I hate having to give the (National Socialist) Democrat Party kudos, but in this case I have to.

They are doing a pretty good job of hijacking the court packing issue that the Republicans are justifiably using against Bunker Joe. They are working hard to deflect an issue that is dogging him and has been made worse when he was asked if the people deserve an answer and he said “No”.

To put it another way, we peons shouldn’t worry about things that could potentially have a major impact on our lives. Creepy Uncle Joe knows best.

In case you haven’t noticed, they are starting to accuse President Trump and Republicans in the past of “packing” the court with their choices. Ignore the fact that everything they did was open and above board, not to mention legal. The ‘rats have NEVER picked judges based on their willingness to legislate from the bench and overturn the will of the people. NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!

I have heard one ‘rat operative, I mean elected official, start a new talking point by saying President Trump stated he was basing his judicial selections based on their stated willingness to vote against Roe v. Wade and to get rid of Obamacare. He even said the Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee have said the same thing.

Really? Really? I know I have heard him say he was going to nominate Originalist, judges who follow the Constitution as written, not as they want it to read. But I don’t know of any time he said he would nominate based on how they would rule. That’s a (National Socialist) Democrat thing.

The ‘rats are so beside themselves over this appointment that Bunker Joe is trying to tell people what’s happening is unconstitutional. With Creepy Uncle Joe manhandling women and girls, The Wicked Witch of the West trying rewrite the Constitution one her own to suit her whims without bothering to use the lawful way of doing it, and Kamala Harris busy setting up a pool on how many months before Uncle Joe is officially declared unfit for office and she gets to takes over, it’s shaping up to be a very interesting election.

I’ve said it before, hunker down and ammo up. Things have the potential for getting wild.

Alan Marshall

With more and more reports and stories about the lawless animals taking to the streets with the intent looting, burning and destroying the property of law abiding citizens, the real gorilla in the room is what can we as individual citizens do to protect and defend our families, our property and our lives when for all appearances law enforcement, primarily at the upper echelons of leadership, do not intervene.

As always I don’t blame the officers on the line. They have to follow the instructions given to them, frustrating as they often are. Plus they cannot be everywhere at once. Add to that how Das and SGs that turn around and refuse to charge or even simply ignore the law and release the offenders to return to the riots. Now they have become so emboldened as to directly attacking officers. The next step is obvious. They will begin doxing individual officers, putting their families in danger. What happens then? Would you leave your home knowing your family could be attacked? These tactics are straight out of the handbook.

But back to us, the individual citizen and business owner. We saw what happened in downtown Greensboro. Unrest and destruction and who was held responsible? Yet if a citizen or a business owner had taken steps to protect themselves or their business they would have been jailed in a New York minute. This is the dilemma. We as civilized human beings adhere to the rules and laws of society which puts us at a disadvantage against the uncivilized who don’t care. I understand the alternative is anarchy. But there is another option. It’s very simple. If you break the law you are arrested, tried, and if found guilty punished. And I mean punished as in you are fined monetarily, spend time in jail, and have a criminal record.

The average citizen is getting tired of the current status quo. They want to live their lives and conduct their business without fear. How long before they the silent majority gives an ultimatum to the spineless “elected representatives” that are failing to act.

More and more sheep are turning into sheepdogs. They’ve been ignored and abused too long and are demanding action. They are frustrated by the inaction of the “authorities”. Across the country they are starting to organize. How long before they start doing what the “elected representatives” are supposed to be doing? Those “representatives have one primary job, just one. That job is to defend the safety and freedom of the citizens. That is their only real job and they are beginning to fail, in some cases miserably.

If they cannot do their primary job, what are we, the citizens who are being directly impacted by all this, supposed to do? Apparently, as far as they are concerned, we are just supposed to roll over and take it…accept it as the new status quo.

My answer to them is a double middle finger salute. As a sheepdog, the commands I don’t understand or follow are “roll over”, “sit”, or “stay”. I have a responsibility to my family, my possessions, my neighbors and friends, my country and my God, and I take those responsibilities seriously. As has been said, I took an oath when I joined the military and repeated it every time I re-enlisted to defend this country and its Constitution from ALL ENEIMIES FORIGEN AND DOMESTIC.

Am I advocating vigilantism? No. Am I advocating violent confrontation? No. Am I advocating we as law abiding citizens stand by and do nothing? Hell no!!!

“Stand your ground, don’t fire unless fired upon, but if they mean to have a war, let it begin here.”

Those words, attributed to Captain John Parker on the Lexington Greene, need to be to be the call to action when it comes to facing down these lawless animals looting and burning towns and cities and now neighborhoods across the country if the gutless authorities won’t act.

The fuse is dangerously close to being lit.

Alan Marshall

American Democracy is Far More Fragile Then You Think: Six Ways the Democrats Could Steal the Election

This article discusses yet another list of actions the (National Socialist) Democrat Party could attempt in order to hijack a legal election and make things happen their way.

Keep in mind folks that these people don’t care what this does to the fabric of this nation. They don’t care how it has the potential for tearing apart the greatest nation in the world. All they care about is acquiring and holding power at any cost.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Much discussion has been had about mail-in voting, and the elevated amounts of election fraud it enables. But Republicans are kidding themselves if they think dubious mail-in votes are the only shady way this election could be lost in November. Like all electoral systems, America’s democracy is not flawless. It only continues to exist because throughout the country’s history most actors have operated on good faith and have kept institutions going rather than undermining them. But in their frenzy to destroy Donald Trump and everything he represents, the left no longer cares about sustaining norms or institutions. Instead, in 2020, they will exploit every loophole and weak point in the constitutional order to achieve victory. Here are some of those vulnerabilities, plus other fringe situations that could throw the election into total chaos.

1. Congress can refuse to certify the results.

When the Electoral College casts its votes for president, the process isn’t automatic. Instead, the U.S. Congress must certify the results in joint session. The U.S. Code is extremely detailed about the precise process for tallying up electoral votes. And that is exactly the problem. The process looks like this:

• Following the start of the new Congress, the House and Senate gather in joint session to read off electoral vote totals submitted by the states.
• The President of the Senate (i.e. Vice President Pence) calls for objections, which must be made in writing and signed by at least one member from each chamber of Congress.
• Once all objections are made, each chamber withdraws to vote separately on the merit of the objections
• If both houses agree that electoral votes from a state were not properly certified, they can be rejected.
• If multiple sets of electoral votes have been submitted from a state, the two chambers can decide which set was submitted legally and will be counted.
• If the two chambers disagree over which set of votes to count, then the electoral votes endorsed by a state’s governor are counted.

The language is dense, but the ramifications are clear: There are countless ways for a hostile Congress to interfere with the results of the election. Even if Democrats only manage to hold the House, they can gum up the process with objections. The House can then vote to sustain the objections, slowing the process down and muddying up the legitimacy of the outcome. But the most dangerous option is the most direct: If Democrats also take control of the Senate in November, they can simply refuse to certify any result that doesn’t satisfy the party. Alternatively, they could be even more aggressive and certify an alternative electoral college result based on disputed vote totals.

What happens then? Nothing less than a full constitutional crisis. The crisis would immediately go to the Supreme Court, but that would already be a victory for the perpetrators, since there would always be at least a slight chance of the Court siding with them. And if the Court rules against Democrats, it’s entirely possible that the Congress still refuses to submit, perhaps using the presence of a newly-arrived Justice Amy Coney Barrett as an excuse. At that point, Democrats could end up relying on the military to side with them…a possibility that they are definitely preparing for.

2. Competing electors

The law above directly alludes to another possibility that could turn the 2020 election on its head: A contested state may have both its Republican and Democratic electors claim victory, and try to submit their electoral votes in January.

Imagine, for example, that Michigan ends up as close as it was in 2016, when Trump won by barely ten thousand votes. This time around, Democrats have primed themselves to sharply contest any such outcome as the work of Russian interference or “voter suppression” via the postal service. Michigan now has an ardently Democratic governor in Gretchen Whitmer as well as a far-left secretary of state in Jocelyn Benson (who once worked for both the Southern Poverty Law Center and the NAACP Legal Defense Fund).

So, what happens if Trump narrowly wins in Michigan again, but Whitmer declares the result illegitimate? Michigan’s four-member board of canvassers, with two members from each party, may fail to certify an outcome. Whitmer and Benson could block the state from sending any electors to Washington, or even declare Biden’s electors be the state’s real choice. Michigan’s legislature is controlled by Republicans, though. They could fight back by convening and voting to endorse Trump’s slate of electors. If that happens, both slates of electors could submit their votes to Congress, demanding to be recognized as the “true” choice of Michigan.

What happens then? Nobody knows! A Roll Call analysis from June called the relevant 1887 law “almost unintelligible.” One theory is that Congress would have to accept the slate of electors endorsed by Governor Whitmer. Another interpretation argues that neither slate of electors would be counted. Once again the outcome is a huge mess, forcing all parties to resort to the Supreme Court.

3. Judicial intervention

Many have remarked that the Supreme Court could get involved in the 2020 election, but that understates the problem: Every federal judge in the country has the power to massively sway the election outcome. If there has been one constant of the Trump Administration, it’s that federal judges will seize upon any excuse, no matter how legally specious, to stop the Trump administration and advance liberal causes. In 2018, a federal judge invented a “right to say goodbye” to order the release of a criminal immigrant facing deportation. Other judges have claimed that the president’s tweets bar him from obviously legal acts like imposing travel bans on certain countries or repealing DACA. Just this month, a San Francisco judge blocked the president’s clearly-legal suspension of new H-1B visas meant to protect American workers during the coronavirus pandemic. None of this is sound law. It’s the invention of flimsy legal pretexts to serve the greater goal of stopping Trump.

What stops that from happening in November, with the highest stakes imaginable? Nothing. In a close race, it’s a virtual certainty that left-wing judges will invent any pretext possible to help drive Trump from power.

They’ve been doing it already. In Georgia, a judge has ordered state officials to accept mail-in ballots until three days after election day, when existing state law required them to arrive on election day itself. In Pennsylvania, the state Supreme Court has required late-arriving ballots to be counted even if they don’t carry a postmark, greatly increasing the potential for fraud.

Even more radical rulings are easy to imagine. Judges could require states to count ballots with no signature. They could make states count ballots that were illegally harvested en masse rather than being mailed in by actual voters. But why stop there? Earlier this year, a New Jersey state judge ordered an entirely new election in Paterson due to voter fraud. What if Trump wins a state, but a judge simply orders an entirely new presidential vote, citing “voter suppression?” It absolutely could happen, and Trump would have only two options: Appeal to a higher court and hope the shenanigans are stopped, or ignore a clearly political ruling.

4. The tied Supreme Court.

In every scenario listed so far, the likely result is the election going before the Supreme Court. That was a dicey enough prospect when the Supreme Court had its full nine justices. Now, Ruth Bader Ginsburg is dead, and the Senate may not confirm Amy Comey Barrett in time for the election. If squishy “Republicans” like Mitt Romney break ranks, she may not be confirmed at all.

If the Court is divided 4-4, then resolving the political deadlock could be impossible. When the Court ties, the rulings of lower courts prevail. Left-leaning federal and state courts would feel emboldened to issue extreme rulings, taking advantage of the Supreme Court’s likely inability to reverse them. Competing courts could even split on who the legitimate president is, with some courts declaring Trump the winner and others backing Biden. The only solution short of force will be some kind of political compromise. And given how cowardly Republicans are 99 percent of the time, what are the odds they show any courage at all in a crisis like this? Any compromise negotiated by the party of Ben Sasse will likely resemble a surrender to the other side.

5. President Pelosi

It’s possible that the election will be such a legal mess that no winner will be determined (or agreed upon) by the constitutional transition date of January 20. If that’s the case, then Donald Trump does not continue in office, as some might expect. Instead, this situation is governed by the text of the Twentieth Amendment:

If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.

In other words, the Presidential Succession Act governs who will be president. And under that act, the third in line to the presidency is the sitting Speaker of the House. That’s right. If the presidential election is still in dispute on January 20th, Nancy Pelosi will become president.

Now, Pelosi would not be the permanent president, and would have to step down as soon as a real president is chosen. But by taking power, even briefly, Pelosi could order the executive branch to meddle on behalf of the Biden/Harris ticket. If a Trump legal victory appears imminent, Pelosi could go scorched earth by revoking Trump’s executive orders, issuing her own, and firing or hiring personnel at a frantic pace, with the goal of causing as much difficulty for a restored Trump administration as possible.

Even stranger permutations are possible, though. While Pelosi is the likely Speaker of the House in this scenario, she doesn’t have to be. The Speaker is elected at the beginning of each Congress, and in 2019, 15 Democrats refused to back Pelosi. She was confirmed by a narrow majority of just five votes. When House Democrats realize the implications of the Speaker election in such a fraught political environment, they could scheme to choose a Speaker who is even more extreme than Pelosi to serve as acting president. This acting president would serve as long as the election remains in dispute, a situation that could last for months. If that happens, literally anything is possible. With Trump out of office and Democrats in control of the Department of Justice, this acting president could even have Trump arrested on bogus criminal charges.

6. A 269-269 tie…followed by a coup.

Many observers have recognized this possibility, but they haven’t appreciated its full implications. Under the Constitution, a tied electoral vote is voted on by the newly-seated House of Representatives. But representatives don’t vote as individuals. They vote as state delegations, with every state getting a single vote. Despite being a minority in the House right now, Republicans actually do have a narrow 26-23 majority in state delegations (Pennsylvania is tied). If that number holds in November, then Trump would win a tie, right?

Not so fast! Under the 12th Amendment, the House doesn’t pick from the top two candidates, but from the top three. Additionally, the “one vote per state” rule dramatically powers up representatives from states with only a single representative, or states where the partisan split is very close. While no sitting Republican Congressmen are explicitly anti-Trump, it’s no secret that many lawmakers secretly despise the president. Conceivably, if these lawmakers could convince a single elector (of either party) to faithlessly cast his or her vote for a non-Trump Republican, they could have that alternative Republican be an option during the House vote. Then, those Republicans could try getting House Republicans to back this alternative Republican, rather than the president, threatening to back Biden instead if they don’t get their way.

Ridiculous? Not in 2020. The only limits are imagination and shame, and most of Washington has none of the latter.

Conclusion

It’s impossible to predict the final outcome if any of these situations come to pass. Hopefully, President Trump simply wins a clear victory, and none of them happen. But it’s also possible that several will happen at once. Some of these scenarios may sound ridiculous, the sort of coup d’etat that the public would immediately rebel against. But remember: Corporate America, the press, academia, and the career bureaucracy are overwhelmingly in favor of the left. No matter how ridiculous the effort to topple Trump gets, professors and pundits will immediately step up to claim that these actions are completely justified, while Republican efforts to resist them are authoritarian. Big Tech will censor the president’s defenders, or even the president himself. “Mostly peaceful” protesters will spawn in every major city, to give the efforts a veneer of popular support. As soon as the election is about anything except the straightforward tallying of votes, the left has the advantage, because they can bring their total domination of American institutions to bear to enforce their will.

How, then, can President Trump and his allies stand up to this? Their biggest advantage will be a simple one: They will indisputably be standing up for America’s historic norms and the way things have been done successfully for more than 200 years. The most important thing is to be prepared for the possibility. Be ready to stand up for the rule of law, and forcefully label any underhanded ploy to change the outcome for what it is. Have a gameplan in place for a deadlocked Supreme Court or a state-level attempt to meddle with the outcome. Be prepared to maintain strict control in Washington D.C., itself; if the mob is allowed to rampage it will be taken as proof that Trump has lost control of events. If there is any reason to doubt a military commander’s dedication to the constitutional order, get them out of command right now, or at least get them far away from Washington. If Republicans are caught off-guard by how far the left is willing to go, they will lose. But if they are prepared for the temper tantrum, they can triumph.

Kurt Russell Just SCHOOLED Obama Loving Reporter In EPIC Rant… Liberals Are LIVID

September 12, 2020 dan

Far too often we see liberal Hollywood stars in support of gun laws but not legendary actor Kurt Russell. In a recent interview

with Hollywood Elsewhere reporter Jeffery Wells, Russell drops a ton of truth bombs that are guaranteed to drive liberals crazy.

Wells starts off saying that guns are something that “disenfranchised white guys need…it makes them feel good about themselves.” Russell disagreed.

 Russell fired back saying, “If you think gun control is going to change the terrorists’ point of view, I think you’re, like, out of your mind. I think anybody [who says that] is. I think it’s absolutely insane.”

“The problem, the problem that we’re having right now to turn it around…you may think you’ve got me worried about you’re gonna do? Dude, you’re about to find out what I’m gonna do, and that’s gonna worry you a lot more,” he continued.

“And that‘s what we need. That will change the concept of gun culture, as you call it, to something [like] reality. Which is, if I’m a hockey team and I’ve got some guy bearing down on me as a goal tender, I’m not concerned about what he’s gonna do — I’m gonna make him concerned about what I’m gonna do to stop him. That’s when things change.”

Arguing back, Wells said, “Obama’s point was that the guys on the no-fly list, [there] for good reason because of terrorist connections or suspicions…they can get hold of a gun pretty easily.”

“They can also make a bomb pretty easily. So what?” Russell fired back. “They can also get knives and stab you. [What are you] gonna do about that? They can also get cars and run you over. [What are you] gonna do about that?”

The interviewer noted that the San Bernardino killers didn’t use a car to murder the Americans.

Russell fired back again saying, “But they’ve killed others that way, haven’t they? Yeah, yeah. Whaddaya gonna do? Outlaw everything? That isn’t the answer.”

Needless to say, that interview didn’t quite go as planned.

Kurt Russell is absolutely spot on in my opinion! Tighter regulations are taking away the right to own guns, period. Why don’t these people understand that in a free society whenever a law or regulation is imposed, that means another part of FREE SOCIETY is diminished. The same people advocating GUN CONTROL have no problem with letting scumbags out of the prisons for flooding our nation with hundreds of thousands of “refugees” whom they have no idea how many are here to cause harm to our people.

There should be a special hotline for libtards, where the responders are only packing sunshine and unicorns in their fanny packs instead of a firearm. We wouldn’t want anyone with a firearm scaring them now would we? These people will one day look around and wish someone was there to save you from the evils of this world that you seem to don’t exist.

Our founding fathers were right about many things, and they wrote the second amendment to ensure that we, as a nation, would never need to worry about the defense of our home. Wake up people, we are systematically having our constitutional rights taken away, because the actions of people that are, in many cases, not even Americans! This should be unacceptable in all of our eyes, that’s just commonsense. Sadly though, very few liberals have ever been accused of having this trait.

(H/T Right Wing Tribune)

From a article on TheBlaze on October 3rd 2020 under this headline banner. Go to the article to see attached video.

The NYT finally discovered anarchists that spent the summer destroying American cities

Paul Sacca

Photojournalist Jeremy Lee Quinn was furloughed this year, so he set out to document the protests and the riots that beset cities across the U.S. following the death of George Floyd. Quinn expected to discover white supremacists caused havoc and violence at riots, but what he actually found shocked him — violent left-wing anarchists who were extremely organized.

On May 31, Quinn covered a Black Lives Matter protest in Santa Monica, California, where “suburban moms” were kneeling. Then he was alerted to a shoe store being looted about a mile away.

“He arrived to find young people pouring out of the store, shoeboxes under their arms. But there was something odd about the scene,” Farah Stockman wrote in the New York Times. “A group of men, dressed entirely in black, milled around nearby, like supervisors. One wore a creepy rubber Halloween mask.”

The next day, Quinn went to another protest, and another store was being looted. A white man wearing all black smashed the window of the store with a crowbar, but he walked away without stealing anything.

Quinn started pouring over footage of looting that was happening across the country. Once again, he noticed that white men dressed in black were often the culprits of the looting.

Quinn believed that the caucasian men causing damage were white supremacist supporters of President Donald Trump, who were attempting to make Black Lives Matter protests appear in a negative light. In an effort to expose the alleged racist Trump supporters, Quinn went undercover and infiltrated the groups. Instead, he found that these destructive forces were “true believers in insurrectionary anarchism.”

Over the next four months, Quinn marched along with “black bloc anarchists in half a dozen cities across the country.” He was in Washington D.C., where militant agitators harassed diners, and in Portland where rioters launched fireworks at the Mark O. Hatfield Federal Courthouse.

“He says he respects the idealistic goal of a hierarchy-free society that anarchists embrace, but grew increasingly uncomfortable with the tactics used by some anarchists, which he feared would set off a backlash that could help get President Trump re-elected.”

Quinn told the New York Times that the far-left anarchists were not “a spontaneous eruption of anger at racial injustice,” like much of the mainstream media categorized the violence as. “It was strategically planned, facilitated and advertised on social media by anarchists who believed that their actions advanced the cause of racial justice.”

Quinn cautioned that the violent militants in Washington, Portland, and Seattle generated a “cultlike energy.”

Quinn saw something else he did not expect to see during the protests, Black Lives Matter protesters praying together with Trump supporters in Tulsa.

Quinn detailed his experience during protests and riots on his website, Public Report, where he warned how dangerous far-left anarchist groups could be.

“Establishment media still continues to overlook trending Anarchist black bloc tactics especially in DC, Portland & Seattle with satellite activity in Denver, Sacramento and San Diego,” Quinn wrote. “Insurrectionary Anarchist ideology & rhetoric however has permeated into the social justice movement with blazing efficiency.”

“In our experience in Louisville, Community was strong and gravitating towards non violent protest,” he wrote. “Earlier in the afternoon we saw individual protesters shutting down agitators trying to use fireworks. But the arrival of a U-Haul with Anarcho / Antifascist symboled shields changed everything.”

Many of the left-wing extremists consider themselves “insurrectionary anarchists,” some of which “advocate using crimes like arson and shoplifting to wear down the capitalist system.”

The NYT article cites a report by Rutgers researchers that documents the “systematic, online mobilization of violence that was planned, coordinated (in real time) and celebrated by explicitly violent anarcho-socialist networks that rode on the coattails of peaceful protest.” The research found that some anarchist social media accounts had exploded 300-fold since May, garnering hundreds of thousands of followers.

Stockman explained the problem with making alliances with insurrectionary anarchists. “If they help you get into power, they will try to oust you the following day, since power is what they are against,” she wrote. “Many of them don’t even vote. They are experts at unraveling an old order but considerably less skilled at building a new one. That’s why, even after more than 100 days of protest in Portland, activists do not agree on a set of common policy goals.”

“We are not sure if the socialist, communist, democratic or even anarchist utopia is possible,” admitted a host of the anarchist-supporting podcast “The Ex-Worker.” “Rather, some insurrectionary anarchists believe that the meaning of being an anarchist lies in the struggle itself and what that struggle reveals.”

Stockman hints that the far-left anarchists are not truly destroying American cities to declare that black lives matter or demand racial equality, but because they crave anarchy and their mission is to topple the status quo.

I encourage you to go to Quinn’s website and read his article.

This should scare the hell out of everybody

Days after computer theft from Philly elections warehouse, reporter strolls inside, walks by rows of voting machines — with no one else around

The reporter said he roamed the warehouse unattended for several minutes before being asked to leave

Dave Urbanski

After a report in a major newspaper of stolen computer equipment from a major U.S. city’s elections warehouse, one may be inclined to conclude that the premises would be buttoned up a bit afterward.

But apparently that wasn’t the case at Philadelphia’s elections warehouse — at least not on Thursday when WHYY-TV reporter Max Marin said he was able to enter the facility with no problem, walk past rows of voting machines, and just hang out all by his lonesome for several minutes while recording the breach on his cellphone:

Marin wrote that he “strolled past hundreds of voting machines, various boxes, and other unidentified equipment without seeing other people.”

“Eventually” he “stumbled upon a staffer in an office, who said press was not allowed in the building and escorted the reporter to the door, locking it behind him. The staffer declined to answer questions about security, or answer why it was so easy to enter. No security cameras were immediately visible, either inside or outside the building,” Marin added.

He also noted in his report that upon leaving the warehouse, a guard was visible at the other side of the building and more staffers arrived at the facility later, with one taking up a station outside the door.

What’s the background?

The Philadelphia Inquirer noted earlier this week that the items stolen were a laptop belonging to an on-site employee for the company that supplies the voting machines and several memory sticks used to program the machines. The paper said the theft sparked a “scramble to investigate and to ensure the machines had not been compromised.”

City officials privately expressed concern that President Donald Trump and his allies might use news of the theft to cast doubt on the integrity

of the city’s elections “in light of false claims and conspiracy theories he cited during Tuesday’s presidential debate,” the Inquirer reported.

The paper added that officials “initially refused to confirm the theft or that an investigation had been opened. They only did so after The Inquirer informed them it would be reporting the incident based on sources who were not authorized to publicly discuss it.”

Far-left Mayor Jim Kenney weighed in, telling the paper in a statement: “I have immediately committed to making necessary police resources available to investigate this incident and find the perpetrators. I have also committed to the city commissioners additional resources to provide enhanced security at the warehouse going forward. This matter should not deter Philadelphians from voting, nor from having confidence in the security of this election.”

Yet the WHYY reporter still got inside

In the wake of Marin’s report of lax security at the warehouse, he said Deputy Commissioner Nick Custodio told him a security guard should have been stationed outside the door he walked through — but didn’t know if the guard was supposed to be there 24 hours or only during operating hours.

Custodio works for the Office of City Commissioners, which oversees elections in Philadelphia, and told WHYY he would address the situation.

In response to the theft and Marin’s breach of the warehouse, city spokesperson Mike Dunn told the station new safeguards would include:

• Greatly increasing the number of security personnel stationed at the site (24/7);
• Adding a round-the-clock police presence;
• Instituting a strict logging procedure for anyone entering and exiting the buildings;
• Enforcing strict adherence to the current policy

This an article from TheBlaze written by Fred Lucas.

All about stalling the Supreme Court confirmation process

Even before President Donald Trump nominated Amy Coney Barrett to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court, numerous Democrats and liberal activist groups had floated the idea of another impeachment as a possible means to stall the Senate’s confirmation of a new justice for the high court.

As I note in my book, “Abuse of Power: Inside the Three-Year Campaign to Impeach Donald Trump,” the previous impeachment push also seemed improbable and something House Democratic leadership wasn’t on board with — until they were.

Impeachment 2.0 would mean either re-impeaching Trump or bringing impeachment charges against Attorney General William Barr, according to reports. The endgame of course would not be removal of either — but rather stalling a confirmation.

To be sure, another impeachment is still unlikely. But it’s not as improbable as you might think. Here are five reasons you might see Democrats pull the trigger again.

No. 1: The Senate is obliged to start a trial, which could delay the SCOTUS confirmation

The point of an impeachment now would be to force a Senate trial in order to gum up the works and at least delay the Barrett confirmation process. If the confirmation process extends past Election Day and Joe Biden wins the election (and Democrats even perhaps win a majority in the Senate), a vote for Barrett becomes politically more difficult to hold, even for a lame-duck Republican majority.

If the House passed an impeachment — no matter how meritless — under the “Rules of Procedure and Practice in the Senate When Sitting on Impeachment Trials,” the Senate would be required to begin the trial by 1 p.m. on the day following the day that the House sends its impeachment “managers” to the Senate to present the articles of impeachment.

The rules also state the Senate shall “continue in session from day to day (Sundays excepted) after the trial shall commence (unless otherwise ordered by the Senate) until final judgment shall be rendered.” Moreover, all other “legislative and executive business” before the Senate is suspended during the conduct of the trial. Other business would include confirmations — even for a Supreme Court justice.

Of course, Senate Republicans could choose to make it a one- or two-day trial. But that would still delay things for the high court confirmation.

No. 2: Numbers would be there

Democratic leaders worked hard to whip their troops into line for the impeachment vote against Trump held in December. Sources interviewed in “Abuse of Power” said that as many as 10 to 15 moderate Democrats might have defected if the majority followed the original plan of an impeachment vote in October or November. That would have been an embarrassment for Democrats — but the bottom line is that the House majority would still have had the numbers.

If Democrats tried again to impeach — this time for the sole purpose of obstructing a Supreme Court confirmation — they would inevitably have a divided caucus. But there is almost nothing Democratic politicians and progressive activists take more seriously than stopping a Trump Supreme Court pick. Even if there are significantly more Democrats defecting than before, the majority party likely has the votes.

No. 3: Pelosi already caved once on impeachment

After suggesting she was open to re-impeaching President Donald Trump as an “arrow in our quiver” during an interview on ABC News, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi backtracked with familiar words.

“I don’t think he’s worth the trouble at this point,” she told reporters.

Some of us are old enough to remember that in March 2019, Pelosi asserted: “Impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there’s something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don’t think we should go down that path, because it divides the country, and he’s just not worth it.”

That, incidentally, was before special counsel Robert Mueller’s report that cleared Trump of conspiracy with Russians. But Pelosi didn’t know at the time what the Mueller report would say. So it was rather astonishing that by September of the same year, she was gung-ho for impeachment over an improper phone call. The difference came when the far-left base — led by “The Squad” — as well as activist groups finally got to her. She lost control of her caucus and knew she had to move forward on impeachment for something — anything — to maintain her leadership.

Already, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), who played an outsized role in pressuring Pelosi to move left, declared “all of the tools available to our disposal … all of these options should be entertained and on the table.”

No. 4: House impeachment manager on board

Moreover, one of the House impeachment managers is even on board with impeachment — and court-packing, for that matter. This could give the issue a little more gravity among Democrats.

During an interview on PBS, Rep. Val Demings (D-Fla.) one of the impeachment managers who also previously served as the Orlando police chief, seemed ready to go all in.

“The ability to move forward with whatever strategy, whether that’s impeachment, whether it’s after Vice President [Joe] Biden and Senator [Kamala] Harris win, they look at expanding the number of justices on the court, those are decisions that will be made by leadership,” Demings said.

No. 5: Who needs a crime?

The Constitution is indeed broad about the House’s power to impeach. Treason and bribery are clear enough, but the phrase “high crimes and misdemeanors” leaves plenty to the imagination. Still, by tradition, both Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton were impeached for alleged violations of the law. Richard Nixon would have been impeached for alleged violations of the law. Further, all eight federal judges removed by the Senate were impeached by the House for alleged violations of the law.

Using the tool of impeachment to stall a judicial confirmation in the Senate would be unprecedented. However, the 2019 Trump impeachment already burst through the long-established tradition of impeachment only for a defined statutory violation of the law.

Recall, Democrats pushing Trump’s impeachment over the Ukraine phone call first tried to sell it as a “quid pro quo” until focus groups were unimpressed. So Democrats tried for a time to push bribery or extortion — both were tough sells. Finally, House Democrats settled on “abuse of power” and “obstruction of Congress,” neither of which are crimes but sound really bad. The charges were broad enough not to have to define but easy enough to understand.

If Democrats impeached Trump — or someone else — the charge wouldn’t be for nominating a Supreme Court justice. They would find another reason, legal or not. The precedent was already set in the House that a violation of the law isn’t required to impeach someone.