BLACK REPUBLICAN BLOG

///////////////////////////////////////////
First shipment of Pfizer-BioNTech coronavirus vaccine leaves Michigan
facility

Posted: 13 Dec 2020 06:45 AM PST
[link removed]


By Evie Fordham | FOXBusiness
First wave of deliveries will see 150 locations supplied with the vaccine.
Boxes containing the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine are prepared to be
shipped at the Pfizer Global Supply Kalamazoo manufacturing plant in
Portage, Mich., Sunday, Dec. 13, 2020. (AP Photo/Morry Gash, Pool)
The first shipment of the Pfizer coronavirus vaccine is loaded at the
Kalamazoo, Michigan facility. Sunday is a historic day in the nation's
fight against the coronavirus pandemic.
The first truck carrying a COVID-19 vaccine for widespread use in the
United States pulled out of a Kalamazoo, Mich., manufacturing plant Sunday
morning, with the shots that are critical to stopping the nation's
coronavirus outbreak destined to reach locations in all 50 states a day
later.
The loading process began Sunday morning. The first wave of deliveries
will see 150 locations supplied with the Pfizer-BioNTech’s COVID-19
vaccine, and a further 450 sites will see supplies in the second shipment.
The vaccine is timed to arrive Monday morning so that health workers can
receive the shot before administering it themselves. Shipments of the
Pfizer vaccine will set in motion the biggest vaccination effort in
American history at a critical juncture of the pandemic that has killed 1.6
million and sickened 71 million worldwide. Initially, about 3 million doses
were expected to be sent out, and the priority is health care workers and
nursing home residents as infections, hospitalizations and deaths soar in
the U.S. With numbers likely to get worse over the holidays, the vaccine is
offering a bright spot in the fight against the pandemic that's killed
nearly 300,000 Americans. Federal officials say the first shipments of
Pfizer’s vaccine will be staggered, arriving in 145 distribution centers
Monday, with an additional 425 sites getting shipments Tuesday, and the
remaining 66 on Wednesday. The vaccine, co-developed by German partner
BioNTech, is being doled out based on each state's adult population. Fox
News' Peter Aitken and the Associated Press contributed to this report.
[link removed]

///////////////////////////////////////////
We Don't Need SCOTUS to Win

Posted: 12 Dec 2020 08:57 AM PST
[link removed]


By James Arlandson | The American Thinker
The Texas suit, later joined by other states, against Wisconsin,
Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Georgia, was a nice try, but it was always a
long shot. Of course SCOTUS would be reluctant to grab so much power by
ordering state legislatures to seat the right electors. Why? Because the
power is already in the hands of the legislatures to do this. Though we
are non-lawyers, let's read these laws together, interpreting them
minimally and plainly (something lawyers seem incapable of doing). The
first federal law for our purposes, titled "Determination of controversy as
to appointment of electors," says: If any State shall have provided, by
laws enacted prior to the day fixed for the appointment of the electors,
for its final determination of any controversy or contest concerning the
appointment of all or any of the electors of such State, by judicial or
other methods or procedures, and such determination shall have been made at
least six days before the time fixed for the meeting of the electors, such
determination made pursuant to such law so existing on said day, and made
at least six days prior to said time of meeting of the electors, shall be
conclusive, and shall govern in the counting of the electoral votes as
provided in the Constitution, and as hereinafter regulated, so far as the
ascertainment of the electors appointed by such State is concerned. So this
provision, if I understand it correctly, says that states may appoint
electors after a controversy ("controversy or contest"). Now, what happens
when fraud and illegalities are so egregious that they help one candidate
exclusively and harm only one candidate in such a way that it is unclear
which electors shall be appointed? That definitely qualifies to become
a "controversy or contest." The provision opens the door to each state
legislature having the right to determine how the state can appoint
electors ("appointment of electors" and "ascertainment of electors").
(This is already clear in the Twelfth Amendment, but here this provision
gives more clarity after a controversy.) Bottom line: The electors for
Biden, the "fake winner," can be set aside if that is what each individual
state law allows. What does each state law say? It's up to them to tell
us, because researching each state's law is too burdensome for average
citizens. But it is safe to assume that the states have "plenary power" to
appoint the electors of their choosing, particularly when the Constitution
actually says the state legislatures determine things. The Electors Clause
— Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution — provides
that "[e]ach state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof
may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and
Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress." (Hat
tip.) However, what about the "six days" in the election law provision?
The next federal law, in a section titled "failure to make a choice before
prescribed day," says: Whenever any State has held an election for the
purpose of choosing electors, and has failed to make a choice on the day
prescribed by law, the electors may be appointed on a subsequent day in
such a manner as the legislature of such State may direct. The states can
determine when they appoint the electors "on a subsequent day" (not the
next day). The phrase "In such a manner as the legislature of such State
may direct" gives the states much leeway to select the right electors,
which agrees with the Electors Clause, cited above. And if the controversy
in selecting electors, caused by fraud and illegalities, persists past Dec.
14, then the states can ignore the date and follow their need to further
investigate fraud and illegalities. The whole thing can work out like
this, apart from the Texas lawsuit before SCOTUS. The undisputed states
vote electorally on Dec. 14, and neither Biden nor Trump reaches 270, so
neither one is the winner. The five GOP state legislatures (Arizona,
Michigan, Georgia, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania) of the six disputed states
(minus Nevada) say they need to postpone their electoral votes because they
are investigating fraud and illegalities. The legislatures perform due
diligence (they have been holding hearings to collect the evidence) and
conclude that fraud and illegalities unilaterally hurt Trump and helped
only Biden. Assuming that the Democrat Legislature in Nevada says
everything was legitimate, each disputed GOP state may reach this
conclusion on any day after Dec. 14 — say, on Dec. 27 or even Jan. 15.
Then they appoint electors who vote for the rightful winner: Trump
(provided the GOP-selected electors do not suffer from TDS). These votes
are added in to the votes cast on Dec. 14. Trump goes past 270 electoral
votes. He wins! However, what happens if the disputed states cannot select
the electors, and neither Trump or Biden reaches 270? Then it goes to the
House of Representatives, and each state has one vote, and this one vote is
determined by the political makeup of the state legislatures. The GOP
controls 29 state legislatures, and the Democrats have 19 (two are split).
Trump wins again. Therefore, we don't need SCOTUS to win, and we never
needed it. So what happen next, and what can regular folks do now? First,
we can keep up the pressure on the legislators of those five GOP states to
select electors who will vote for the rightful winner, who is obviously
Trump. Some of the members in these legislatures may suffer from TDS, so
the message must be sent that they have to set aside their irrational
opposition and do the right thing. Second, Sidney Powell's legal team can
continue with their lawsuits, so they can expose and uproot Dominion Voting
Systems. Now the goal will not be to overturn elections, but to get rid of
the flawed, rigged system. This goal is much more realistic and easier to
accomplish. The court cases will take a long time. But that's okay,
because they keep in the public view the "fake president" and 2024, if
Biden (unjustly) prevails. Third, we must counter the left-wing pressure,
including their threats of violence, that will be thrust on these little
known state politicians. Without threats of violence on our side, we can
still stand firm to support and defend them. The battle is not over. It
was always going to boil down to the legislatures without SCOTUS. If we
keep up the fight, we shall win with knowledge and the law on our side.
Please visit James Arlandson's website, where he has recently posted Matt.
24:4-35 Predicts Destruction of Jerusalem and Temple, Matt. 24:36 to
25:46--From the Second Coming to the New Messianic Age, Cosmic Disasters =
Apocalyptic Imagery for Judgment and Major Change.
[link removed]
________________________________ RELATED ARTICLES Supreme Court's Texas
Ruling is Nothing Short of Disgrace By Howard J. Warner | The American
Thinker
Image credit: Picryl public domain, image orientation modified. Friday
evening the United States Supreme Court decided to not take the Texas
lawsuit against four states over their application of presidential election
law. The Court only mustered two justices in favor of taking the case:
Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas. The argument against hearing the case
was that Texas lacked standing to sue Michigan, Georgia, Wisconsin, and
Pennsylvania. Wow! In a podcast titled “Is Secession Upon Us?” Ben Shapiro
argued against the Supreme Court taking the Texas lawsuit. He reasoned
that under principles of federalism it would threaten our union if the
sovereign states could dictate the laws of other states without resulting
direct damages. This goes to one of the three principles of legal
standing. His concern considers that in the future, the Court under a
left-leaning majority would use this concept to attack more conservative
states and their laws. His thinking is reasonable and likely figured into
a rejection of the case by the seven other justices. Yet, I doubt that
this was the essential point in this case. If we examine Marbury v. Madison
(1803), Chief Justice John Marshall set the principle of judicial review of
congressional laws. He determined that Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of
1789 violated Article III of the Constitution by illegally enlarging the
role of the Supreme Court from an appellate jurisdiction to one of original
jurisdiction. His reasoning was excellent. But one must also consider the
political implications. President Thomas Jefferson, an ardent opponent of
last-minute appointments made by the John Adams administration, would
likely refuse to obey a writ of mandamus to sit Marbury as a judge,
rendering the Court impotent. He reaffirmed the ideal suggested by
Alexander Hamilton in Federalist No. 78 of judicial review as a way of
avoiding a political risk and thereby strengthened the Court’s power. In
this case, standing was an issue because Marbury brought the lawsuit to the
wrong court. I believed that Justice Roberts would only desire a unanimous
decision should the Court take the case. Interestingly the three Trump
appointees, demonstrating independence, refused the case. Perhaps they saw
merit in the Shapiro argument. Possibly they saw their ability to render
opinions in the future being questioned by intervening in the presidential
election on behalf of their benefactor. So, is there any standing in this
case? A simple reading of Article III Section 2 makes the Supreme Court the
original jurisdiction in all cases of state-to-state actions. It allows
original jurisdiction between citizens of different states. This is the
root of the lawsuit claiming damages from illegally cast votes in a
presidential election. There is no requirement to take any case and herein
lies the real issue. The argument fails to mention any corruption or
irregularities that could be remedied by the Court. When a court chooses
to avoid a hearing, it can do so through the principle of standing.
Standing, according to the free legal dictionary by Farlex: "is the name of
the federal law doctrine that focuses on whether a prospective plaintiff
can show that some personal legal interest has been invaded by the
defendant. It is not enough that a person is merely interested as a member
of the general public in the resolution of the dispute." The three
liberals, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagin, and Stephen Breyer would fear
allowing the conservative majority any latitude in this case. In such a
case it usually takes 5 justices to hear the case. The majority chose to
avoid this case because it would be politically dangerous. What is the
purpose of the Supreme Court? It was intended to adjudicate the essential
protections of our Constitution. A fair and honest election must be a part
of this protection. We are a republic and select electors (that ultimately
choose the president), who are apportioned based upon the population of
each state and jurisdiction. Failure to follow the Constitutional
prescription under Article II section 1 that grants the legislatures the
sole power to choose electors renders this clause useless and must be a
permanent harm to citizens of different states. Failure to hear this case
is an abrogation of the Court’s role to protect our institutions. As to
Shapiro’s concern that expanding federal power to examine the sovereignty
of the states misses a reliable fact: In the future, the liberals will do
so if it serves their interests, as they have expanded federal power in the
past. They do not need any precedent as they create their own. After all,
they ignore restriction in the Constitution when it is convenient. They
will use any means to accomplish a desired result. The Court did not have
to dismiss the electors in the four states. They could have ruled that the
procedures used to change election law in the four states was in violation
of the clear wording in the Constitution. Thereby, the Court would be
reaffirming that provision of the Constitution. They could have demanded
evidence of the harm. If they found insufficient evidence to change the
election in each state, they could then leave the result. Should evidence
be sufficient (and this is a high hurdle) to change the result of the
election, they could apply the Court’s 1892 ruling in McPherson v. Blacker
to have the legislature make the final decision via electors. Then they
restore the political responsibility of state’s elected officials, which
the most important aspect of federalism as a counter to expanded national
power. As to harm, it is not hard to see it. Any illegal vote damages
those who vote legally by distorting the outcome. This occurs in the
presidential election and in the election of representatives to congress,
where few votes might separate winners and losers (as in NY-22 in 2020).
The Court can see harm when it chooses to do so since states’ citizens are
not third parties. However, on Friday, the Court’s majority demonstrated a
lack of fortitude. For a divided and skeptical citizenry this is
disappointing. An overwhelming majority of Trump’s voters (and a large
minority of Biden’s voters) feel this was a dishonest election. A judicial
review would provide some comfort to those citizens that perceive real harm
by the elitist establishment class. Failure to recognize this feeling and
examine it increases their discontent and isolation. Now the battle cry of
“stop the steal” will reverberate for years. Perhaps there is fear that
evidence of irregularities would demonstrate the real corruption of the
establishment and swamp -- the thirst for power. If this was a
consideration, it is disgraceful!
[link removed]
_______________________________ After SCOTUS's knife in the back, what
Trump must do now By C. Edmund Wright
Today, Donald Trump is the most dangerous man on the planet. At this
moment, America needs him more than he needs America. Trump could shoot
the biggest middle finger ever to the entire nation, retire to a private
island, or his penthouse, or his Florida compound, overcook his prime
steaks and douse them with ketchup, and really — who could blame him? It's
not as if he'll outlive his money. He doesn't need us. He doesn't need
anyone. He has "F-U" money, and unlike others with big money — such as
Nancy Pelosi and Dianne Feinstein and everyone ever named Kennedy — he
doesn't have this sick psychotic need to rule over others for 60 years of
government life. Trump is the freest man on the planet tonight. He needs
nothing. We, however, are no longer the freest people on the planet. We
need some help. Our feckless Supreme Court has chosen guaranteed cocktail
party invitations with the beautiful people in the swamp over the
Constitutional Republic — and favored phony pieces of mailed ballots and
theoretical Dominion algorithms over flesh-and-blood voters. As it stands,
President Donald Trump faces what may be the most distasteful test of
patriotism any president has ever faced. And it may be among the most
important ever as well. To be fair, this is not the horrible choice of
instantly killing hundreds of thousands of non-combatant citizens —
including kids — the kind of decisions surrounding the bombings of Dresden,
Hiroshima, and Nagasaki in World War 2. Clearly not. But on a personal
gut level, it must be an even more bitter choice. And again, in this, we
need him more than he needs us — or anyone, or anything. We will find out
whether or not Trump can maintain his love of country and commitment to
duty, just hours and days after that country's core institutions have
proven to be incredibly corrupt and immovably stacked against him and his
voters. Can he muster enough love of America to overcome what must be a
well earned deep well of hate and resentment toward this nations' highest
court, its entire media complex, the entertainment industry, and the entire
educational establishment? After four years of unprecedented and
unimaginable hate and lies from all quarters, can he possibly still give a
damn? I'm not sure I could. And I don't have F-U money to fall back on.
The question now is, will he muster the energy to do the right thing? The
right thing is to somehow swallow this absurd and evil election result and
soldier on to Georgia once again to try to salvage the Republic by
supporting two Republican senators hardly worthy of mention. Donald Trump
deserves better. We all deserve better. And it is the fact that we all
deserve better, and the fact that Trump seems to care about such things,
that gives me hope. As we know, 50 thousand Trump voters can fill a
stadium or a huge field — whereas Biden can't draw a baker's dozen with
free ice cream. However, 400 thousand Biden voters can fit in a small mail
truck, or perhaps an even smaller thumb drive. It is this unsettling
knowledge that threatens the upcoming Georgia Senate races, and with it,
the future of the Republic. There's no doubt that Georgia conservatives
would defeat the Dems probably 60-40 in a fair fight. But what are the
odds of that? The question Georgians must be asking is, why should I go
stand in line for hours to vote one time, when Stacy Abrams can find half a
million votes hidden in her 3 A.M. cheeseburger combo? It's a fair
question. My gut tells me that only one man can convince the squeamish to
keep on keeping on. It's the only man who can draw Rolling Stone–sized
crowds to a political rally. I'm not sure we could have survived four
years of Hillary on the heels of eight disastrous years of Obama. I'm
quite sure we cannot survive four months or whatever of Joe Biden, followed
by 44 months of Harris-Pelosi-Schumer rule of Obama's third term. Trump
can survive. His family can survive. They have the means to live above
the fray. Most of us do not. But I think and hope he knows that. And
while the passive-aggressive jerk in me — once removed — almost would take
some perverse pleasure in him giving the entire nation the middle finger,
the father, grandfather, businessman, and patriot in me hopes he is able to
summon his better angels for one more fight in Georgia. It's a big, big
ask. It's a lot to swallow...so much that I can't imagine it. But Mr.
President, we need it. The extremely average Kelly Loeffler and David
Perdue might prevail without you, but it's a much safer road with you. You
don't owe it, but you didn't owe the last four years, either. So I'm
asking. Edmund Wright is long time contributor to American Thinker,
Breitbart, Newsmax, The Rush Limbaugh Show, and Talk Radio Net and the
author of numerous political books.
[link removed]

--
You are subscribed to email updates from "BLACK REPUBLICAN BLOG."
To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now:
[link removed]

Email delivery powered by Google.
Google, 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043, United States