How to prevent the theft of the 2020 Presidential election


I think that by now, the fact that this Presidential election is in the process of being stolen by the Democratic Party and its supporters is beyond reasonable doubt.  In state after state, clear, unmistakeable evidence of electoral fraud is clear to see.  We’ve discussed it in several articles over the past few days:

As I see it, there are now two, and only two, possibilities remaining to peacefully resolve this electoral fraud in an honest and legitimate way.  More about them in a moment.  We must use one or the other, or perhaps both, because if we don’t, the only other way is through violence, to stop the theft of our constitutional republic in its tracks.  May God forbid that should become necessary – because we’ll all lose if it does.
Nevertheless, at any cost, we must stop this right here and now.  If we don’t, we will never have another free, fair and honest election.  The Democratic Party platform includes a path to citizenship for illegal aliens already within our borders.  Nobody knows how many of them there are – I’ve heard figures ranging between ten and twenty million, and perhaps higher.  If, by 2024, most of them have been made eligible to vote, they’ll swamp the moderate and conservative share of the electorate, and make it just about impossible to remove the Democratic Party from power.  We dare not allow that to happen:  and that means we have to stop it before it can happen.

The first possibility for peaceful resolution is through the courts.  I think we’ve all seen how partisan state courts can’t necessarily be trusted to administer the law fairly and with equality.  Too many have allowed electoral shenanigans to proceed unchecked.  Federal courts have a somewhat better track record.  However, the question is whether or not courts will be able to intervene effectively.  Usually, a court decision must be based on hard evidence.  Due to official obfuscation, it’s doubtful that enough hard evidence of electoral fraud can be provided to obtain such a decision.  What’s more, those perpetrating the fraud have made sure to cover their tracks, so much so that hard evidence may be very difficult to obtain.  We already have abundant circumstantial and inferential evidence, but I don’t know how willing our courts – particularly the Supreme Court – will be to make rulings based on that.  I daresay we’ll find out over the next few weeks.

The second possibility for peaceful resolution is to use the mechanism provided by the Constitution of the United States.  Clause Two of Section Two of the Constitution reads as follows (italic text is my emphasis):

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.

Note that although the usual practice that has developed is for voters to choose a state’s electors, that power has been delegated by (and is still reserved to) the Legislature of that state.  That Legislature can, at will, exercise its own constitutional authority to appoint those electors, rather than be bound by the popular votes cast (and/or disputed) in an election.

This issue has been extensively studied, and there appears to be no legal controversy as to its validity.  In a 1962 study titled “Limitations on the Power of State Legislatures over Presidential Elections“, James Kirby noted (bold, italic text is my emphasis):

… in McPherson v. Blacker … holding that the fourteenth amendment created no right of popular election of presidential electors and did not freeze the practice of electing them as a unit on a state-wide basis, the Court characterized state legislatures’ power as “plenary.” The right of any legislature to resume appointment of electors itself was expressly confirmed and the Court even suggested that the absolute power of any legislature could not be abdicated by statute or limited by state constitution.

This was reaffirmed after the 2000 Presidential election, when the Supreme Court reaffirmed McPherson v. Blacker, and ruled (bold, italic text is my emphasis):

The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States unless and until the state legislature chooses a statewide election as the means to implement its power to appoint members of the Electoral College. U.S. Const., Art. II, §1. This is the source for the statement in McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1, 35 (1892), that the State legislature’s power to select the manner for appointing electors is plenary; it may, if it so chooses, select the electors itself, which indeed was the manner used by State legislatures in several States for many years after the Framing of our Constitution. Id., at 28—33. History has now favored the voter, and in each of the several States the citizens themselves vote for Presidential electors. When the state legislature vests the right to vote for President in its people, the right to vote as the legislature has prescribed is fundamental; and one source of its fundamental nature lies in the equal weight accorded to each vote and the equal dignity owed to each voter. The State, of course, after granting the franchise in the special context of Article II, can take back the power to appoint electors. See id., at 35 (“[T]here is no doubt of the right of the legislature to resume the power at any time, for it can neither be taken away nor abdicated”) (quoting S. Rep. No. 395, 43d Cong., 1st Sess.).

This provides a legal, legitimate, entirely constitutional means to counteract the electoral fraud we’ve seen over the past week.

So far, serious, credible allegations of electoral fraud have surfaced in (at least) Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Georgia and Arizona.  I therefore submit that the legislatures of each of those states should convene a special session to formally acknowledge the reality of such electoral fraud, and reassert their right to nominate the electors for their respective states, irrespective of the alleged result of the popular vote.  They should do so without further delay.

Note that I don’t specify any partisan political interest in those states.  Their legislatures have all been elected by popular mandate, and therefore legitimately represent the people of their respective states.  If they exercise their constitutional authority with regard to electors, that’s an entirely normal and legal implementation of their rights, duties and responsibilities.

I therefore call upon those legislatures to assert their rights, duties and responsibilities, and remove the nomination of electors from a flawed electoral process.  This will also remove the burden of deciding the election from a legal system that may not be able to act in the absence of hard evidence.

The question is whether the legislators of those states have the courage and political will to act.  That’s debatable.  Too often, politicians choose to “go along to get along”.  They may fail to act, for fear that they’ll be punished at the polls next election, or face reprisals from political opponents.  Either may happen:  but, in the final analysis, they were elected to fulfill their constitutional responsibilities.  This is one of them.  They must act, or be derelict in those responsibilities.

Sadly, that won’t prevent electoral fraud in other offices (for example, Congressional representatives or Senators).  State legislators will have to find other ways to address those issues – and quickly.  I don’t know how that can be done, because I don’t know the constitutions of each particular state.  Certainly, in states where electoral fraud can be deduced and/or proved, the system of voting needs to be reformed to eliminate it as far as possible.  This should happen right away, before the next election.

As far as the Presidential election is concerned, it seems to me that one or both of the measures we’ve discussed – court action to halt and/or overturn electoral fraud, and state legislatures arrogating to themselves their undeniable constitutional right to appoint Presidential electors – will be essential to overcome the shenanigans that confront us right now.

If neither measure is used, that leaves only one option, and that is direct resistance.  That will almost certainly lead to a new civil war, the extent of which is unpredictable, and the results of which are likely to be at best destabilizing, at worst catastrophic, for our constitutional republic.  God forbid that it should become necessary!

As for me, I chose my path when I swore the oath of Federal law enforcement service.

“I [name] do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”

That oath has no expiration date.  It is still binding on me.  I shall keep faith with it.



  1. If the Democrats are willing to cheat an election, they are willing to cheat the selection of convention delegates. Failing in that, they will simply ignore the new constitution, just like they did the old.

    The new, gamed constitution won't have a second amendment, I can guarantee that. It will have nonsense in it about a right to healthcare and other communist crap, though.

    And you know what Republicans are going to do about that? The same thing they are going to do about this election. The same thing they always do. Nothing by complain on the Internet and the news, then they will fight for small scraps from the master's table.

    There won't be a civil war. The right doesn't have the stomach for it. God forbid someone on the left calls them a racist.

  2. Divemedic,

    I tend to agree with you. No one is willing to clean the Aegean stables.

    A Trump win would have/will just kicked the can down the road a few years or months. We would have the same swamp, the same media, the same elite and the same ignorant population.

    Nothing happened to LBJ's "victory", nothing will happen to Harris's "victory". Nothing happened to Hillary or Obama or Biden even though they are proven traitors.

    The Dems don't need gulags or to grab guns. Destroying the economy will kill more without using any boxcars and force.

    So enjoy your electricity, food, clean water, medicine and entertainment while it last.

  3. Chris, just a small point but the Aegean is a sea in the Mediterranean, Augean is the stables in question.

    I don't tend to think that it's a lack of stones for civil war it's that we understand better than many what the ultimate consequences will be. Many will die and the new system may not be much better than the old system. There are enough people in this country (70 million or so and that's just those eligible to vote) who apparently think that pushing in a socialist direction is not only OK but desirable. After the civil war, then what? Vote for a new Constitution? Who votes? Them? Impose a Constitution against the will of half the country? A Constitution that they will presumably immediately start to fight against? Abandon republicanism for a monarchy or a dictatorship? The problem is the people, not the government. You can elect a new government but you can't elect a new people (forget who said that but it seems to fit nicely).

    250 years ago a system was set up that made sense. It was simple and straightforward. I have no illusions that the majority of people today in this country would accept the original version. If they would, we wouldn't be in this situation.

  4. Those of you who think the same thing will go on forever, and this will turn into another ho-hum moment, have entirely ignored how Trump got elected to begin with, and you have another think coming.

    All of human history is what happens when someone stands up and says "Not any more!"

    This isn't just about Trump any more.

    If they'll do this, they'll do anything.

    We already know where the boxcars on that train let out.

    This isn't business as usual.

    I'm fine with trying every Constitutional remedy available, right up until 11:59A on January 20th.

    At that point, the wait-and-seers and don't-rock-the-boaters are out of time.

    We've waited patiently for decades for even so much as one of The Usual Suspects to be frogmarched off to the federal pen, for even as long as a hockey penalty.

    In vain.

    Peter's worried "we'll all lose" if this devolves to violence.

    That's quite simply a wagonload of horse droppings.

    Violence is rapidly becoming apparent as the only way to solve this.
    The Left has been clamoring for war in this country for years. Decades even.
    The only way to sort that out is by giving it to them, and holding their faces in it, until they stop kicking, and the few survivors left cry "Enough! We surrender!" once and for all, and feel that way down to their marrow.

    We've already – every mother's son of us – long since lost any semblance of the republic bequeathed to us when we were born, and even that was a pale imitation of the original article.

    And everybody knows it.

    The Founders had a riot over a tax of half a penny a year.
    They started a revolution over one single barn full of guns and ammunition.
    Had they been running things, we'd have done the same decades hence.

  5. (cont.)
    The fraud, corruption, and absolute bloodlust for power going on minute by minute in this electoral farce is a plain as the nose on anyone's face.
    And if we can see it, so can the other side, and hardly a one of them, and no one of importance, has expressed the slightest shock or dismay at the world-class shenanigans going on.

    Those are not my countrymen, they're traitors, seditious rebels, and bastard stepchildren.

    One way or the other, if this isn't put right in time, they're leaving this country.

    If they have to go feet first, and leave the planet to do so, so be it.

    No one's itching for this, but anyone with a lick of sense can see there's no avoiding this much longer, and the only way to cleanse things now is with a terrible fire.

    Even IF we get a peaceful and just conclusion this time, against nearly all hope, what about 4 years from now????

    D'ya think the criminals masterminding this current coup will just give up, and never try this again??

    Fools imagine such a thing can never touch us, because we're special.
    We're not.

    This sort of thing is what has happened everywhere since the dawn of time, and the wheel looks like it's coming around to land on our number again, and for a host of reasons.

    Wishing it were otherwise is a fine thing – when your head is on its pillow at night.

    But it won't suffice during our waking hours, and when our last hope of anything else is gone, there's going to be one godawful scramble to get ready for what must come afterwards.

    No one's coming to save us.

    Half the country thinks things are just spiffy the way they're headed, and that nothing in our past matters nor counts to say otherwise.
    Not criminal law, not Constitutional law, not natural law.

    They want to be a nation of men, not a nation of laws.
    And the man chosen as their figurehead is a doddering old crook who's spent more years than I've been alive doing nothing but sucking on the public teat, and then grabbing out with both hands to milk the other ones too. His spare is a raving communist. And nearly half the country thinks they should and will rule and reign over us.

    I, and a basket of Deplorables beg to disagree with those sentiments.
    Most strenuously.

    I have no desire to be John Brown.
    But I have no problem whatsoever with being P.T. Beauregard.
    When it's time to touch this off, get on with it.

    This is coming to a head like a freight train.
    Time is running out.

    Tick tock.

  6. Looking down the road, when Trump wins the election (as I believe he will) he has heretofore shown no inclination to root out the criminals who stole this election, among many other crimes. If he continues to have no interest in so doing, then yes, this will happen again.

    If, however, Trump DOES win and DOES clean house, this crisis can be overcome without civil war. He doesn't even have to clean house in the manner of Sulla, or Octavian: I believe you will agree, Peter, that merely by enforcing the law as written, a critical mass of those responsible could be imprisoned or otherwise taken out of play, preventing another stolen election in the near term and setting an excellent precedent to deter further such efforts into the future. The Sedition Act, the existing laws regarding federal election fraud, and even RICO give Trump all the legal ammo he would need, should he but choose to act.

    That's my ideal end-state. I even dare to hope it's among the more probable outcomes.

  7. Aesop has the reality of it.

    Halfway measures absolutely won't cut it, and "dodging the bullet" now merely sets us up for invigorated attacks by the Left in 2022 and 2024. If they lose now through technical and procedural means they will simply study the problem to eliminate those options in 2022 and 2024. They are not going to quit. We must not quit either; that rules out depending in any way on "Republicans"; accepting "small scraps from the master's table" is precisely what Republicans have done for 30 years. We're in this by ourselves.

    However we handle this it must be effective and complete and leave no avenue for escape, regrouping and renewing the attack.

    If that can be handled by Constitutional means, through application of Constitutional principles and the statutes based on that Constitution, so be it.

    If it requires more then more will have to be delivered, and delivered effectively, completely and without reservation. This is a binary issue – a fight to the death. We're now in a position to choose whether it's our death or theirs, and it will be one or the other.

    Choose wisely because there will be no opportunity to choose a second time or go back for a "do-over."

  8. Absolutely agree with Unidentified Victim. Stop it now, while the Democrats are still clumsy, or they will eventually get it right.

    Also agree that, if for any reason it isn't done legally … it still needs to be done. Was 1776 illegal?

  9. *Sigh*

    Aesop said:

    Peter's worried "we'll all lose" if this devolves to violence.

    That's quite simply a wagonload of horse droppings.

    Violence is rapidly becoming apparent as the only way to solve this.

    Aesop, I understand what you're saying: but I've seen civil war in three different nations during my life. The body count was literally innumerable. We'll never know how many died – most of them innocent civilians caught in the crossfire.

    I've seen what happens when violence takes over from other means. I don't want to see that in the United States of America. It may be unavoidable. It may even be necessary. However, I still don't want to see it.

    For that reason, I'll go on trying non-violent means as long as humanly possible, and I'll oppose "going kinetic" unless and until there's no alternative.

    However, I agree: this situation cannot be allowed to stand. We must ensure the rule of law, because if we don't, the rule of law won't exist any longer. At that point, only the law of the jungle prevails. If the other side wants it that way . . . well, they're going to get what they wanted.

    At that point, I'll be using all my experience, and doing my best to ensure that the good triumphs, and the evil is vanquished – by any means necessary. However, I won't like it. Also, I'm an older man now, partly disabled, and filled with too many memories. I don't expect to survive that, if it should come. That's not something to which I look forward – even though it may be necessary.

    Once again, with feeling . . . *Sigh*

  10. heresolong,

    I would blame auto-correct but I think it's lack of caffeine and old age. 🙂


    To restore the Republic to an acceptable baseline would require either a bloody Civil War and/or a purge and restructuring of most of the major institutions. Either way, millions will die.

    And no one knows which side the US military would support. And the person(s) that can launch the nukes can hold the rest of the world hostage. Which side are the holders of those keys on?

    Is it worth destroying the world to be "free"?

  11. I think it's over, they did successfully steal the election.
    Half the country does not see a thing wrong with tens of thousands of "just Biden" ballots showing up after the counting closed for the day in the several swing states.

    Even worse is the people who see freedom of speech as being something that only applies to what they think is widespread, public education did that and that effectively ends the Constitution.

    Time to tell Ben Franklin that we were not able to hold on to the Republic.

  12. Agree with Aesop, and you can bet ALL of the DOJ investigations will stop cold on January 20th… Then they will start after us…

  13. Rob, the problem is not that half the country thinks it is wrong for ballots to show up in whatever fashion, the problem is that half the country thinks that the New York Times, AP, and Fox News decide who is the next president.

    And that was pretty much baked into the cake when that slightly less than half the country did not accept the results of the last election, which was done by the book, and spent three years on a wild good chase after RUSSIANS.

    Peter, sorry I have to agree with Aesop: when half the country abandons the Constitution and the rules that allow us to live together and sometimes win and sometimes lose, then it's pretty clear which direction things are going to go.

  14. "We all will lose" That is correct in that we will all lose if we resort to violence as a solution.

    But how much each side will lose if we go the violent option versus how much each side will lose if we go the legal routes has to be looked at as does the surrender option.

    If we go legal, the left loses their power grab and the right gets four years before the next attempt. Neither side gains or loses much.

    If we of the right surrender, or lose the violent option we are in pretty much the same place, there will be purges that make Cancel Culture look like kindergarten spats over a shiny toy. Free speech and the right to bear arms will be gone at the 22 election when the left will take the Senate.

  15. Peter did not mention an Article V. Convention of the States. A final peaceful, totally constitutional approach. It could address such things as..
    1. Pass an amendment to address electoral security concerns.
    2. Create a means to break up California and similar larger states with dissimilar urban and rural electorates, to more fairly allocate their electoral college votes and create additional senators to represent their more conservative areas.
    3. Provide for more functional recall/impeachment of Supreme Court and other federal judges who do not stand for Constitutional and textual decision-making.
    4. Restrict voting in any election to persons who have not been on public assistance (excepting Social Security, etc.) for some multi-year period of time.
    5. Restrict immigration to persons having job skills or sponsorship guarantees, or narrowly-defined bona fide refugee situations. Any immigrant must renounce/abjure for life on pain of loss of resident status or naturalized citizenship beliefs involving concepts such as marxism, jihad or taqqiya.
    6. No "dark money" or foreign campaign contributions, whatsoever.

    See what this might accomplish?

  16. Weekends on Bayou Renaissance Man are traditionally devoted to the arts, pet videos, music … lighter fare.

    You know this is serious when Peter makes an exception to his long-standing practice.

  17. @ Steve Johnson: "Was 1776 illegal?"

    All successful revolutions are legal. All failed revolutions are illegal. It's that simple.

  18. @ Etaoin: "See what this might accomplish?"

    Well, given that the current observed-almost-entirely-in-the-breach Constitution was the result of a convention to simply revise the Articles of Confederation, and given that one side of the current contretemps believes that "the process must be followed though it leads us to boxcars" while the other believes that winners get to write the history books, you honestly think that an Article V Convention would be *remotely* likely to produce anything other than a collectivist wishlist?

  19. @Jimmy: Yes. Consider, each state has an equal vote. The lefty-run states do not have the votes to dominate the convention. The more numerous conservative states do……..and their state legislatures have the votes to ratify the resulting amendments. Now as to what the outraged lefty states would do, your guess is as good as mine. They would not be happy, but they would have few choices.

  20. "All revolutions are legal in the first person: our revolution. It's only revolutions in the third person: their revolution, that are illegal." – Benjamin Franklin, 1776

    Peter, like you, I hope and pray non-violent means avail to declare a victory. But they can only declare a victory, not secure one.

    But at that moment, the frothing moonbat left loses their $#!^.

    Non-violence as strategy is never a unilateral decision.
    As Christians found out in Rome in the first century.
    I refuse to limit my political options to resolving to taste bad.

    So right now, therefore, the only question remaining is whether our side wishes to be the shooters, or the targets.

    I've seen the evidence of revolutions myself, second-hand, and first-hand evidence of the results.

    I vote for opening fire, rather than being rounded up and put in boxcars.

    And YES, that lemon is worth the squeeze. For anyone who disagrees, I ask them to depart in peace, and may the chains of their slavery rest lightly on their limbs.

    If that rocks anyone's world, or upsets them at their table, I remind them that their fondest wishes enter into the Universe's calculations of What Shall Be not a whit, and their pwecious feeeeeeeeelz are being overtaken by events.

    Minute by minute.


    Ask not for whom the bell tolls;
    It tolls for thee.

  21. @ Etaoin: "Consider, each state has an equal vote. The lefty-run states do not have the votes to dominate the convention."

    The problem is that the lefty states (their pols, if not their populations) are considerably more uniform in outlook than the assorted right leaning ones. Given that herding the cats on the right has always been exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, it wouldn't be hard for an relatively organized bloc of lefty states to still dominate the process.

    And that assumes no shenanigans.

  22. I agree with Aesop Letting the Democrat's get away with stealing this election is just evil. Conservatives have been dying since before the 3rd Nov and some people can't see you are already at war. Wake Up.

  23. When someone has the program to control the electronic vote, they don’t need you or any politician. You can’t win by voting, no matter who or what cause you stand for. You will do as you are told or be systematically eliminated over time. At that point you fight or die.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *