Now now! No need to insult sows. 
1 Like
They most certainly are!
24-hour accessible mail in drop boxes are located in various locations in Georgia, including, parking lots, driveways and walkways:
Gwinnett County mail-in ballot drop box
In addition, two of these drop boxes were set on fire; one in California and one in Boston.
They are a convenient way for ballot harvesters to introduce their illegally harvested ballots into the system.
JWK
We need to start call these scoundrels what they really are! They are not “democrats”, “progressives”, or “democrat” leaders. They are radical socialist revolutionaries, supported and defended by a Fifth Column Media and Yellow Journalists.
Georgia Elections Officials vote to keep vital tool used in ballot harvesting!
See: NEW: Georgia Elections Officials Extend Use of Ballot Drop Boxes For January Twin Senate Runoff
“What could possibly go wrong?
Georgia elections officials on Monday voted to extend the use of ballot drop boxes for the January 5 twin Senate runoff where the Republican majority in the Senate is on the line.
The use of ballot drop boxes, which opens the door for illegal ballot harvesting, was set to expire in December, but the 5-member Georgia State Election Board voted to extend the use of drop boxes.
Georgia is already struggling with how to deal with residency concerns after Democrats have called on people to temporarily move to Georgia to vote in the Senate runoff.
GOP incumbent Senators David Perdue and Kelly Loeffler are fighting to keep their seats.”
Let us not forget, during the 2020 presidential election, an activist group Stacey Abrams founded, “Fair Fight Action”, convinced Georgia’s Secretary of State, Brad Raffensperger, to ignore current voting practices, and to place hundreds of unregulated, unsupervised, ballot drop boxes throughout the State.
This approval last week, to extend the use of ballot drop boxes during the coming Senate runoff election, provides the needed tool used by illegal third parties who harvest ballots, to introduce illegally harvested ballots into the Senate runoff race.
Keep in mind it only takes a few hundred activists to collect hundreds of thousands of harvested ballots from, nursing homes, homeless shelters, food banks, etc., in a short period of time, who then use the drop boxes to introduce these harvested ballots into the system. And this is what Stacey Abrams, and apparently Georgia’s Election Officials, have planned for Georgia’s Senate runoff race.
Stacey Abrams has recently boasted that over 750,000 mail in ballots have already been requested.
24-hour accessible mail in ballot drop boxes are located in various locations throughout Georgia, including, parking lots, driveways and walkways, and are an important tool used in ballot harvesting.
Fulton County, Georgia, ballot drop box
The fix is already in!
JWK
The unavoidable truth is, our socialist revolutionaries, Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, have a plan for “free” college tuition, and cancelling student loan debt. The problem is, it will be paid for by taxing millions of college graduates who worked for and paid their own way through college and are now trying to finance their own economic needs.
Mod Note
Knock off the personal crap.
1 Like
Pennsylvania lawmakers introduce resolution disputing election certification
See State Lawmakers Introduce Resolution Disputing 2020 General Election Results
Nov 27, 2020
HARRISBURG, Pa. (WHTM) — A group of Pennsylvania lawmakers introduced a resolution Friday, disputing the 2020 General Election Statewide Contest calling it ‘absolutely imperative.’
“A number of compromises of Pennsylvania’s election laws took place during the 2020 General Election,” the statement said. “The documented irregularities and improprieties associated with mail-in balloting, pre-canvassing, and canvassing have undermined our elector process and as a result we can not accept certification of the results in statewide races.”
“It is absolutely imperative that we take these steps if we are to ensure public trust in our electoral system. Faith in government begins with faith in the elections which select that government.”
JWK
Our socialist revolutionaries, which now control the Democrat Party Leadership, are known for accusing others of what they themselves are guilty of.
A group of 80,000,000 Americans voted Trump out.
Now you listen to a handful that want to steal the election.
That’s isn’t very American.
Allan
But they don’t want to dispute the three other statewide elections, two of which were won by Republicans.
Imagine that…
Talking about all those people who voted, I suggest you read Memorandum Opinion Filed in Pennsylvania by Judge McCullough – Election Likely Unconstitutional
Filed 11/27/2020
"The Court agrees it would be untenable for the legislature to appoint the electors where an election has already occurred, if the majority of voters who did not vote by mail entered their votes in accord with a constitutionally recognized method, as such action would result in the disenfranchisement of every voter in the Commonwealth who voted in this election – not only those whose ballots are being challenged due to the constitutionality of Act 77. However, this is not the only equitable remedy available in a matter which hinges upon upholding a most basic constitutional right of the people to a fair and free election. Hence, Respondents have not established that greater harm will result in providing emergency relief, than the harm suffered by the public due to the results of a purportedly unconstitutional election. 5
5 The U.S. Supreme Court has addressed various circumstances concerning disenfranchisement of votes. For instance, it has held the right to vote is foundational to our Republic and this fundamental right “can be denied by a debasement or dilution of the weight of a citizen’s vote just as effectively as by wholly prohibiting the free exercise of the franchise.” Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 555 (1964). Reynolds, which established the “one person, one vote” doctrine, is the seminal case on voter dilution. Under this concept, a mail-in voting process that would exceed the limits of absentee voting prescribed in Pa. Const. Article VII sec 14 could be construed as violating the “one person one vote.” In that event, the sheer magnitude of the number of mail-in ballots would not be a basis to disregard not only this provision of the Pennsylvania Constitution but also the “one person, one vote” doctrine established by Reynolds, one of the bedrock decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court
For all of the above reasons, the Court respectfully submits that the emergency preliminary injunction was properly issued and should be upheld pending an expedited emergency evidentiary hearing s/ Patricia A. McCullough PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge
and the PA supreme court dismisses the case unanimously with prejudice
The PA supremes know better than to disenfranchise millions of Pennsylvanians right to select the electors for president and vice-president.
At the behest of a handful of malcontents.
Allan
The PA Supreme Court never addressed the constitutionality of no-excuse mail-in ballots which in fact violates Pennsylvania’s Constitution, namely Article VII, §§ 1 and 4
What the Court did was use the doctrine of laches to allow unauthorized ballots to be counted, while ignoring their illegality, since the Constitution was never amended to allow such ballots, and, which in effect, cancelled out legally cast ballots, thereby disentrancing millions of voters.
In effect, the court assumed legislative and executive functions and engaged in judicial tyranny!
JWK
”The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands . . . may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” ___ Madison, Federalist Paper No. 47
.
No…politically motivated stooges.
In that group were Republican state legislators who not only voted for no excuse mail in, when it passed they were praising it and telling Pennsylvanians to avail themselves of It.
The universal mail in portion of the law was supported by more Republicans than Democrats…just two GOP legislators voted against it.
They were suing to have a law they overwhelmingly passed declared unconstitutional.
And even had SCOTPA not seen through their base political posturing, they STILL wouldn’t have granted them the remedy they wanted. Courts have never invalidated the votes of people who believed they were in good faith following the election laws as they knew them to be.
At best the courts would have said “This law is unconstitutional. You can’t use universal mail in voting for any future election.
No one is ever punished for following a law later ruled unconstitutional.
No they did not.
They saw right through the political motivations of the people asking for the law to be declared unconstitutional and spoke to the curious timing of their action.
Again I will summarize.
The Pennsylvania Legislature is controlled by REPUBLICANS.
No excuse mail in voting was overwhelmingly supported by state REPUBLICANS. They even are on record publicly praising the law and suggesting residents avail themselves of it.
It was used in two elections,and never once did any state Republican even hint there was a problem with its constitutionality…until there was a result they didn’t like.
SCOTPA saw right through this attempted political power play and slapped it down hard…as it deserved to be slapped down.
And again…EVEN IF the court had ruled the law unconstitutional, they would have NEVER applied as a remedy the invalidation of millions of people’s votes who used the no excuse mail in.
That NEVER happens. When people believe they are following a law in good faith, they are NEVER punished if said law is later found to be unconstitutional.
All that would have happened is that the no excuse mail in law would have been stricken from the books and unable to be used for any future election unless the Constitution was first amended.
It like the pine tar incident.
Billy Martin of the Yankees discovers an illegal bat that George Brett or the royals uses.
George Brett gets his at bats until the 9th inning.
Then clocks a 2 out, 2 run homer to go ahead in the game.
Billy Martin comes out and tells the home plate umpire that Brett used an illegal bat. They measure the pine tar and indeed it doesn’t meet specs and the umpire declares him out.
On appeal the American League president overturns the decision of the umpires stating that Martin knew of the illegal bat from the beginning of the game and that he waited until Brett hit a homer to use that knowledge.
Nope. You can’t wait til biden hits a homer in Pennsylvania and then declare the election null and void.
Allan
Well then, why were millions of Pennsylvania citizens, who cast lawful ballots, punished by having their ballots cancelled out and were disenfranchised by unconstitutional no-excuse mail-in ballots?
As I correctly pointed out, in effect, the court assumed legislative and executive functions and engaged in judicial tyranny!
The Court could have called for a new election without no-excuse mail-in ballots.
JWK
”The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands . . . may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” ___ Madison, Federalist Paper No. 47
they wernt unconstitutional no matter what you think
No one was disenfranchised.
The people who voted mail-in voted for who, they wanted to vote for regardless if a finding of constitutionality/unconstitutionality had been found.
The validity of a person’s vote does not change if the process changes.
This is the precedent courts have followed in the past. The drive up drop boxes in Harris County, Texas, for example. The judge warned Harris County not to use them on Election Day…but he did not go back and invalidate those who had already voted that way. To do so would have been improper in the extreme.
To suddenly throw out votes of millions of people who thought they were following the law as they understood it would have been an unprecedented and huge example of judicial activism.
At the time of the primary and the general elections, the constitutionality of universal mail-ins in Pennsylvania was not being questioned. In fact, the very people that tried to allege this after the fact were overwhelmingly in support of universal mail ins.
Therefore the people who chose mail in as a method of voting followed the law as they knew it at the time. It would be against all precedent to invalidate their votes ex post facto.
Same principle as if a previously legal act was now ruled a crime. Anyone who committed the act before it was made illegal would not them be punished for having committed that act.
If something is declared unconstitutional, it is unconstitutional from the moment of declaration…its unconstitutionality is not them retroactively applied.
That is pure speculation. If the Constitution were followed and no-excuse mail-in ballots were not allowed, I suspect the effort to actually have to show up at the poll and vote would drastically have changed the vote count.
Aside from that, the court’s job is not to speculate or alter the rule of law, or question its wisdom and especially not a state’s constitution. Its job is only to determine if the Constitution has been violated, and in this case there is no question that counting no-excuse mail-in ballots violate the provisions of Pennsylvania’s Constitution, namely Article VII, §§ 1 and 4
JWK
“If the Constitution was ratified under the belief, sedulously propagated on all sides that such protection was afforded, would it not now be a fraud upon the whole people to give a different construction to its powers?”___ Justice Story
The only one speculating is you.
This is how courts have ruled from time immemorial.
They will not invalidate the votes of people who were following the rules as they knew them to be at the time.
Even moreso because the people who were trying to claim it was unconstitutional were the same people who overwhelmingly voted for it and promoted it to voters.
No. You are misrepresenting the facts!
You speculated the following:
"The people who voted mail-in voted for who, they wanted to vote for regardless if a finding of constitutionality/unconstitutionality had been found.
The validity of a person’s vote does not change if the process changes".
And I countered with:
“If the Constitution were followed and no-excuse mail-in ballots were not allowed, I suspect the effort to actually have to show up at the poll and vote would drastically have changed the vote count.”
So, the truth is, you speculated, and then I countered and offered a different, and more plausible, speculation
I then went on to write:
Aside from that, the court’s job is not to speculate or alter the rule of law, or question its wisdom and especially not a state’s constitution. Its job is only to determine if the Constitution has been violated, and in this case there is no question that counting no-excuse mail-in ballots violate the provisions of Pennsylvania’s Constitution, namely Article VII, §§ 1 and 4
JWK
“If the Constitution was ratified under the belief, sedulously propagated on all sides that such protection was afforded, would it not now be a fraud upon the whole people to give a different construction to its powers?”___ Justice Story
