"Who Counts the Votes of the Presidential Electors?"

"Who Counts the Votes of the Presidential Electors?"

by Alexander Macris

"Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything." The quote is ascribed to Joseph Stalin, although there’s little evidence that he actually said it. Nevertheless, it resonates as true. Certainly America stands in crisis now because of disagreements about the count of the popular vote.

But the President of the United States isn’t actually elected by the popular vote. He’s elected by the college of presidential electors. As I noted in a previous article, one of the most important questions in this crisis is whether the state legislatures can appoint presidential electors to cast their votes in opposition to the popular vote. But there is another question: Who counts the votes cast by the presidential electors? If “those who count the votes decide everything,” as Stalin said, then this is the most important question in American history.

The Constitutional Argument: The U.S. Constitution governs the election of the President. The controlling provision is the Twelfth Amendment, which states that: “The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted.”

What does that mean? In “Preparing for a Disputed Presidential Election” (51 Loyola University Chicago Law Journal 2018), Edward B. Foley explains: "The peculiar passive-voice phrasing of this crucial sentence opens up the possibility of interpreting it to provide that the “President of the Senate” has the exclusive constitutional authority to determine which “certificates” to “open” and thus which electoral votes “to be counted.”

This interpretation can derive support from the observation that the President of the Senate is the only officer, or instrumentality, of government given an active role in the process of opening the certificates and counting the electoral votes from the states. The Senate and House of Representatives, on this view, have an observational role only. The opening and counting are conducted in their “presence” - for the sake of transparency - but these two legislative bodies do not actually take any actions of their own in this opening and counting process. How could they? Under the Constitution, the Senate and the House of Representatives only act separately, as entirely distinct legislative chambers. They have no constitutional way to act together as one amalgamated corpus. Thus, they can only watch as the President of the Senate opens the certificates of electoral votes from the states and announces the count of the electoral votes contained therein.

This interpretation of the Twelfth Amendment is bolstered, moreover, by the further observation that the responsibility to definitively decide which electoral votes from each state are entitled to be counted must be lodged ultimately in some singular authority of the federal government. If one body could decide the question one way, while another body could reach the opposite conclusion, then there inevitably is a stalemate unless and until a single authority is identified with the power to settle the matter once and for all. Given the language of the Twelfth Amendment, whatever its ambiguity and potential policy objections, there is no other possible single authority to identify for this purpose besides the President of the Senate. (emphasis added)"

Foley is not alone in this analysis. Another prominent jurist, John Harrison, makes an even more forceful case. Harrison argues in “Nobody for President,” (16 J.L. & Pol., 2000), that the most natural reading of the Twelfth Amendment grants the opening-and-counting power to the President of the Senate: "The Twelfth Amendment provides that in the presence of the two houses, [the President of the Senate] shall open all the certificates from the electors. But as history shows, there can be more than one purported certificate from a state. Indeed, multiple purported certificates may be the most common cause of dispute. The certificates that the President of the Senate is to open, however, are those of the electors, not those of non-electors. Hence, in order to know which certificates to open, the President of the Senate must know which of competing slates of electors were validly appointed.

…A natural reading [of the Twelfth Amendment] thus indicates that in one especially important context, the dispute is to be resolved by a single individual. Neither House nor Senate is given any authority over the President of the Senate when it comes to opening the certificates, and Congress by statute may not control the exercise of this constitutionally granted authority any more than it may tell the President who to pardon. (emphasis added)"

Now the President of the Senate is actually the Vice President of the United States - Trump’s running mate, Mike Pence. If Foley and Harrison are correct, then Mike Pence may be the most powerful man in America right now!

The Historical Argument: Constitutional law is not, of course, merely a matter of language analysis. The intent of the Framers, the history of the Republic, and the interpretations of past jurists all bear weight. But here, too, there is much evidence for the case that Pence has the power to open and count the votes of the presidential electors. As Foley regretfully explains: "Whatever each of us personally thinks of this interpretative argument, it is necessary to acknowledge that it has a significant historical pedigree. It routinely had its advocates in the years leading up to the disputed election of 1876. During that intense dispute, it was conveniently invoked by Republicans, since the President of the Senate was one of their own at the time. After the resolution of that ugly dispute, the argument was resurrected by some during the congressional debates that led to passage of the Electoral Count Act of 1887…"

What is the historical pedigree to which Foley refers? The Congressional Record of the passage of the Electoral Count Act records the opinion of many prominent legislators who held the view that the President of the Senate opens and counts the votes, even though some weren’t happy about it: “The counting function is vested in the President of the Senate and the Necessary and Proper Clause does not confer on Congress the power to assume unto itself the duty which the Constitution imposes on that officer.” - Sen. Wilson

“If the Constitution…does…by fair implication, vest in the President of the Senate the power and duty not only to open, but also to count, the votes, then Congress can not, by this or any other legislation, take away or transfer to any other “person or officer that power and duty; - Rep. Baker

“The Constitution says that ‘the votes shall then be counted,’ and if this mandate be addressed to the President of the Senate, that ends the question so far as the counting is concerned. The Constitution has then entrusted him with the whole power, and any legislation to direct him, would be an impertinent intrusion upon his prerogative.” - Sen. Spear

“The President of the Senate’s discretion in opening certificates shows the necessity of an amendment of the Constitution.” - Sen Morton. 

Foley, also obviously unhappy with this situation, goes on to explain: "Thus Republicans can point to the historical pedigree of this position, observing that Republicans made the same argument during the disputed election of 1876 and that at least some recent law journal scholarship has supported this position. Unembarrassed by the apparent conflict of interest caused by Mike Pence simultaneously being a candidate for reelection and arbiter of the electoral dispute, these Republicans observe that Thomas Jefferson was in essentially the same position during the disputed election of 1800 and yet the Twelfth Amendment left this provision in place when Congress rewrote the procedures for the Electoral College afterwards."

Wait, Thomas Jefferson pulled this trick? Indeed he did. The 1800 Presidential election was a contest between Jefferson, Aaron Burr, John Adams, Charles Pinckney, and John Jay. Jefferson, as the current Vice President, was the President of the Senate when it came time to count the votes. And he counted them in his own favor! Bruce Ackerman and David Fontana explain what happened in their article “Thomas Jefferson Counts Himself into the Presidency” (90 Virginia Law Review 2004, 551-643):

Thomas Jefferson was remarkably aggressive as President of the Senate. Georgia’s certificate - granting four electoral votes to Jefferson - was constitutionally defective on its face, a deficiency that was announced on the floor of Congress and reported by leading newspapers of the day. To resolve all doubts, we have located Georgia’s certificate in the National Archives, and it does indeed reveal striking constitutional irregularities…

Nevertheless, Jefferson failed to pause before counting George’s four electoral votes into the Republican column, declaring the final vote as if nothing were amiss. Had Georgia’s ballot been excluded, the vote count…would have admitted all five candidates into a runoff in the House… Without the decisive use of his power as President of the Senate, Jefferson might never have become President of the United States. (emphasis added)

Read that again: Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence, the man whose face adorns Mt Rushmore, among the most revered founding fathers of our country, only became President because he used his unilateral power as President of the Senate to open and count the presidential ballots in his own favor.

Vasan Kesavan, in “Is the Electoral Count Act Unconstitutional?” (80 NC L. Rev. 2001-2002), records another example where the President of the Senate unilaterally determined the winner of the Presidential Election: "In the election of 1856, the five electors of the State of Wisconsin did not cast their votes on the day prescribed by federal law because of a snowstorm. The President of the Senate counted Wisconsin's electoral votes over the objections of both Representatives and Senators assembled in convention. When Representative Lechter objected to Wisconsin's electoral votes and moved to exclude them, the presiding officer (the President of the Senate) simply stated that no debate was in order when the votes were being read by the tellers or even after they were finished.' When Senator Crittenden then asked the presiding officer, "Do I understand the Chair to decide that Congress, in no form, has power to decide upon the validity or invalidity of a vote?,"' the presiding officer replied that it was his constitutional duty to announce the result of the electoral count and that "what further action may be taken, if any further action should be taken, will devolve upon the properly-constituted authorities of the country, the Senate or House of Representatives, as the case may be.'… 

Several Members of Congress were concerned that the decision to count Wisconsin's electoral votes would set a dangerous precedent. According to Senator Pugh, unlike the Missouri Incident which was "never likely to happen again," the Wisconsin Incident "may occur one hundred times again, if the Government should stand that many years.' Almost every Member of Congress who spoke on the subject agreed that the votes of Wisconsin should not have been counted.' (emphasis added)

And yet the votes were counted… because the President of the Senate opened and counted them. The President of the Senate’s choice was more powerful than the collective will of Congress.

Come January 2021, Vice President Mike Pence will be presented with the sealed certificates containing the ballots of the presidential electors. At that moment, the Presidency will be in his hands. And there is nothing stopping Pence, under the authority vested in him as President of the Senate, from declining to open and count the certificates from the six disputed states. If they are certificates from non-electors appointed via voter fraud, why should he open and count them? As Harrison noted, “the certificates that the President of the Senate is to open… are those of the electors, not those of non-electors.”

The President’s position going into January 2021 is thus considerably stronger than the mainstream media would have you believe. There is Constitutional language and historical precedent that gives his Vice President the unilateral power to decide the outcome of our contested election. If Trump would be king, Mike Pence could be his kingmaker."

- macris@substack.com

○

Related:

"Trump at the Rubicon: The Insurrection Act" 

"Market Fantasy Updates 12/7/20"

"Market Fantasy Updates 12/7/20"

Down the rabbit hole of psychopathic greed and insanity...

Only the consequences are real - to you!

○

"The more I see of the monied classes, 

the better I understand the guillotine."

- George Bernard Shaw

○

Gregory Mannarino, PM 12/7/20:

"Selling 'The Vaccine' VIA Fear and Intimidation"

-  https://traderschoice.net/

○

- https://money.cnn.com/data/fear-and-greed/

○

Updated live.

- https://www.marketwatch.com/tools/marketsummary

○

- https://markets.businessinsider.com/

○

- https://www.zerohedge.com/

○

- https://wallstreetonparade.com/

○

Daily Update (Dec. 6th to Dec. 10th)

- http://www.shadowstats.com/

○

Insanity... 

○

And now... The End Game...

Musical Interlude: Vangelis, “Alpha”

Vangelis, “Alpha”

"A Look to the Heavens"

“To some, the outline of the open cluster of stars M6 resembles a butterfly. M6, also known as NGC 6405, spans about 20 light-years and lies about 2,000 light years distant. M6 can best be seen in a dark sky with binoculars towards the constellation of Scorpius, coving about as much of the sky as the full moon.

Like other open clusters, M6 is composed predominantly of young blue stars, although the brightest star is nearly orange. M6 is estimated to be about 100 million years old. Determining the distance to clusters like M6 helps astronomers calibrate the distance scale of the universe.”

- http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap110906.html

The Poet: Jane Hirshfield, "The Task "

"The Task" 

"It is a simple garment, this slipped-on world.

We wake into it daily - open eyes, braid hair - 

a robe unfurled

in rose-silk flowering, then laid bare.

And yes, it is a simple enough task

we've taken on,

though also vast:

from dusk to dawn,

from dawn to dusk, to praise, and not

be blinded by the praising.

To lie like a cat in hot

sun, fur fully blazing,

and dream the mouse;

and to keep too the mouse's patient, waking watch

within the deep rooms of the house,

where the leaf-flocked

sunlight never reaches, but the earth still blooms." 

- Jane Hirshfield

"It's Not The Load..."

"It's not the load that breaks you down, it's the way you carry it."

- Lena Horne

"You'll Own Nothing and You'll Be Happy"

"You'll Own Nothing and You'll Be Happy"

by Jeff Thomas

"Klaus Schwab was born in Nazi Germany in 1938. Little information is available as to his upbringing – i.e., the degree to which he was educated to believe in Nazi doctrine – but whatever he was taught in his youth, he is, today, one of the most ardent believers in, and proponents of, totalitarian rule.

The term "Nazi" refers to Nationalsozialistisch, or "National Socialism," and its overall concept was fascism – a concept that encompassed a corporatist economic system, socialist political system and totalitarian rule. Whilst this description may seem rather convoluted, the concept was believed by Wall Street and much of the US government in the 1930s as the way of the future. So much so that they provided considerable financial and logistical support for Nazi Germany during the 1930s and even into the 1940s.

Following the war, only a handful of Germans were prosecuted for war crimes at the Nuremburg trials. Countless others were taken on board by both US industry and the government following the war, to educate American industry in German methodology. For many years following the war, Nazi concepts remained under the radar, but in recent years, they’ve become a major force within not only the US, but also US ally states: Canada, Australia, the UK and, most notably, the EU.

The basic concepts are perennial in their attraction to those who seek to dominate:

• Create an uber class of those who are highly positioned in both industry and politics.

• Cripple the middle class economically, so that they no longer have the power to make their own life decisions.

• Offer dramatically increased dependency on the State as a relief from the economic hardship created by the state.

• Remove freedoms, in trade for the promise of largesse from the State.

• Institute a police state and totalitarian rule to ensure that the new paradigm will be lasting.

• Once controls are fully implemented and the populace has become dependent on the new system, begin to remove the promised entitlements.

The idea behind this final bullet point is that, once the population is thoroughly dependent upon the state, they will have lost the power to object or rebel if entitlements are removed. They are then fully dominated. Of course, if any individual were to read the above menu, he would immediately say, "No way!" and reject the program outright. Therefore, if such an oppressive regime were to be imposed upon a people, it would need to be sold to them as a benefit, not as virtual enslavement.

Joseph Goebbels was proud of saying, "Make the lie big. Keep it simple. Keep saying it and eventually, they will believe it." Quite so. Fortunately, Mister Hitler and his friends were removed from the firmament before the final stages of the program could be implemented.

But today, the jurisdictions listed above are now solidly in the completion stage of bullet point #2 and have begun to provide the offer of bullet point #3: the promised solution to the populace. And so, we return to our poster boy for totalitarianism: Klaus Schwab.

His fame has been earned through his creation and chairmanship of the World Economic Forum (WEF). Over the last half century, the WEF has grown in influence to become one of the foremost leaders in the proposition of a New World Order. As with Mister Hitler, in order to sell Totalitarianism 201 to the people of the countries in question, the technique once again is to "Make the lie big."

Professor Schwab’s video offers an idyllic state in which people can rid themselves of all the personal debt, the political upheaval and the social unrest that is now expanding so rapidly. The proposed solution is that you sign over your right to own possessions on a permanent basis, in trade for a life in which there is minimal responsibility. The world government will provide you with a basic income. You will rent whatever you need – a residence, a vehicle, appliances, even your clothing. Most importantly, as can be seen from the countenance of the citizen in the image above, you’ll be happy.

There will be no more wars. A "handful of countries" will rule the world cooperatively. There will be no waiting for medical attention. "There will be a global price on carbon" emissions. (This states that those who use fossil fuels – everyone – will be taxed for its use, although no explanation is given as to how this keeps the world from ending in twelve years due to emissions, as globalists claim.)

The government will have full control of every aspect of your life, plus the task of removing any obstacles to your happiness. Sounds wonderful. Where do I sign up?

But if we stop and think for a moment, we might wish to ask a few questions. For one thing, you give up all rights at the beginning of the deal. You will have lost all your possessions and all your freedoms. You will be 100% dependent upon the state. Their part of the deal is to be delivered on the back end. But once you’re totally dependent and can no longer extricate yourself from the deal, there’s nothing to stop them from removing the punch bowl... Oh-oh. All the things that were promised may be withdrawn one at a time, until you’re both subservient and impoverished. You will lack the ability to rebel or even to complain.

For generations, political leaders have offered empty promises that were never kept. Conservative and liberal political leaders alike have consistently made a grand show of disagreeing with each other on what form of governance might serve the people best. Yet, somehow, the result, no matter which group theoretically holds the reins of power at any given time, has always been a larger, more powerful government and a populace that was increasingly robbed of its freedoms – social, political and economic.

We are now at the very turning point at which much of the former Free World is being tempted to make the leap into the "Brave New World." All the social, political and economic problems that presently exist have been caused by political leaders. They are now asking you to trust them to end those problems. The promise is a simple one: You’ll own nothing. And you’ll be happy. But you’re not required to sign up. All you need do is sit still and accept the transformation to totalitarianism as it plays out. Nothing could be simpler."

- internationalman.com

○

World Economic Forum, "COVID-19: The Great Reset"

○

"The Recipe for Mental Slavery from Orwell and Huxley

 That Is Actively Used in Our Society"

The Daily "Near You?"

 
Yorba Linda, California, USA. Thanks for stopping by!

"Just When We Think..."

"Just when we think we figured things out, the universe throws us a curveball. So, we have to improvise. We find happiness in unexpected places. We find ourselves back to the things that matter the most. The universe is funny that way. Sometimes it just has a way of making sure we wind up exactly where we belong."

- "Dr. Meredith Grey", "Grey's Anatomy"

"The Guillotine Is Waiting"

"The Guillotine Is Waiting"

by Bill Bonner

WEST RIVER, MARYLAND – "Every advanced society has an elite. Its patricians. It’s Aristoi. Its propertied classes. Its gentry or its Hidalgos. They are the lucky ones. The smart ones… the educated ones… the ones with the Ph.D.s, the formulae, and the secrets. They’re also usually the ones with the money. They design the bridges, write the laws, and count the votes. They also write computer code… and God knows what else.

Duties and Privileges: In ancient societies, the elite claimed to have some inside track with God. It – the elite – used religion to stay in power. The religion explained each caste’s duties and privileges. One ruled. The others obeyed.  Today, the elite uses science.

We don’t need to wear masks, said the experts in January. Ooops… No, we must all wear masks, say the experts now. “The Earth is freezing” was the climatological alarm in the 1970s. Now, “it’s burning up” is the gospel according to today’s experts. 

There will be no more financial crises “in our lifetimes,” forecast Janet Yellen, Ph.D., three years ago. Now, she says we must mobilize Congress and the Federal Reserve to fight the crisis she said wouldn’t happen. 

We must do battle with the Sunni Muslims in Iraq, said the experts; the Shi’a are our friends. Now, we must fight the Shi’a in Iran; the Sunni are our friends. Or vice versa?

In the past, only the elite could read and write. This gave them a special source of knowledge and power. They could open up their sacred books… and there, they would find wisdom and secrets forbidden to the masses.  Then, when the invention of the printing press made literacy more widespread, the elite set up schools to teach people what to think and do. Catholic schools taught obedience to the Pope. Shiite Muslim schools did the same for their Ayatollahs. Secular schools required students to pledge allegiance to the flag. 

New Elite: Like all things in nature, elites age and decay. Power corrupts them. Wealth weakens them. Over time, each generation becomes more grasping and less competent. In France in 1789, both the aristocracy and the clergy claimed exemption from taxes. They also expected special favors, privileges, and sinecures. This left the entire burden of supporting the government – and the privileged classes – on the backs of people who had relatively little support to give.

In the revolution that followed, the sans culottes rose up. Some 17,000 of the elite class were guillotined. Many thousands more were murdered by other means. France then replaced its old dominant class with a new elite – many of whom were the same people. They had merely switched their allegiance – from religion and the king… to science and the new republic!

We saw last week that when Team Trump yields to the Biden Bunch, the new White House elite will be a bit more feminine and darker-skinned. But in the ways that matter, they will be of the same tribe, drawn from the best schools and privileged pasts, where they were taught the new faith – that they have a right to rule… relying on their superior knowledge of (social) science. Then, they made their way up through the ranks, joined political parties, took jobs in Washington, moved from lobbying to think tanks to staff positions on Capitol Hill. And there… they found what they were after – power.

Work the System: They are not exceptional people. There are millions like them – a whole gaggle of insiders… engineers… professionals… Establishment wonks… and Swamp critters. They know how the system works… and how to work it to their own advantage. 

They go into education, for example. But they do not bother with the hard work of teaching ideas and skills. They become “educators,” not teachers, pretending that they have some scientific expertise that somehow helps make the system work better. 

Or they go into “health care.” But do you think they empty bedpans or check temperatures? No, they are “administrators,” providing the crucial interface between the mysteries of the insurance/Obamacare system and the people who actually provide useful medical care.

They are undersecretaries of this… vice presidents of that… directors… chiefs… board members… wizards… witch doctors… Grand PooBahs… and acting plenipotentiaries. They help to get regulations passed… And guess what? They are the regulators. They write long laws and codes… incomprehensible to the common man. But they are there to interpret them, to enforce them… and to help other elites get around them.

They tell students what to think. They tell the public what to think, too – for they control the newspapers and the TV stations. They are the opinion mongers… the commentators… the columnists…

They are “liberal” or they are “conservative.” The emphasis changes. The words and colors, too. One says he is concerned about the plight of the poor. The other says he wants to “make America great again.” Still another says America already is great… It just needs to put the Chinese in their place.

Common Goal: But they all – Republican and Democrat – have one major goal, shared among them like an STD. They all want to keep the “system” going… and use it to shove more and more wealth and power in their own direction.

Biden’s financial experts – headed by Janet Yellen – are tried and true. None will stand in the way of the great flimflam. Continuing the work of Bush, Obama, and Trump… they will provide more money-printing… more stimulus… more bond buying… more fake interest rates and giveaways. Hey… A “bi-partisan” group hopes to push another bailout – almost $1 trillion – this week. 

So, too, are Biden’s foreign policy experts ready to take the baton from the Trump team… and continue running in the same direction. More pointless wars… more spending… more sanctions and meddling. As these programs continue – foreign and domestic, military and civilian – trillions more will be printed… and spent. And every dollar will go to someone.  To whom? Guess.

And sad to say, none of America’s elite has yet been guillotined. More to come…"

- www.rogueeconomics.com

"Yet..."

Gregory Mannarino, AM 12/7/20: “Markets: Important Updates - Stocks, Crude, DOW, Bitcoin, Gold”

Down the rabbit hole of psychopathic greed and insanity...

Only the consequences are real - to you!

○

Gregory Mannarino, AM 12/7/20:

“Markets: Important Updates - 

Stocks, Crude, DOW, Bitcoin, Gold”

- https://traderschoice.net/

"How It Really Is"

 
Oh, if you thought 2020 was a treat you're just gonna love 2021...

"You Can Never Tell..."

"You can never tell what people have inside them 

until you start taking it away, one hope at a time."

- Gregory David Roberts

"Government Will Not Help You; Stock Market Will Soar Till It Crashes; Americans On Borrowed Time"

Jeremiah Babe,

"Government Will Not Help You; Stock Market Will 

Soar Till It Crashes; Americans On Borrowed Time"

"The Rules..."

 

"Housing Market On The Verge Of Collapse: Millions About To Be Evicted!"

"Housing Market On The Verge Of Collapse: 

Millions About To Be Evicted!"

by Epic Economist

"Experts have been warning of a major housing price bubble that is likely to culminate in a housing crash in the months ahead. Due to the coming lockdowns and rising social turbulence, Americans have been relocating to smaller areas in an attempt to find better housing arrangements, but for those who want to become homeowners, it's getting harder and harder to find affordable properties amid a massive spike in demand. Meanwhile, several investors who bought rental properties are now suffering from the effects of the widespread economic deterioration that has been making millions of renters delinquent. 

Despite the claims that the housing market is booming right now, analysts say that this scenario isn't sustainable for much longer. The growing amount of rental and mortgage debt in addition to the weak economic activity and a property shortage will all contribute to an epic bubble burst of unprecedented proportions. In this video, we are going to expose how the coming housing crash may impact the market, investors, owners, and renters for over a decade. 

Real state authorities and market watchers have been arguing that surging prices for residential properties are significantly inflating a housing bubble that can burst at any moment. The sector is now experiencing record sales thanks to record-low mortgage rates and a massive relocation of American citizens from urban centers to smaller, rural areas. The demand for affordable housing outside of metropolitan areas has been so high it created a housing shortage that led prices to skyrocket over the past few months. 

This year home sales are on track to surpass last year’s, when the economy was in far better shape. However, the economic shock resultant from the health crisis can cancel out these gains fairly quickly, since analysts say the record-breaking home sales are not sustainable. 

The staggering unemployment rates and the coming lockdowns are about to decline Americans' purchasing power even further. So even those who managed to buy a house aren't immune to falling deep into debt due to the effects of the current economic recession. For investors, this means that there are substantial risks in exposing themselves to the purchase of a house as an investment. But for homeowners and independent landlords, the results can be a lot more serious. "It can devastate your livelihood for the next 10 years if you go all in," said investment advisor Adam Othman. 

If projections aren't looking good for owners and investors, for renters the situation is considerably more worrying. A large share of American renters have affirmed to be struggling to make their next rent payment, while many of them have already fallen behind months ago and have been accumulating rental debt up until now. 

They have been relying on the CDC's temporary eviction moratorium to avoid homelessness, but according to a recent Bloomberg article, almost 6 million households are on the brink of eviction, which accounts for up to 40 million people who could become homeless after the moratorium is lifted.

Billions of dollars of rental debt will be translated into much more trouble ahead for the U.S. housing market. When renters become delinquent, their credit and their ability to find housing get severely compromised. On the other hand, landlords will find it more difficult to replace their previous delinquent tenants with new paying renters. Especially during an economic meltdown that has pushed a large chunk of the population out of their jobs. 

“Renters are disproportionately hurt by the crisis,” affirms Jung Hyun Choi, a research associate with the Housing Finance Policy Center. “A greater share of renters lost their jobs. That meant losing savings that could have been used for a down payment, and falling behind on bills, which will hurt their credit and make it more even more difficult for them to be future homeowners”. 

It certainly is a bigger challenge for low-income Americans to climb the first step of the real-estate ladder, particularly in the middle of the worst economic crisis this country has ever experienced in almost a century. 

One of the things the health crisis brought to the surface was the fragility of the U.S. housing system. In a moment when having a roof over one’s head has never been so essential to ensure people's survival, this short but intense period of economic deterioration has put millions of people in a critical financial situation, jeopardizing their housing security, and their prospects of ever owning a home. As Congress isn't listening to the constant urges for more aid or even for the extension of protection programs, by next month we can be witnessing a tragic homelessness crisis while the housing market collapses right before our eyes."

- https://www.youtube.com/

"Trump at the Rubicon: The Insurrection Act"

"Trump at the Rubicon: The Insurrection Act" 

by Alexander Macris

"In the closing days of 50 BC, the Roman Senate declared that Julius Caesar’s term as a provincial governor was finished. Roman law afforded its magistrates immunity to prosecution, but this immunity would end with Caesar’s term. As the leader of the populares faction, Caesar had many enemies among the elite optimates, and as soon as he left office, these enemies planned to bury him in litigation. Caesar knew he would lose everything: property, liberty, even his life.

Caesar decided it was better to fight for victory than accept certain defeat. In January 49 BC, he crossed the Rubicon River with his army, in violation of sacred Roman law, and began a civil war. “Alea iacta est,” said Caesar: The die is cast.

In the closing days of 2020 AD, the American media has declared that Donald Trump’s term as president is finished. As the leader of the deplorables faction, Trump has many enemies among the elite irates, and as soon as he leaves office, these enemies plan to bury him in litigation. Bill Pascrell, the Chairman of the House Ways & Means Subcommittee on Oversight, has officially called for the prosecution of President Trump for “government crimes” following his term in office. In his thirst for vengeance, Pascrell has made it clear there will be no Nixonian escape by pardon: "Donald Trump, along with his worst enablers, must be tried for their crimes against our nation and Constitution. Any further abuse of the sacred pardon power to shield criminals would itself be obstruction of justice, and any self-pardons would be illegal."

Like Caesar, Trump now must fight for victory or lose everything. Come January 2021, will Donald Trump decide to cast the die and cross the Rubicon? He might. The same people who warned us that Trump is worse than Hitler will now scoff: “Donald Trump is no Caesar!” That’s true. Trump is in a much better position than Caesar was. Unlike Caesar, Trump can cross the Rubicon legally. He need violate no sacred law. He has all of the legal power he needs to act and win. Congress has given it to him. All he needs to do is invoke the Insurrection Act.

Invoking the Insurrection Act: During the 2020 summer protests and riots, commentators on both the Left and Right argued about whether Trump would use the so-called Insurrection Act against the crowds. Strangely, no one seems to be considering the fact that Trump could use it now.

The history of the Insurrection Act dates back all the way to 1797, and the legislative record is so long and tortured that it’s woeful to contemplate. Suffice to say that in the 21st century, the Insurrection Act has been pleasantly re-titled “The Enforcement of the Laws to Restore Public Order Act” and codified in four sections of the US Code:

• 10 USC § 251 Federal Aid for State Governments

• 10 USC § 252 Use of Militia and Armed Forces to Enforce Federal Authority

• 10 USC § 253 Interference with State and Federal Law

• 10 USC § 254 Proclamation to Disperse

Of the four provisions, the most recent and the most powerful is 10 USC § 253, which was written in 2006. This is the one that liberal pundits always forget to mention when they blab about Posse Comitatus and governors. It reads: "The President, by using the militia or the armed forces, or both, or by any other means, shall take such measures as he considers necessary to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy, if it so hinders the execution of the laws of that State, and of the United States within the State, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.

That’s powerful language! Consider: The authority is vested solely in the President. He does not need the invitation of state governors to intervene, nor does he need the approval of the Supreme Court. Older provisions of the Insurrection Act required either a governor or a judicial proceeding to authorize its use, but these limits were purposefully removed by Congress in § 253.

There is no time limit on the President’s activities. Older versions of the Insurrection Act limited the use of force to brief periods of time and then required legislative approval. Those limits, too, are also gone.

The President is allowed to use any means that he (and again, he needs no one else) considers necessary. This includes using the armed forces (which enables him to bypass the Posse Comitatus Act) and using the militia (which we’ll discuss in more detail below).

The President’s ability to use force isn’t restricted to actual rebellion or insurgency. He can act against merely unlawful combinations and conspiracies. To be clear: If the President decides that a conspiracy has deprived people of a right and believes that authorities fail or refuse to protect the right, he can send in the troops.

In blunt terms, Congress has given the power to President Trump to proclaim: “I, President Trump, have determined that a conspiracy has deprived 70 million Americans of their right to vote and that the other authorities are refusing to protect this right. I therefore order the suppression of this conspiracy by any means necessary.” And with that, Trump will cross the Rubicon.

Horror and Denial: He Shouldn’t! He Wouldn’t! If you are of libertarian leanings, you are likely to feel horror: “Why on Earth did a free republic vest so much power into one man?” You should feel horror. The Romans required a Senate vote to appoint a Dictator with emergency powers, and that Dictator served a strict six-month term limit. In America, we’ve given the President the right to decide when he should become a Dictator and for how long he can retain his emergency powers.

This was certainly unwise; but it is done. “Game over, man.” The power has been given. The power can be used. And it probably will be used if the Democrats continue on their foolish campaign to seek vengeance on Trump.

If you are in the grip of normalcy bias, you are likely to be in denial: “Trump wouldn’t dare! The US Armed Forces would remove him from office! The troops wouldn’t respond to his call!” Pompey said the same about the Roman legions. He was wrong. He was so wrong, in fact, that his decapitated head ended up in a stylish gift box presented to Caesar as a present when he landed in Egypt. Don’t be Pompey.

Now, I don’t expect beheadings (just helicopters) but I do expect that the US Armed Forces would obey Trump’s orders. Although he is not popular with the Pentagon, Trump remains popular with actual soldiers, especially with white middle-class men who make up a disproportionate number of the infantry, armor, pilots, special forces, and other combat arms. (His support among law enforcement personnel is even higher. The men with guns love Trump.)

But let’s assume the Armed Forces are paralyzed, split, or neutral. If so, Trump still has millions of troops available: The militia.

Calling Up the Militia: The militia is defined by 10 U.S. Code § 246:

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and… under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are - 

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

This is, again, an incredibly powerful piece of legislation. Put into plain English, and ignoring a few minor exemptions (postal workers, etc), Trump commands an unorganized militia consisting of every able-bodied man between the ages of 17 and 45. The men don’t need to be in the National Guard. They don’t need to be veterans. They don’t need to be anything except 17 to 45 and able-bodied.

Remember that 10 USC § 253 grants the President the power to use the militia to take such measures as he considers necessary to suppress conspiracy. The militia is statutorily defined to include the unorganized militia. Therefore, when you combine 10 USC § 253 with 10 USC § 246, the President can call on every able-bodied male age 17 to 45 to take any means he deems necessary to suppress the conspiracy to deny Americans their voting rights.

How many men is that? With 328M Americans, 50% of them male, and 40% of them between 18 and 45, that’s 65M militia members.

Organizing the Unorganized: When Trump calls up the unorganized militia, how does it get organized? What Federal statutes, regulations, and case law govern what happens next? The answer… Well, there isn’t one.

“The Citizen-Soldier under Federal and State Law”, a lengthy law review article published in 94 W. Va. L. Rev (1992), reviewed all of the available statutes, regulations, and case law relating to the use of citizen-soldiers. Turns out, there’s not much about the unorganized militia. In fact, in the entirety of the 20th century, there has only been one case: In 1946 Virginia Governor William Mumford Tuck issued a call to the state's unorganized militia to come to the aid of the state and to quell a labor dispute.

Let’s quickly look at what happened. According to the Encyclopedia Virginia, the crisis began when the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) union announced that its members would strike against the Virginia Electric and Power Company unless its demands were met by a deadline of April 1, 1946.

At the time, “Virginia law divided its militia into four classes: the National Guard, the Virginia Defense Force, the naval militia, and the unorganized militia. This latter unit hypothetically consisted of all able-bodied males between the ages of sixteen and fifty-five who could be summoned by the governor if needed.” (Virginia law thus mirrored 10 U.S. Code § 246.)

Two days before the strike deadline, Governor Tuck “unilaterally decreed that all IBEW employees were summarily drafted into the unorganized militia and ordered, on pain of court-martial, to continue at their jobs.” Shortly thereafter, the dispute was resolved and questions as to the constitutionality of Tuck's actions were left unresolved. However, the next month, US President Harry S. Truman “used a similar tactic in threatening to draft into the U.S. Army railway workers whose union, the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen, was calling for a nationwide strike; as in the VEPCO affair, the two sides reached a settlement at the eleventh hour.”

So in the only recorded instance in the last 100 years, an unorganized militia was called up, drafted, and ordered to perform particular duties on pain of court-martial, unilaterally by a governor, without any other legislative action, new statute, or court order. And rather than condemn the governor, the US President thought this idea was so awesome he used it himself the next month on the federal militia.

With no apparent limits whatsoever, the Insurrection Act combined with the Militia Act isn’t just a blank check; it’s a blank check book. Apparently our government can call on its citizens to do whatever it wants! I would protest this, but I’m currently on lockdown.

The Balance of Forces: Let’s return to our earlier assumption that Trump has invoked the Insurrection Act and then used it to call up the militia. Let’s continue to assume that the US Armed Forces are either paralyzed with indecision, split in their loyalties, or opting to stay neutral, and just look at the militia. So who is going to fight?

Now, no matter what the law says, not every eligible militia man would respond to Trump’s call. But it seems likely there’d be a large number who did respond, and an even larger number of noncombatant supporters. Right now, 70% of Republicans don’t think the election was free and fair. If Trump calls on the unorganized militia to save the Republic from voter fraud, a militia will come.

So too would an anti-militia or resistance. In fact, lots of people who are willing to fight are fighting on the streets already. It seems likely that if Trump crosses the Rubicon, he will trigger a civil war, just like Caesar triggered a civil war.

When Caesar crossed the Rubicon, he had only one legion against the might of Rome. What would Trump and his opponents be able to muster? Let’s assess the balance of forces. Trump’ voters consisted of 58% of 98M white men; 55% of 98M white women; 36% of 30M Hispanic men, 28% of 30M Hispanic women, 20% of 22M black men, and 9% of 22M black women.

Meanwhile, the demographics of gun ownership in the US are as follows: 48% of white men own a gun, while only 24% of white women own a gun, 24% of non white men, and 16% of non-white women. Assuming that women largely don’t fight (which is the historical norm), the balance of forces looks like this:

• 98 million white men x 58% Trump voters x 48% gun owners x 40% 18-45 = 11 million white gun-owning Trump militia

• 36 million Hispanic men x 30% Trump voters x 24% gun owners x 40% 18-45 = 1 million Hispanic gun-owning Trump militia

• 22 million black men x 20% Trump voters x 24% gun owners x 40% 18-45 = 0.4 million black gun-owning Trump militia

• 98 million white men x 42% Biden voters x 48% gun owners x 40% 18-45 = 8 million white gun-owning anti-Trump resisters

• 36 million Hispanic men x 70% Biden voters x 24% gun owners x 40% 18-45 = 2.4 million Hispanic gun-owning anti-Trump resisters

• 22 million black men x 80% Biden voters x 24% gun owners x 40% 18-45 = 1.7 million black gun-owning anti-Trump resisters

This basic math suggests 12.4 million potential Trump gun owners and 12.1 million potential anti-Trump gun owners. However, it’s likely the odds would stack more favorably to Trump. Although only 39% of Americans are Republicans, gun owners are actually 64% Republican. In other words, those who own guns are disproportionately Republican by a factor of 1.64! If we replace the percentage of Trump voters with the percentage of Republican gun-owners, then the balance of forces changes to 17.6M pro-Trump and 6.9M anti-Trump.

3% of Americans fought in the Continental Army during the Revolution. If 3% respond to the call for the militia, that would mean between 450,000 to 700,000 militia and 210,000 to 450,000 resisters. To put that in context, there’s only 60,000 soldiers in the Infantry Branch of the US Army.

Of the militia who do respond, those on Trump’s side will be much better trained. As noted earlier, the military’s combat arms are disproportionately white, with the infantry being 79% white and only 9% black. Since the United States has now been at war for 20 years, there are millions of combat veterans, and the vast majority of those who fought as infantry are likely to be on Trump’s side. Likewise, the vast majority of LEO veterans seem likely to fight on Trump’s side, if they chose a side.

The Oathkeepers, a hundred-thousand-strong organization made up of military and law enforcement veterans and personnel, has already stated that it will refuse to recognize a Biden presidency. “We’ll be very much like the founding fathers. We’ll end up nullifying and resisting,” said founder Stewart Rhodes. The founding fathers resisted, of course, with guns.

This Is Not a Drill: Meanwhile, those in the grip of normalcy bias still think that the ‘nuclear option’ is for Trump to ask the state legislatures to appoint some electors to the college. Using legislative ballots isn’t the nuclear option. It’s barely a grenade. The nuclear option is Insurrection Act and the Militia.

Left-wing media is a parade of ostriches marching heads down in the sand. “Trump will lose in a landslide!” Wrong. “Trump has already lost!” Wrong. “There is no evidence of fraud!” Wrong. “Civil War could never happen!” Wrong. Maybe it won’t happen. The future is unpredictable. But it really, really could happen.

If I had told you last November that in the next 12 months the US would endure the worst pandemic since Spanish Flu, AND the worst depression since the Great Depression, AND the worst Constitutional crisis since the Civil War, AND the worst civil unrest since the summer of 1968, AND an unprecedented nation-wide lockdowns that led to the end of sports, bars, restaurants, movies, in-class attendance at school, and commuting to work, AND that it would culminate in the World Economic Forum announcing a Great Reset to the global economy to lock in this new normal, would you have believed me? No, you’d have laughed me off as a tinfoil nutjob. Yet here we are.

To repeat a statistic from earlier: 70% of Republicans think that the most recent election is illegitimate. In a functioning democracy, if 70% of the second-largest political party in the country thinks an election has been stolen, the elites come together to cooperate to investigate and restore legitimacy in the eyes of the voters.

In the US, that’s not happening. Instead, an enormous machine, consisting of tech oligopolies, liberal media, watchdog groups, and partisan activists, is doing everything it can to silence and suppress the dissenters. Simultaneously, this same machine is making enemy lists and actively declaring that when it wins, it will be taking vengeance, against Trump, against everyone who helped him, and against everyone who voted for him.

This is not a drill. This is where we are. If Trump is standing on the banks of the Rubicon, it’s because the leftist machine has purposefully widened the Rubicon River until it reaches his feet.

Clear-headed left-wingers - if there are any left - need to step in and deescalate the threats against Trump and his supporters, and listen to 70 million Americans clamoring for fair and fraud-free voting. There is still time. Otherwise, as another great military leader put it, “when on death ground, you must fight.”

- https://macris.substack.com/

Musical Interlude: Liquid Mind, “Serenity”

Liquid Mind, “Serenity”

"A Look to the Heavens"

"Colorful NGC 1579 resembles the better known Trifid Nebula, but lies much farther north in planet Earth's sky, in the heroic constellation Perseus. About 2,100 light-years away and 3 light-years across, NGC 1579 is, like the Trifid, a study in contrasting blue and red colors, with dark dust lanes prominent in the nebula's central regions.

In both, dust reflects starlight to produce beautiful blue reflection nebulae. But unlike the Trifid, in NGC 1579 the reddish glow is not emission from clouds of glowing hydrogen gas excited by ultraviolet light from a nearby hot star. Instead, the dust in NGC 1579 drastically diminishes, reddens, and scatters the light from an embedded, extremely young, massive star, itself a strong emitter of the characteristic red hydrogen alpha light."

- http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap090130.html

"We Are Mortals All..."

"We are mortals all, human and nonhuman, bound in one fellowship of love and travail. No one escapes the fate of death. But we can, with caring, make our good-byes less tormented. If we broaden the circle of our compassion, life can be less cruel."

- Gary Kowalski

"The Wrong Questions..."

"If they can get you asking the wrong questions, 

they don't have to worry about answers." 

- Thomas Pynchon

Gregory Mannarino, “Markets: A Look Ahead; Potential Targets - DOW 50K, Bitcoin 100K, Gold 6K”

Down the rabbit hole of psychopathic greed and insanity...

Only the consequences are real - to you!

○

Gregory Mannarino,

“Markets: A Look Ahead; Potential Targets - 

DOW 50K, Bitcoin 100K, Gold 6K”

- https://traderschoice.net/

The Daily "Near You?"

Novato, California, USA. Thanks for stopping by!

"A Rebuttal to Klaus Schwab's Article on the Covid-19 Crisis"

By Chris MacIntosh at Capitalist Exploits

"Thought for the day: Totalitarians never view themselves as totalitarian. Utopians believe fervently that what they are forcing upon others is for their own good. If you've not heard of the World Economic Forum, I'd urge you to pay extremely close attention because they've been driving much of the mayhem you've experienced this year. Klaus Schwab, who is the founder of the World Economic Forum, and Thierry Malleret featured an article accompanying the launch of a co-authored book entitled "COVID-19: The Great Reset". This article is a rebuttal to Klaus and all technocrats like him."

○

"A Rebuttal to Klaus Schwab's Article on the Covid-19 Crisis"

Excerpt

"'Already, in barely six months, the COVID-19 pandemic has plunged our world in its entirety - and each of us individually - into the most challenging times we’ve faced in generations.'

Incorrect. The virus is simply a virus, similar to other viruses that humans have overcome throughout our history as a species. Indeed, here are the CDC's numbers themselves so that we may put things into context.

Survival rates by age group:

0-19: 99.997%

20-49: 99.98%

50-69: 99.5%

70+: 94.6%

It was Klaus, our governments and institutions that have plunged the world into "the most challenging times we’ve faced", through their idiotic draconian tyrannical policies that have been forced upon the world with zero room for debate. Highly credentialed professionals (see the Great Barrington declaration) across the world are simply censored when pointing out the madness.

'It is a defining moment - we will be dealing with its fallout for years, and many things will change forever. It has wrought (and will continue to do so) economic disruption of monumental proportions, creating risk and volatility on multiple fronts - political, social, geopolitical - while exacerbating deep concerns about the environment and also extending the reach of technology into our lives.'

On this we agree. We will indeed be dealing with the fallout for years. And yes, the economic disruption is of monumental proportions. Take, for instance, suicides, Klaus, which in Japan are now 8.5X the number of deaths from covid. At this point those officials still locking down, since we know the virus is nothing more than a bad flu should be summarily fired and brought to justice for crimes against humanity."

Please view this complete and vitally important article here:

- https://www.zerohedge.com/news/

"Alito Moves Up Deadline For Supreme Court Briefing In Pennsylvania Case, Bringing Within 'Safe Harbor' Window To Intervene"

"Alito Moves Up Deadline For Supreme Court Briefing In 

Pennsylvania Case, Bringing Within 'Safe Harbor' Window To Intervene"

by Tyler Durden

"Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito has made a critical decision which may signal that court's willingness to hear a controversial case attempting to flip Pennsylvania's 2020 election results. Originally, Alito set a Wednesday deadline for the state to respond to GOP Rep. Mike Kelly's lawsuit alleging that a 2019 state election reform, known as Act 77, violates both the state and federal constitutions by creating a so-called "no-excuse mail-in" voting regime.

Many took the Wednesday deadline as political theater, as it would place the case outside the "safe harbor" window which requires that controversies "concerning the appointment of all or any of the electors . . . by judicial or other methods or procedures" to be determined" at least six days before the time fixed for the meeting of the electors," according to Law & Crime. In other words, the Tuesday deadline may signal that the Supreme Court takes Kelly's case, which was rejected by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court with prejudice last weekend.

According to Kelly's filing, the 'no-excuse mail-in' voting scheme should only apply in a limited number of circumstances, and that people must vote in person unless a narrow list of excuses applies. Thus, Act 77 and related election access laws should be invalidated - along with votes cast under it in the 2020 election.

More via Law & Crime: "In strict theory, the U.S. Supreme Court has no jurisdiction to settle Pennsylvania constitutional issues, such as whether the state statute at question (Act 77) violates the state constitution. Generally, such matters are the exclusive realm of a state supreme court. But there are exceptions to that general concept, Kelly argues, including here. Because the state is acting under a “direct grant of authority” from the U.S. Constitution to manage federal elections, the U.S. Supreme Court can become involved, he argues, and can determine whether the Pennsylvania statutory and constitutional regime of laws violates the U.S. Constitution. Kelly invites the U.S. Supreme Court to conclude as such and, perhaps more dubiously, that the state court’s way of rubbishing the election violates his rights to petition the government and to receive due process under the First and Fourteenth Amendments thereto. He frames the issues this way:

1. Do the Elections and Electors Clauses of the United States Constitution permit Pennsylvania to violate its state constitution’s restrictions on its lawmaking power when enacting legislation for the conduct of federal elections?

2. Do the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution permit the dismissal of Petitioners’ claims with prejudice, on the basis of laches, where doing so foreclosed any opportunity for Petitioners to seek retrospective and prospective relief for ongoing constitutional violations?

The “elections clause” of the U.S. Constitution is Article I, § 4, clause 1. This clause basically says state legislatures can set their own rules for elections: "The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but Congress may at any time make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Place of choosing Senators."

The U.S. Supreme Court has said the framers intended the clause as “a grant of authority to issue procedural regulations, and not as a source of power to dictate electoral outcomes, to favor or disfavor a class of candidates, or to evade important constitutional restraints.” (Naturally, many of Trump’s supporters are attempting to do the opposite of that.)"

- https://www.zerohedge.com/

○

Related:

• "Did They Steal the Election From Trump?"

• "How Much Fraud Was There?"

○

12/06/2020 - 14:55: "'Big Win For Honest Elections'- Judge Allows Forensic Audit Of Dominion Voting Machines In Michigan"