Replies

I’ve read — and considered — a certain unattributed blurb “making the rounds” that POTUS Trump is going to start WW3 — with China!! — as cover (or something — for his having “lost: the election.
~~~~~~~~~

I don’t think Trump would start a war, and he won the election so it wouldn’t work as cover.

I think China may start a war. (continue the war it’s conducting against us?). China has already launched Bio Warfare. Even companies producing the vaccine are infiltrated with PRC.

When DNI said a few days ago that China was implicated in the hack of our election, that’s basically the US saying we have evidence that China is conducting a war against the United states.

That DNI announcement means that EO of 2018 confiscating foreign assets for those involved would be triggered, and it would likely deemed, by the Chinese, an act of economic warfare.

Then we hear that our infrastructure was hacked - in such a through way it seems likely that whomever did it (i.e. China) knew they would be detected, but considered the access/information necessary enough to allow themselves to be caught conducting cyber war against the US.

It does seem like things are escalating. But no, Trump would not START a war; he would defend America from those who conduct war against us.

An example letter to send to your US Senator (or any Republican Senators) from election law attorney Robert Barnes. He is claiming no copyright, so he wants this to get out there and be shared. Feel free to modify it or personalize it as needed.

Here it is:

****************************************************
Senator Letter Draft: No Copyright Claimed

Dear Senator,

I request you exercise your Constitutional and statutory authority to object to the certification of any elector from any state that refuses to allow a meaningful audit of the November general election for electors to the Presidency, which must include: 1) a re-canvass of the vote that authorizes independent confirmation of a signature match using the same standards the same election officials use for nomination petitions, recall petitions, and initiative petitions; 2) publishing of the ballots for the world to review and observe, as states promised when they wrote large taxpayer checks to election machine companies like Dominion and others; and 3) audited review of the voter rolls to insure only qualified voters cast ballots for electors to the Presidency. If a state refuses to allow an honest audit of the vote, then I request you object to the certification of any electors from that state which has refused such an audit. At present, this includes the electors from Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

There is reason for my concern. The state legislatures in the respective states chose a method for choosing electors to the Presidency that cabined who qualified to vote, constricted the manner in which a vote could be cast, and circumscribed how the vote could be counted. Many of the restrictions and requirements for each of those three were not followed by several of the states in question. President Carter warned in 2005 that absentee ballots posed the greatest risk of fraud. The New York Times agreed in 2012 that absentee ballots posed the greatest risk of fraud. Jurists, experts, and election officials all concurred that mass mail-in balloting posed the greatest risk of fraud. We just had the biggest absentee-ballot driven election in American history. Yet, the very safety guardrails of this election were systemically and systematically removed, often without the assent or consent of the state legislatures, despite the express promise and explicit protection of the Electors Clause to the Constitution. Midnight counts outside the meaningful observation of poll-watchers. 11% signature mismatches according to the Democratic expert in the election contest in Arizona. Votes from dead people, non-citizens, and non-residents found in the research of Matt Braynard and Richard Baris. Is it really too much to ask that states publish the ballots they promised to publish? Is it really too much to ask that states allow an independently confirmed signature match, at least to a statistically significant sample, of the absentee ballots? Is it really too much to ask for the states to affirm that only those qualified to vote cast ballots for the Presidency?

The Supreme Court directed any remedy to you, and Congress, when it declined to hear the case brought by the state of Texas, a suit joined by the Attorneys General for 18 states representing more than 100 million Americans, 126 members of Congress, high ranking state legislators from the objectionable elections of the states at issue, and public interest advocacy groups representing millions of Americans. I ask that you do me the small favor of simply objecting to electors under the circumstances herein described. At a minimum, it can give confidence to me, and more than 74 million Americans who voted for President Trump, that our concerns about this election were taken seriously and meaningfully addressed in the only place the courts have directed remedy can occur: the halls of Congress.

The Constitutional conscience of the country depends upon the choices you make. Many thanks for your kind attention to these critical concerns.

Thank You,

XXX
A Simple American

"Where We Go One We Go ALL!"