Rand issues 1/6/21 statement:

[Invisible Man]

It wasn't a vote to overturn the election. It was a check and balance to verify the validity of the legislatures choice. Why are we educating politicians?

Each member of Congress takes an oath to uphold the Constitution. The Constitution does not grant them the check and balance you are talking about.

 

[hard@work]

We've read the Federalist papers. We know what they say. Say what you want Rand lost a massive chunk of popular support. So he goes forward without this. We go forward with half the nation having no concern for the constitution. Now, we have another half which no longer believes it has held. So he goes forward as a constitutionalist with this.

 

[Pauls' Revere]

With social media merging with the state our options are thin. What we did well in 2007 on Youtube will never happen organically again. It will happen again under the control of their algorithms. If the corporate state controls all content and communications, in addition to a new suite of propaganda tools, what exactly can a heterodox political theory do to compete?

Personally, I think it's time for a divorce. A peaceful economic and intellectual separation. Libertarians love to talk about markets. Maybe it is time to create our very own. As we are moving into an era where machines are watching and acting then I think we need to start looking there.

+ rep

 

[Michael Landon]

Thoughts on this article....

https://uncoverdc.com/2021/01/08/rand-paul-and-national-suicide/

Rand Paul and National Suicide
By Larry Schweikart

Rand Paul is noted among conservatives as one of the more Constitutionally-oriented voices in the Senate. He has consistently been a state’s rights advocate. Last night, in a letter and Twitter thread, Paul offered a spirited defense of his vote to accept the electors for Joe Biden sent by Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. The vote, and subsequent certification, of every one of these states, has been challenged (to say the least) as fraudulent at best, totally illegitimate at worst. Paul’s acceptance of what appears to be fraudulently-obtained electors from a Constitutional perspective appears to be worth analysis.

This is the speech I'll be giving today from an undisclosed location.

— Senator Rand Paul (@RandPaul) January 6, 2021

Paul states that “Voting to overturn state-certified elections would be the opposite of what States’ right Republicans have always advocated for.” Here, he is probably correct. It would involve Congress substituting its will for state legislatures, which are strongly empowered in the Constitution. “Our founders never intended that Congress have the power to overturn state-certified elections.” He then argued that his “oath to the Constitution doesn’t allow me to disobey the law.”

But what does the Constitution say about extenuating circumstances? Does it allow the nation to vote itself into slavery, or to commit national suicide by electing a Hitler or Chavez? For the most part, the phrase in the Declaration of Independence, that “whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends [life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness], it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.” However, almost immediately after establishing the Constitution, Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist No. 28 that rebellion endangered all government. Thus the right of rebellion was tossed out the door.

The 14th Amendment, however, offered a different, Constitutional, scenario: “But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.” Or, if there is a fraudulent election that denies to citizens the right to vote or abridges that right in any way, the state is penalized by a reduction in its representation. That would appear to mean that electors would not be accepted.

The larger question would be, “Is there a level of fraud that is so obvious and repulsive that it’s a clear violation of the 14th Amendment and would override the will of the states?” If so, what is that line? How much fraud constitutes “enough” for Congress to overturn an election by the states?

We have an answer, and it contradicts Senator Paul. In 1877, three Southern states (Florida, Louisiana, and South Carolina) produced results for Samuel Tilden, the Democrat that was obtained by fraud and threats of violence against Republican (mostly black) voters. It was noted that In South Carolina, 101% of all eligible voters had voted. (Shades of several Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin counties). Congress acted because it had “dueling electors,” that is, electoral slates for the Democrats signed by the state attorney general (Florida), the Democratic gubernatorial candidate (Louisiana) or none at all (South Carolina). Congress solved this crisis by passing a law (note: after the fact), forming an “electoral commission” to settle the issue. The key fact—which might be of interest to Senator Paul—is that what triggered the need for this commission was fraud at the state level. It was very clear, therefore, that all elections were not equal, that they must be free and fair so as to not violate the 14th Amendment.

There is no doubt from any historians that the Founders regarded violations of political and civil rights as a form of slavery, that is, the lack of sovereignty. This argument goes to a far deeper and, to be honest, more cloudy larger debate: do the citizens of a democracy in their personal sovereignty, or in a republic collectively, have the right to sell themselves into slavery? (Slavery is prohibited in the 13th and 14th Amendments). More broadly, do those citizens have the right to commit national suicide by electing a Hitler or Hugo Chavez? In both cases, one of the first acts of these despots was to prohibit or abolish congress or the judiciary (or curtail their powers to make them “un-democratic”). Is this legitimate, Senator Paul?

Interestingly, no states any longer list suicide as a crime (What are they gonna do, give you the death penalty?); nevertheless, every state had laws making it a felony to aid, advise, or encourage another to suicide. Why? If killing yourself is acceptable, why is it unacceptable for another to urge you to kill yourself? As late as 2018, a Maryland man was convicted of attempted suicide. California medical facilities are required to commit anyone who, in their estimation, is suicidal. Why?

Because despite all the convolutions of abortion law, life is still more or less held to be sacred, and one cannot take one’s own life because it does not belong to you. This same reasoning is applied to a nation. Because of the act’s finality, a nation may not vote itself into slavery or commit suicide because doing so would violate the fundamental rights of all, including those who did not vote for it. What does this mean for electors and fraudulent elections? It has to mean the same thing: that the fundamental political and civil rights of all are violated by permitting fraudulent votes. So, Senator Paul, can you please explain how you are permitted to violate the 14th Amendment and invalidate the votes of 74 million people because properly labeling the certified elections of fraud as legitimate in five or six states supports “state’s rights?” I await your next defense of the indefensible.

- ML

 

[Thor]

Hi, I am Rand Paul, I don't actually believe in freedom and liberty, but I play like I do to help control those who would overthrow the government if nobody listened... Hold on, let me see what the deep state is telling me.... be right back...

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Thoughts on this article....

Paul states that “Voting to overturn state-certified elections would be the opposite of what States’ right Republicans have always advocated for.” Here, he is probably correct. It would involve Congress substituting its will for state legislatures, which are strongly empowered in the Constitution. “Our founders never intended that Congress have the power to overturn state-certified elections.” He then argued that his “oath to the Constitution doesn’t allow me to disobey the law.”

But what does the Constitution say about extenuating circumstances?

https://uncoverdc.com/2021/01/08/rand-paul-and-national-suicide/



- ML

Ugh. “Extenuating circumstances” is exactly how we got to where we are. Allowing Congress to reverse State elections is one Pandora’s Box that we don't want to open. As we well, know Democrats know no boundaries, and would immediately use it.

“Extenuating circumstances” is another easily abused precedent or standard, and it was abused by Democrats and their GOP allies with the COVID “crisis”. Many States essentially changed election law without any legislation due to the “emergency” of COVID.

Congress acted because it had “dueling electors,”

There were no dueling electors this election. And if a state legislature had declared the vote fraudulent, and selected a competing slate of electors, they would have a very solid case. At that point, a Constitutionalist would have to follow the Constitution and give preference to the legislature. But once again, that would be a terrible precedent.

There are no good options when the government investigates itself, and finds no evidence of wrongdoing (or as the courts mostly did, refused to hear the cases).

 

[eleganz]

Rand is partially right and partially wrong.

Yes the states did certify and yes he should respect that but at the same time, the same swing state legislatures all wrote letters to denounce the certification as evidence piled up. GA, AZ, PA were all waiting for the legislative session to come back so they can vote on de-certification. Each of those states' governors were unwilling to authorize a special session.

It was convenient for Rand because the easy way out for him was the principled position.

The evidence of election fraud was there but state executives blocked in every possible way, from ignore/delay, to attack and destroy evidence.

Ron saw the fraud, even Rand saw the fraud. That is all.

 

[Occam's Banana]

Thoughts on this article....

https://uncoverdc.com/2021/01/08/rand-paul-and-national-suicide/

[...]

But what does the Constitution say about extenuating circumstances? [...]

- ML

Ugh. “Extenuating circumstances” is exactly how we got to where we are. Allowing Congress to reverse State elections is one Pandora’s Box that we don't want to open. As we well, know Democrats know no boundaries, and would immediately use it.

“Extenuating circumstances” is another easily abused precedent or standard, and it was abused by Democrats and their GOP allies with the COVID “crisis”. Many States essentially changed election law without any legislation due to the “emergency” of COVID.

If patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel, "extenuating circumstances" is often the first.

(File under "But It's For The Children!!")

 

[TRM1361]

Thoughts on this article....

https://uncoverdc.com/2021/01/08/rand-paul-and-national-suicide/

- ML

Thank you. He articulates my position quite well but mine is much shorter ... cowardice.

 

[eleganz]

Ugh. “Extenuating circumstances” is exactly how we got to where we are. Allowing Congress to reverse State elections is one Pandora’s Box that we don't want to open. As we well, know Democrats know no boundaries, and would immediately use it.

“Extenuating circumstances” is another easily abused precedent or standard, and it was abused by Democrats and their GOP allies with the COVID “crisis”. Many States essentially changed election law without any legislation due to the “emergency” of COVID.



There were no dueling electors this election. And if a state legislature had declared the vote fraudulent, and selected a competing slate of electors, they would have a very solid case. At that point, a Constitutionalist would have to follow the Constitution and give preference to the legislature. But once again, that would be a terrible precedent.

There are no good options when the government investigates itself, and finds no evidence of wrongdoing (or as the courts mostly did, refused to hear the cases).

First, there was already a precedent of congress objecting to a (perceived) fairly won election, democrats from several states objected to Trump. So for Rand to object is not precedent setting.

And how about setting precedent of the state supreme court to circumvent the state legislatures? because that is exactly what they did in several states. fFor PA, the court overrode literal word for word law in Act 77, which stated the law cannot be overridden by the judicial branch, hello?

And how about setting precedent for election fraud and the cover up that followed?

Here is the reason I don't blame Rand even though I disagree with him;

Nobody that was using common sense expected both houses to reject the electoral slates. That in itself was an impossibility. That is not the issue here.

What was being asked of Pence wasn't to throw out elector slates, his open letter on 1/6 was a distraction. It was for him to put it back to the state legislators due to the state electoral laws not being followed. Prof. Eastman gave the roadmap to the Constitutionality of what was being asked. Pence's team did the safe thing (I don't blame them) for his legacy and gave him cover by making some excuse that he couldn't just throw them out like that. If the legislators decline to de-certify then let that be the final word.

Doesn't matter now, what happened has happened. By 1/20, if Biden is inaugurated, this election fraud will be sealed and the victor will write the history books. We all knew democrats (and reps, but less) stole elections but this time they did it out in the open and doubled down like it didn't matter. It is what it is.

 

[hard@work]

(I don't blame them)

A thousand years of darkness for convenience and appearance? Going back to the day jobs for four years of hostile assaults on Christians? Race-based identity politics, eugenics, and complete corporate control over the minds of our youth? Yeah, I don't fucking think so. It's time to kick up some dust in this country. It is time to get angry, real angry, and turn the boat around.

They are liars, thieves, thugs, and cheats.

Where is Rand's leadership on this? Making PR statements about one loss of life and ignoring the other. That's not leadership and it is definitely not presidential leadership.

There is more than enough evidence not just of vote fraud but of violent hypocrisy. We need firebrands not passive compliance.