will never hold them accountable. They're too busy believing they're saving "democracy" by facilitating the Democrat Party's subversion of it. And this will never change as long as most of the GoP refuses to accept the reality of what the Democrat Party has become (the unofficial Communist Party of the United States).

Mike Pence had a choice to make yesterday. He could adhere to what he believed the rules to be, knowing it benefitted the enemy of his God, his country, his party, his constituents, etc., or he could throw a wrench into their machinations that at least stymied if not thwarted them. He chose the former. Like the good GoP boy he was expected to be; that the left knew they could rely on him to be (unlike Trump). Am I saying we should just start ignoring all the rules too? No. But either the left has to be made to follow them also, or we need a new/separate system exclusive to those that do. This we need to be the bigger, honest, more decent person, and adhere to the rules even when the opposition doesn't, strategy of the GoP (for decades) has been an unmitigated disaster. It's been facilitating the left's subversion of this country for far too long.

Just in case it's yet not clear, what I'm trying to convey to you reader, is that every day your Republican representatives accept a paradigm in regard to governance, that no mere football fan would accept to decide a frivolous contest of sport. And another thing that should be clear to you, is that if a partisan inversion of what transpired yesterday ever occurs, the Democrat Party will do what your Republican representatives refused to do. They will not care that your party chose honor over expediency. Because to Marxists, the expedient thing to do, is the honorable thing to do. Whereas Republicans viewed the absence of an explicit proviso in the Constitution as proscription (there's nothing that says we can do this), Democrats would view the absence of such as permission (there's nothing that says we can't do this). 

I was very critical of Trump in the past. I'm not apologizing for that. I was right about most of it. Trump has caused me a great deal of concern at times, but those concerns have previously been articulated in great detail, and this contribution is simply not about that. The Republican Party, with its abject capitulation yesterday, utterly vindicated Trump's supporters. They were fed up with the GoP rolling over to the Marxist left and wanted a leader that would fight. Trump did fight. And the GoP establishment, as always, rolled over. (And yet these morons obtusely express bewilderment, as to why Trump has devout followers, and they do not.) Even as someone who was never a "Trump guy," I am so sick of the nauseating, boundless, and self-defeating pusillanimity of the GoP, I feel compelled to sympathize with and defend him. Because even if I don't like Trump, I know one thing for certain. If ever there comes a time to fight, the cowards of the GoP establishment won't be there for me, any more than they were Trump.

I leave all of you now, operating under the delusion that a subverted party, or government, can be reformed from within, with a quote from the Reverend James Willson's sagacious work on civil government.

"It is so easy to lull the conscience by the delusive idea that the best way to reform a government is first to swear to support it, and to take part in its operations."

Joining a subverted entity ultimately results in you becoming compromised, complicit, and therefore subverted yourself. Our broken system only gets fixed when you take it upon yourselves to fix it. Rot is remedied by extirpation, not by mixing the good with the bad.