RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.frontpagemag.com/point/2020/12/failed-mayor-atlanta-under-investig

Hey Joe, you can’t just buy off Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms of Atlanta with any old cabinet position. It must be a position commensurate with her incredible talents.

Joe Biden implored Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms to accept a job heading the Small Business Administration earlier this week, a lesser position she rejected after he characterized it as “only the first step” for her during his presidency, according to people familiar with the discussion.

“Implored”. 

Lance Bottoms, a rising African American star and favorite of powerful Rep. James Clyburn, is open to serving in the Cabinet during his term if the role is right, one person told Axios.

Clyburn, if you recall, handed the primary to Biden, and has a lot of chips to call in.

Bottoms’ allies describe her as a family-oriented politician — she has four young children — who’s weighing the massive lifestyle change a move to Washington, D.C. would require against the nature of the work she’d be undertaking.

While interested in small business development, leading a Cabinet-level agency like SBA was not the right fit for the chief executive of a major city — a position of considerable clout in the New South that Lance Bottoms loves, one person familiar with her thinking told Axios.

Considerable clout. You can’t just offer Bottoms any position. It’s gotta be a lot more important than a mere pork factory like the SBA. Not when you’re dealing with the incredible dynamo running the Atlanta hellscape into the ground after battling her ethics issues.

The court date has been reset for Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms to respond to a subpoena for alleged ethics violations.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2020/12/who_has_the_power_to_appoint_presidential_electors.html

Now that inferior election officials in Arizona have rejected a legally issued legislative subpoena from the Arizona Senate Judiciary committee to turn over Dominion machines and software for inspection, the Legislature of Arizona must use its enforcement powers to compel these officials to respect their plenary authority over presidential elector appointment.

But what enforcement authority is available to the Arizona Legislature?  It’s not the Judiciary.  And it’s not a sheriff, or state capital police.  The Arizona Legislature has plenary authority over appointing presidential electors.  All it has to do is self-convene by quorum in each branch, or by joint ballot, then vote to send Trump electors; then send the slate to Washington, D.C.  That’s how you enforce the subpoena.

But then you do one more thing, Arizona Legislature.  You sprint into federal district court, and you demand a Writ of Prohibition against Vice President Pence, ordering him not to open the previous slate of presidential electors sent by Arizona.  And you will win that writ.  Here’s why:

3 USC §§5–15 ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL

Congress cannot order a state Legislature regarding how to exercise its plenary authority.  All Congress can do is set the time presidential electors must be appointed (see the federal Election Day statute) and when electors must meet and give their ballots.  My previous report on the timing proved that the hard deadline is January 4, 2021 and that December 14 was not the last possible date.  There’s still time for each contested result to be set straight by the state Legislatures.

Everyone should read and study the undisputed SCOTUS precedent on plenary authority of the state Legislatures over choosing presidential electors, McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1, 36 (1892):

‘Whatever provisions may be made by statute, or by the state constitution, to choose electors by the people, there is no doubt of the right of the legislature to resume the power at any time, for it can neither be taken away nor abdicated.’

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2020/12/as_runoffs_loom_georgias_election_integrity_is_a_joke.html

Although it seems as though it took place long ago, in a year that has seemed to drag on from one low point to another, the November 3 election happened less than seven weeks ago.  Ever since then, countless personal accounts of election irregularities, conflicting reporting from partisan media, and the numerous delays from many GOP leaders in accepting the possibility of Joe Biden being sworn in as our 46th president have been the political reality in America.

At the core of our current state of disputation is the question of election integrity.  We’ve seen numerous legal challenges and thousands of affidavits filed and have had to go through the exercise of observing “social media lawyers” misusing legalese and framing irrelevant or fallacious arguments, and yet we still do not know how safe and secure the American election system really is going forward, post-2020.

In the state of Georgia, where the eyes of the nation have turned in advance of a set of pivotal Senate elections that will determine control of Congress’s upper chamber, Republicans have already filed two federal and one state-level lawsuit related to the January 5 run-offs, which have already seen hundreds of thousands of people vote by mail or in person.  The legal challenges primarily centered on the use of drop-boxes for returning absentee ballots as well as raising the level of scrutiny applied in verifying signatures on those ballots.

The two federal suits were dismissed by district judges in the past few days; they opined that the Republican plaintiffs, who were a combination of local, state, and national Republican Party groups, lacked legal standing for their arguments.

“To defeat Trump,” writes Victor Davis Hanson, “many of our institutions were deformed.” Indeed, we have witnessed a flagrant burlesque of electoral procedure, including the specter of foreign interference by China, Iran and Russia via Dominion Voting Systems in gerrymandering electoral results, as Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe has confirmed. And there will be lasting consequences. The effect of installing a parodic figure like Joe Biden, straight out of the Commedia dell’Arte, as the next president of the United States will result in three destabilizing factors.

A nation presided over by a sorry puppet who has been put in place by a political, technological and wealthy elite employing counterfeit means will become progressively dysfunctional. Secondly, an administration that owes its ascendancy to obvious electoral chicanery will look and sound like a banana republic, a wavering shadow of its former self, and an international laughing stock to be taken advantage of by its adversaries and competitors.

Finally, the idea of secession will enter the public domain. Rush Limbaugh worries that America is “trending toward secession.” Texas GOP chairman Allen West suggested that law-abiding states should “bond together and form a union of states that will abide by the Constitution.” Though he asserted “I never say anything about secession,” the implication is certainly present. Texit is in the wind. As Rep. Kyle Biedermann (R-Fredericksburg) said, “I am committing to file legislation this session that will allow a referendum to give Texans a vote for the State of Texas to reassert its status as an independent nation.”

Attorney Frank Friday has an amusing blog post at American Thinker, dismissing the notion of secession as unworkable and advocating instead for a football-league model of blue state realignment with Canada (Can-America) — as if Canada would be interested. Red state Big America would assume the burden of responsible statecraft and constitutional probity. The article is a lighthearted spoof, gets a dig in at Mark Levin’s eminently sensible The Liberty Amendments, but buries the alarming possibility of a secession scenario, along the lines, perhaps, of the “velvet divorce” which divided Czechoslovakia into Czech Republic and Slovakia. Of course, the conditions were far simpler then, for obvious historical and territorial reasons, but stand as a template for pragmatic action.