Tim Tebow, The Christian Comeback Kid

Tim Tebow is heading back to his primary sport, returning once again to the days of being a professional player in the NFL, after a stint on another field.

Back in the day when his NFL career appeared to be over, rather than leave professional sports behind, the versatile Tebow turned to the game of baseball. In 2016 he signed a minor league contract with the New York Mets, handling the positions of left field and designated hitter until retiring in February of 2021.

Now the Jacksonville Jaguars have signed the former Heisman Trophy winner to a one-year contract, with the understanding that he will switch positions from quarterback to tight end. The same day the Jaguars made the announcement, Tebow was spotted on the practice field wearing a No. 85 Jacksonville jersey, a truly unexpected sight for a whole lot of folks.

The sports star had plenty of detractors in the past, and unfortunately the menacing trend continues to this day. As a bona fide celebrity phenom, his solid beliefs on religious, cultural, and moral issues have resulted in him becoming a target for those with opposing viewpoints.

Acknowledged for being outspoken regarding his Christian faith, Tebow has publicly expressed strong pro-life convictions and has also openly advocated for faith-based abstinence.

He has been fearless in stating that he has lived his life in a way that is almost unheard of in today’s celebrity vortex, exercising restraint and maintaining self-control when it comes to the ways of the world.

It turns out he became very well known for engaging in a unique prayer practice, which routinely takes place right out on the playing field. Kneeling on one knee, he bows his head and rests his arm on one bent leg. The form of prayer expression ultimately reached fame status as “Tebowing” and was even included as a feature in a Madden NFL video game.

In terms of prior regular NFL seasons, Tebow spent his first two with the Denver Broncos and additionally made two starts for the New York Jets. He primarily played one position, that being quarterback, during his entire professional football career.

As Tebow’s detractors like to point out, he hasn’t played a down of professional football since the 2015 pre-season with the Philadelphia Eagles.

In relation to his current newfound position, he already has a relationship with Jacksonville head coach Urban Meyer, who was his coach at the University of Florida, where he was the first college sophomore ever to win the Heisman.

Friends of Tebow say that he is enthusiastic about attempting to make it back on the field in a new position at the highest level of play for any football player. He said in a statement via a team release, “I want to thank the Jaguars for the opportunity to compete and earn the chance to be part of this team. I know it will be a challenge, but it is a challenge I embrace.”

So how can a guy who has not played in a regular season NFL game since 2012, had only one snap as a receiver, and is about to turn a relatively mature 34, still have the confidence to embrace the challenge in an NFL comeback as a tight end?

The answer is in Tebow’s heart. He appears to have a type of celestial advantage when it comes to his athletic pursuits, which is most likely attributed to his ironclad faith-based attitude and irrepressible work ethic.

Fans in Denver remember that back in 2011, when he became the Bronco’s full-time starting quarterback, an amazing metamorphosis of the team seemed to miraculously take place. Tebow was able to transform a 1-4 Broncos team into a genuine contender, with seven wins in eight starts.

Sports journalists were awed by the then-quarterback’s unexpected late-game turnarounds, where the Tebow-led team often came from behind late in the fourth quarter. The Broncos, with Tebow as the QB starter, won their first playoff game in years and managed to snag the AFC West title as well.

Tebow has always had a knack for leadership, inspiring his teammates to work together to achieve. He also consistently remembers at post game interviews to thank his “Lord and Savior Jesus Christ,” never seeming to flinch as the harsh backlash inevitably follows.

He continues to be a voice of encouragement for people of faith everywhere. One sterling example is a sort of mini-sermon that Tebow delivered in April of 2020, in which he used his Instagram account to touch upon the subject of player trades and compare the practice to what he referred to as “the greatest trade in the history of the world.”

What is the trade? The old you for the new.

And why does he consider the trade to be the ultimate one? He says it in a way that only a Christian who is running the race can.

Tebow muses aloud, “Why is this the greatest trade? You need to understand this, so you can understand the old versus the new. Do you know what the old is? Sin, dead, darkness, bondage, separation, lost, baggage. Do you know what the new is? Righteousness, alive, light, freedom, united in Christ, found, child of God, purpose, son, daughter, home in heaven, paid for. That’s what the new is.”

A trade worthy of anyone’s consideration.

Nineteen States Take the EPA to the Supreme Court

A recent appeals court ruling granted the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) authority to control energy consumption across the country.

As a result, nineteen states are now attempting to limit the EPA’s authority via court action.

West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey is representing his own state as well as leading a group of attorneys general from the states of Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, and Wyoming, and the governor of Mississippi has also signed on.

The 19-state coalition is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to reverse an appeals court ruling that gave the EPA the unprecedented authority.

Morrisey contends that if the ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit were left in place, the EPA would have “virtually unlimited authority to regulate wide swaths of everyday life with rules that would devastate coal mining, increase energy costs and eliminate countless jobs.” (https://wvrecord.com/stories/593830432-morrisey-leads-19-state-petition-urging-supreme-court-to-limit-epa-authority)

More specifically, the documents filed by the coalition of states assert that the lower court misinterpreted Section 111 of the Clean Air Act, granting to the EPA the ability to exercise overly broad powers to radically transform the nation’s energy grid and force states to fundamentally alter their energy sources.

The transformation would be accomplished without any legislative input from Congress, allowing the federal agency to alter virtually any and all sectors of the economy, including factories, power plants, small businesses, and residential housing, with coal mining and natural gas production being placed in jeopardy.

The coalition argues that if the High Court were to delay a review, this would likely lead to even more significant and irreparable damage while simultaneously forcing states to invest time and resources into uncertain enterprises.

Back in 2015, Morrisey had filed a lawsuit against the Obama administration over a policy that sought to severely cut carbon emissions, alleging that the implementation of such a policy exceeded the EPA’s mandate.

Morrisey’s legal actions resulted in the Supreme Court issuing a stay, which prevented the policy from being rolled out. However, the D.C. Circuit Court vacated the ruling, thus opening the door for the incoming administration to implement even wider-reaching carbon reduction policies.

The petition of Morrisey and the other attorneys general alleges that the appeals court ignored the rationale for the Supreme Court stay.

The new petition comes as the current administration has announced the most excessive climate initiatives in history, with an intended goal of cutting U.S. carbon emissions in half by the year 2030 and ultimately reaching zero carbon emissions by 2035.

Morrisey spoke against the White House target goals, arguing that the change would have a negative economic impact that would be detrimental to our nation’s international energy standing and calling the emissions cut “a self-inflicted wound to our economy and our national security.” (https://ago.wv.gov/Documents/Statement%20of%20West%20Virginia%20Patrick%20Morrisey%20on%20President%20Biden’s%20Climate%20Plan.pdf)

Critics of the administration’s aggressive carbon reduction plans point out that China and other major polluters will continue to increase their emissions, which will presumably undercut any carbon reductions by the U.S., while at the same time increasing electricity and energy costs for all Americans.

Critics also voice concerns for the segments of our country that rely on fossil fuels and related industries, asserting that these areas would be disproportionately affected by such severe reductions.

If West Virginia’s top law enforcement official and the attorneys general from the coalition of states are successful in convincing the Supreme Court to accept the case, our nation’s people will witness the biggest legal battle involving climate change policy that has occurred in over a decade.

This is the kind of court proceeding that will potentially expose the judicial philosophy of each of the justices on the Supreme Court.

It will also likely define the judicial branch itself and, in the end, determine whether our nation takes the road not traveled.

California Bill Flies in the Face of James Madison

James Madison was a giant of a man.

Born on a Virginia tobacco plantation in March of 1751, he was the eldest boy in a family of twelve children.

Being smaller of stature and suffering from ill health, he would be unable to see battle during The Revolutionary War. But fight for his country he would in more ways than he could ever have imagined.

Young Madison attended the College of New Jersey, which would eventually become more famously known as Princeton University. At the time, the institution was actually an evangelical seminary.

A protégé of sorts, he studied directly under the tutelage of the college president, Reverend John Witherspoon. This would be where young Madison would develop an untold appreciation for individual rights, limited government, and, most importantly, the freedom to worship.

Reverend Witherspoon was attune to the importance of the development of an internal moral sense, an ethical compass, if you will, which he viewed as being instilled in all human beings by God.

As destiny would have it, Reverend Witherspoon would not only influence young Madison, but he himself would go on to be the only active clergyman to sign the Declaration of Independence.

One time during his travels in Virginia, Madison came across a jail in which a group of Baptist preachers were being detained. The ministers had been arrested as a result of their open expression of their religious beliefs.

Madison was so deeply affected by the injustice he had witnessed, he rushed off a prayer request to his friend William Bradford “for Liberty and Conscience to revive among us.” The experience would further spur him on to become a fierce advocate of religious liberty.

He expressed his passion for religious freedom in his involvement with the new constitution that was being written for the Commonwealth of Virginia. Strengthening a clause that was written by George Mason, he transformed the language of the text from a government grant to an inalienable right.

Over the next decade Madison would be involved in various other religious liberty battles. And in 1785, he would pen one of the most powerful defenses of religious liberty ever written, the “Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments.”

After the Constitution, as Madison wrote it, was ratified by Congress in 1788 and came into effect in 1789, many leaders wanted to add additional material containing the fundamental rights with which government could not interfere. However, the Constitution itself specifies that the adding of such material can only be done through amendments.

Madison initially opposed the idea of putting additional amendments into the Constitution. As the author of the Constitution, he considered his work so complete that no additional amendments were thought to be needed.

He and his colleagues believed that the Constitution placed enough limits on government, via the separation of powers, to safeguard individual rights.

Madison was also concerned that listing some freedoms in amendments, but not others, would lead government officials to believe that they could do whatever was not explicitly forbidden by the document.

It was providential that Madison had a friendship and political alliance with Thomas Jefferson. He actually served as the third president’s secretary of state.

Jefferson had written a series of letters from Paris, France, attempting to persuade his friend to change his mind about the Bill of Rights. Madison did eventually come to believe that amendments setting forth our rights might impress upon the nation the importance of placing limitations on state power.

Madison became the point man for the Bill of Rights, taking on the mantle not only of drafting the amendments, but of also shepherding the founding document through the legislative process. Drawing on Mason’s Virginia Declaration of Rights and Britain’s Magna Carta, he wrote the Bill of Rights and presented it to Congress in June of 1789.

The Bill of Rights, which of course includes our cherished First Amendment, was ratified on December 15, 1791.

Among myriad other amazing accomplishments, Madison served as secretary of state in the Jefferson administration. Then following in the presidential footsteps of his friend, he became the fourth president of the United States in March of 1809 and served until March of 1817.

President Madison would be cut to the core if he were here to witness what is currently being proposed in California – a bill that would actually dismiss from service those members of law enforcement who hold certain religious and/or political beliefs.

Under the pretext of seeking the elimination of “hate speech,” the proposed law would virtually place the government in the position of denying police officers the ability to be employed or to remain employed, based on their Christian beliefs and/or conservative principles.

The legislation’s name is a misleading one, the California Law Enforcement Accountability Reform Act. It would require law enforcement agencies to determine if potential hires are guilty of thought crimes. It would also allow existing officers, who are subjectively determined to hold incorrect or unapproved beliefs, to be fired.

The California Assembly Public Safety Committee is scheduled to consider the piece of legislation on April 6. But its language is so broad and ambiguous it stands as a textbook violation of the protections of religious liberty and freedom of speech, which are engraved in the First Amendment.

While our First Amendment rights weren’t specifically enumerated in the original text of the Constitution, Madison ensured that the rights would be enshrined within the amendment process.

He authored the inspired words of the First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

Read it and weep California. Madison is.

The Wayward Seven

To the heartbreak of millions of Americans who were hoping that the Supreme Court would give justice a fighting chance in the current fog of electoral war, seven of the nine members of the High Court simply slunk away last Friday without even lending an ear.

Just about a week ago, shortly before midnight, the state of Texas filed a lawsuit directly with the U.S. Supreme Court. In the suit, Texas challenged the election procedures that had taken place in the states of Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.

The seven members of the High Court, who took the position that Texas and the other co-plaintiff states would not be allowed to have their case heard, committed a fundamental error.

The justices may have been influenced by a slew of legal prognosticators, some of whom had taken to the Democrat dominated media to ridicule the Texas attorney general for having initiated the action in the first place.

Others spread a message that conveyed an overly simplistic analysis, claiming that the process of selecting electors to send to the Electoral College is a matter that is handled by individual states, and therefore if a federal court, in this case the Supreme Court, were to hear it, the court would be intruding on state sovereignty.

The fact of the matter is the U.S. Constitution uniquely prescribes the manner in which presidential elections are to be implemented, and exactly where the authority for such implementation resides.

The authority is granted exclusively to the state legislatures of each respective state. The High Court has referred to this power to select electors as a “plenary” one, i.e., all encompassing.

The statehouses are given an exclusive grant of authority to determine the manner in which the states’ presidential electors are chosen. This is a distinct and explicit constitutional mandate, a federal matter, appropriately decided in the federal court system and, if necessary, the court of last resort, the Supreme Court.

The textual constitutional language in this regard is specific and unambiguous, setting forth a singular authority that precludes state officials, state executives, and even state courts from altering or contradicting statehouses, when it comes to the selection of electors for the purposes of choosing the President of the United States.

The Constitution also specifies that the Supreme Court will have original jurisdiction over “disputes among the states,” meaning that when Texas needs to adjudicate a matter involving a disagreement with another state (or states), the Supreme Court is the only place to go in order to seek resolution or remedies in law or equity.

Texas and its fellow co-plaintiff states were not questioning the election laws of the defendant states, but rather they were claiming that “non-legislative actors,” i.e., governors, secretaries of state, election officials, and state courts, unconstitutionally altered and overrode the election laws that had been duly passed by state legislatures.

The threshold issue that was before the Supreme Court was whether the constitutional prescription for the selection of electors had been violated by non-legislative actors. This was, and will always remain, central to the functioning of our republic, and it is a premise that is vitally important for all of the justices to recognize.

Seven simply did not. These wayward seven failed to allow the case to move forward.

How were their decisions justified?

They avoided hearing the case on the merits, claiming that the prospective plaintiffs in the case lacked “standing.”

Standing is the principle that limits the hearing of cases to those individuals or entities that demonstrate specific harm has been suffered or that a particular legal interest has been detrimentally affected.

The harm in this case is quite obvious — unconstitutional behavior that results in illegal voting in one state damages legitimate voting in other states.

In this case, electors in Texas were canceled out by electors in states where illegitimate votes were produced by unconstitutional processes.

A huge segment of the American population believes that the 2020 presidential election was illegitimate, due to widespread and multifaceted fraud. This huge segment yearns for, and is entitled to, a judicial review of the mounting evidence.

Thus far, no determination with regard to the merits of the case has been made.

Similar, if not identical claims from other plaintiffs, ones that possess a stronger argument on the issue of standing, will arrive at the Supreme Court soon.

The seven members of the High Court get another shot at justice.

Lies, Dem Lies, and Statistics

Think of it as a bank heist, one in which armed robbers crash through the front doors and hightail it to different sections of the building. One approaches a teller and shoves a gun in his face. One sneaks over to the main computer and hacks away. Another goes into the vault and locks it behind him, so he can swap out real hundies with counterfeit ones when no one is looking.

That pretty much sums up what the Democrats did, election-style.

The 2020 presidential election was stolen out from under the American people. And the crooks used a number of means to bring their devious plan to fruition.

Evidence of fraud is there for anyone to see, but the corporate media seem to be engaging in one of three strategies: stating that none exists; ignoring it altogether; or subjecting it to a “fact-checking” process.

The evidence this election-go-round is massive. Additionally, the evidence is credible enough to warrant an overturn of the results in the battleground states of Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Georgia, Arizona, and Nevada.

The above statements are accurate, even when the staggering amount of statistical evidence and the mounting data involving Dominion tabulation machines and Smartmatic software are not taken into account.

Contrary to what has been reported, this election did not produce the largest vote tally in American history. Rather, it produced the largest ballot tally in American history.

Shockingly, there were ballots that were deliberately destroyed and others that were intentionally separated from their counterpart envelopes.

Then there were those ballots that were scanned multiple times, “cured” prior to the date they were set to be opened, lost in predominantly Trump precincts, and even received before having been sent out.

While those tasked with the job of observing were prevented from carrying out their viewing responsibilities, others were busy voting multiple times. Even dead people got into the act, evidently casting ballots from the world beyond.

There are now hundreds of affidavits, videos, and statements that set forth various forms of wrongful behavior that took place in the election tabulation process.

Numerous election workers and postal employees have come forward to sign sworn statements under penalty of perjury that they were specifically instructed to backdate otherwise ineligible ballots.

In several states, observers signed sworn statements under penalty of perjury that they were blocked from seeing the vote counting.

Individuals in multiple states have also signed sworn statements under penalty of perjury regarding signatures that failed to match, optical scanners that were set to accept unverified ballots, and voter ID laws that were circumvented.

As America looked on with mouths agape, battleground states announced that the counting had been put to a halt. Then, despite what had been said, in the wee hours of the morning when most people were asleep, dumps of hundreds of thousands of ballots took place, with most producing a disproportionate count for the Democratic presidential candidate.

In a simultaneous occurrence, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Arizona, Nevada, and Georgia each pretended to stop ballot counting. But secretly they continued to count.

In Georgia, officials put a stop to the election night counting under the guise that the premises had to be cleared out due to a water pipe burst. This turned out to be a lie. A surveillance video shows election workers actually dismissing observers. After all observers had left the premises, four cases of ballots were pulled out from underneath a table, and large piles of ballots began to be tallied.

Sharyl Attikisson, one of the few journalist professionals that still exists, reported that President Trump was leading in Georgia by more than 100,000 votes on election eve. But after 16 vote dumps that took place over a six-hour period, his Democrat opponent was able to take the lead in a “statistically improbable” manner.

President Trump was comfortably in the lead in Wisconsin on election night until a gigantic dump of ballots took place. Five percent of the state’s total, i.e., 170,000 votes, came in all at once. In the blink of an eye, the Democrat contender took a small lead.

Similar statistically impossible numbers of late-arriving ballots came in to other swing states after a fake stoppage of the counting. These also brought in just the right number of votes to give the Democrat challenger a slim lead.

In President Trump’s Georgia lawsuit, allegations document illegal votes from more than 66,000 underage residents, almost 9,000 deceased people, close to 5,000 out-of-state registrants, over 2,600 late-arriving absentee voters, more than 2,500 felons, over 2,400 unregistered voters, and almost 400 people who voted in two states.

In yet another Peach State incredulity, 900 out of 900 military ballots that came in went to the Democrat nominee.

Other glaring swing state improprieties include the following:

–In Michigan, election workers were directed to backdate about 100,000 absentee ballots. Ballots for the Democrat nominee were scanned up to ten times over. And fake birthdates of non-registered voters were manually entered as a means of overriding the system and allowing their votes.

–In Pennsylvania, a subcontractor for the U.S. Postal Service stated that he was towing a trailer with 288,000 ballots (44 pallets) that were being shipped from New York to Pennsylvania. After the subcontractor had completed his delivery, the trailer mysteriously disappeared from its parked location. Additionally, more than 100,000 absentee ballots were returned a day after they were mailed out, on the day they were mailed out, or on the day prior to the day they were mailed out.

–In Wisconsin, officials improperly fixed more than 238,000 ballots that had no voter certification or witness address. A subcontractor for the U.S. Postal Service stated that he was told the postal service planned to backdate tens of thousands of ballots.

–In Nevada, 40,000 people voted twice, and more than 8,000 voters did not meet legal residency requirements.

–In Arizona, 1.9 million mail-in signatures were not properly verified, and election workers were instructed to allow unregistered voters to vote.

When it comes to the courts, the Trump legal team has one of the lowest burdens of proof that exists in the law.

Unlike in a criminal case, the evidence in civil lawsuits such as these does not need to convince the court “beyond a reasonable doubt” that there were election improprieties. Rather, a “preponderance of the evidence” will suffice as proof.

This evidentiary level is sometimes described as that sufficient to show it was “more likely than not” that the fraud had taken place.

Will the courts and/or the state legislatures make the right decisions to have justice prevail?

America prays that they do.

The Ultimate Remedy for Countering Presidential Election Fraud

“Confirm thy soul…”
Proceeds to Tunnel to Towers Foundation

Available on iTunes, Google Play, and Amazon

Despite repetitive denials emanating from a multitude of Democrat and media sources, it is clear that there has been unprecedented and widespread voter fraud as it relates to the all-important 2020 presidential election.

Although several lawsuits have been filed and are in the process of being adjudicated, the ultimate antidote for the toxin that has infected our electoral system does not rest in a state or federal judiciary. Instead it rests in the state legislature.

Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution contains clear and precise language. It spells out the following:

“Each 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: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.”

One key constitutional text in this passage is “…in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct.

This wording grants enormous discretionary power to state lawmakers. It specifies that the members of the state legislatures are the ones responsible for making the final decision regarding the persons who will become the appointed members of the electoral college for the respective states.

Not the governor, not election officials, not even the courts, but only members of the state legislatures are to perform this function.

The founders of our nation placed the power to resolve unprecedented problems in a presidential election (much like the ones we now face) in the statehouses.

Of course, the judiciary has its role, as has been exhibited in local races, and most notably in the 2000 presidential election, when the Supreme Court intervened in Bush v. Gore.However, the Constitution explicitly places the duty and capacity to determine the makeup of the Electoral College in the hands of the members of the legislatures of the respective states.

Interestingly, in Bush v. Gore the Supreme Court made reference to this unique constitutional role possessed by state legislatures, when the Court underscored the ability of state legislatures to “take back the power to appoint electors.”

When the reported results of an election are clouded with suspicion and tainted by credible evidence that fraud has occurred, the Constitution points to the state legislature, and its duty to take action. The body is charged to use its constitutional powers to rectify the sullied election results, i.e., to fix things, when necessary.

At the present time, the GOP is in control of both legislative chambers of the currently contested battleground states: Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, Arizona, and Georgia.

As evidence continues to mount, indicating that numerous forms of malfeasance took place prior to and during the tabulation of ballots, the state legislators are the bodies empowered to perform a solemn constitutional duty. As part of this duty, the bodies are positioned to cleanse the results of fraud.

At the same time, statehouses are empowered to mitigate and/or eliminate the disenfranchisement of legitimate voters, which may have occurred if and when illegitimate ballots were improperly counted.

Notwithstanding any determination by the judiciary (which includes the Supreme Court), a Republican legislature of a state that has experienced issues relating to fraud has the authority to select a slate of delegates to the Electoral College; a slate that is committed to vote for President Donald Trump.

It is in this way that the electoral vote count can essentially be purged of illicit ballots.

Presentations of evidence of fraud and irregularities could presumably be submitted to the legislatures of the states to prove that the elections in the respective states were corrupted.

Decisions of the state legislatures to cleanse the vote counts of illicit ballots and appoint appropriate electors would survive any and all legal challenges, because the explicit text of the Constitution is so compelling.

Dick Morris, who served as an advisor to former President Bill Clinton, told Newsmax TV host Grant Stinchfield, “We have to move the fight from the executive branch of the states to the legislative branch of the states. The U.S. Constitution does not say that the states shall decide the procedure for electoral votes. They [words of the Constitution] say the legislature should decide. Not the governors, the legislature.”

Morris specifically referred to “the evidence of missing votes, suddenly discovered votes, unexplained delays, not granting access to poll watchers,” items that indicate “corruption of this process.”

In a recent appearance on Fox News, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis urged legislators to use their constitutional abilities.

Gov. DeSantis pointed out that the Constitution requires electors to be chosen by legislators that determine the procedural framework for that process. The governor also indicated that if the law is being ignored, then the legislature “can provide remedies as well.”

The Constitution sets the first Monday after the second Wednesday of December as a deadline for the state legislatures to act. This year the date falls on December 14.

The Constitution also provides that, if for some reason the Electoral College is unable to elect a president by December 14, the U.S. House of Representatives is the governmental body responsible for determining who will be the next president and vice president; this according to the 12th Amendment.

In this situation, the manner in which the vote is to be taken is uniquely mandated. Individual members of the House do not cast votes as individuals. Rather, votes would be taken by state delegations, making it effectively one vote per state.

As it currently stands with the present makeup of the House, the majority of delegations are in the hands of the GOP. If such a vote were to take place, it is highly likely that it would result in a win for the Republican presidential candidate.

President Trump’s supporters need to keep the faith—in the Constitution, in the Truth, and in him.

How Mail-in Voting Will Ruin Elections Forever

Lord Acton’s quote gave birth to a paraphrase that seems to perfectly capture what we have all seen happen to so many that have risen to power and are subsequently left to their own devices: Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Our founders were wise enough to place within our system of government a number of checks and balances.

What they may not have anticipated, though, is that there would have been a moral breakdown in segments of the country. This would eventually result in having more individuals than not in leadership positions, whose personal ethical components had been compromised and whose internal check and balance systems had essentially been wiped out.

With regard to our governmental system, the number one check and balance, bar none, is a free and fair election. But over the course of the past several years, concurrent with the aforementioned moral breakdown, there has been a deliberate chipping away of our system’s self-policing mechanism.

The perpetrator that is largely to blame for the deterioration that has occurred is none other than the Democratic Party.

Democrats have a bad habit of giving lip service to the whole concept of democracy, while behind the scenes they are doing everything possible to undermine its very essence.

For example, when it comes to implementing anything that might help eliminate voter fraud, such as cleaning up the voter rolls, requiring voters to show IDs before casting ballots, etc., they fight tooth and nail to prevent it from happening.

At the same time they persist in trying to implement things that are tailor-made for voter fraud, including early voting, late voting, pop-up voting centers, same day registration, and scores of other schemes.

Democrats also keep trying to hand out voting privileges to anyone who will join their latest election pick-up game, including non-citizens, felons, and even those who have already exited their earthly home.

Along with their buddies in the media, Democrats have been massaging the public psyche to sign-on to the notion that voting ballots for the upcoming November election should be sent out willy-nilly to everyone.

Hyping concerns over COVID-19, they are trying to convince everyone that in-person voting would be hazardous to your health and the health of your neighbors. Therefore, you are supposed to conclude that the smartest thing to do this election-go-round would be to just have everyone vote by mail.

A few stats are helpful in bringing truth to light. According to data from the Election Assistance Commission, between 2012 and 2018, over 28 million mail-in ballots went missing.

In Spring of 2020 about 20 percent of the mailed absentee ballots in a municipal election in Paterson, New Jersey, were rejected due to fraud concerns.

And in June of 2020, New York City botched the handling of an unduly large amount of mail-in ballots.

Mail-in ballots are a setup for the implementation of another strategy that was crafted by the Democratic Party. It’s called “ballot harvesting,” and it is designed to disenfranchise certain Americans from their voting rights, namely those who align with an opposing party.

It allows third parties to be paid to gather mail-in, absentee, and/or other types of ballots on behalf of voters, and then deliver the ballots to election officials. It’s not hard to spot the problems that can and will inevitably occur with a strategy like this in place.

Because having third parties who are paid to go out and gather ballots is a formula for fraud, the practice of ballot harvesting has been outlawed almost everywhere in the country.

But interestingly in 2016, California quietly legalized a version of ballot harvesting that permitted any person to collect an unlimited amount of mail-in ballots and receive compensation for their efforts.

Then when the mid-term elections of 2018 took place, several Republican congressmen in Orange County ended up losing their House seats. And Nancy got her gavel back.

Nevada recently passed legislation during a night session. The vote tally ended up following strict party lines. Universal mail-in balloting, along with a ballot harvesting provision that follows the California model of allowing third parties to collect ballots, passed.

Same as California, the Nevada version imposes no limit on how many ballots can be collected. But Nevada’s version goes even further. It allows an individual to sign a ballot on another’s behalf.

Here’s the bottom line. Universal mail-in voting works as the opening act for ballot harvesting. Once the mail-in ballots are sent out, harvesters can go out to the homes of voters and collect ballots.

Some ballots may be blank. No problem, they can be completed later. If ballots are filled out, operatives are in a position to discard the ones of an opposing party. This can be done without any accountability. No checks, no balance.

Here’s the dastardly duo: mail-in voting and ballot harvesting.

We need to do everything we can to bar the polling place doors from these evil twins.

Otherwise free and fair elections will become a thing of the past.