Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘DANA NESSEL’

As Michigan Charges Trump Electors With Felonies, Recall How Leftists Everywhere Urged 2016 Electors to Defect to Hillary


BY: JORDAN BOYD | JULY 19, 2023

Read more at https://thefederalist.com/2023/07/19/as-michigan-charges-trump-electors-with-felonies-recall-how-leftists-everywhere-urged-2016-electors-to-defect-to-hillary/

Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel

Author Jordan Boyd profile

JORDAN BOYD

VISIT ON TWITTER@JORDANBOYDTX

MORE ARTICLES

If the last two election cycles have proven anything, it’s that Democrats hold an undeniable double standard when it comes to objecting to elections.

The radically different treatment Republicans receive when contesting poorly administered elections intensified this week when Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel charged 16 Republican electors in her state for participating in what she deemed a “false electors scheme.” Defendants, all 55 years or older, each face eight various conspiracy and forgery felony counts that carry a sentence of five to 14 years in prison each.

“The evidence will demonstrate there was no legal authority for the false electors to purport to act as ‘duly elected presidential electors’ and execute the false electoral documents,” Nessel, an avid anti-“election denier” activistsaid in a statement. “Every serious challenge to the election had been denied, dismissed, or otherwise rejected by the time the false electors convened.”

The corporate media hailed Nessel’s allegations as a “righteous prosecution” and “compelling.” History, however, shows the charges are nothing more than a political ploy to advance the left’s war on anyone who questions election results or seeks solutions to preserve election integrity. In fact, attacks on the Trump electors in Michigan, a state where election fraud was reported in both 2020 and 2022, come from the same party and its institutional allies that formally objected to every GOP presidential certification this century and shamelessly attempted to turn electors against their political enemy Trump in 2016.

Sanctimonious Scrambling

As soon as it was clear that Donald Trump, despite the deep state’s best efforts to hoax him out of the running, would become the 45th president of the United States, Democrats and their allies scrambled to influence electors to reject Americans’ wishes. Corporate media quickly rose to the top as the loudest voice calling for electoral disobedience. Articles demanding state electors “prevent an irresponsible demagogue from taking office” and overrule Americans to install Hillary Clinton as president popped up in the pages of The Atlantic, The Washington Post, the Daily BeastVox, and Time.

The New York Times even published an article from a Texas-based Republican elector explaining “Why I Will Not Cast My Electoral Vote for Donald Trump.”

“The Electoral College is essentially an undemocratic system that’s been jury-rigged to make it somewhat more democratic,” another Vox article asserted to reassure any skeptics.

These last-ditch attempts to keep Trump out of the White House were eagerly amplified by people like MSNBC’s Joy Reid and NYT’s Jonathan Weisman, in tweets collated by journalist Michael Tracey.

Propaganda press puppets such as MSNBC’s Chris Hayes, WaPo’s EJ Dionne, and NYT’s Paul Krugman added their two cents about why electors should act on their open disdain for a Trump presidency on Twitter and on TV.

Jennifer Palmieri, the communications director for the Hillary Clinton 2016 presidential campaign who later bragged about her role in meddling with the 2016 election by spreading the Russia collusion hoax, also joined in on the dogpile.

Clinton’s top political adviser John Podesta urged a foreign intervention intelligence briefing for electors prior to their vote, hoping that news about Russia would fuel the campaign’s efforts to question the legitimacy of Trump’s victory.

Petitions calling on electors to “Make Hillary Clinton President” made their rounds on the internet. These were promoted by celebrities such as singer Pink and their sentiments echoed by movie star Mark Ruffalo.

Video ads of celebrities pleading and pressuring electors to “prevent an unfit candidate from becoming president” by voting against Trump also circulated.

“You have position, the authority, and the opportunity to go down in the books as an American hero who changed the course of history,” the activists claimed in one “Unite For America” campaign video.

When leftists’ partisan ploy to swindle electors didn’t work, they turned to congressional Democrats to object to Trump’s presidential certification. Multiple Democrats attempted to verbally object to the electoral votes from multiple states until then-Vice President Joe Biden was forced to quiet his colleagues’ ramblings about voting machines and Russia collusion to proceed with formally handing Trump the presidency. Even after that, prominent Democrats such as former President Jimmy Carter and failed Democrat presidential candidate Hillary Clinton supported the theory that Trump was illegitimately elected. Polls showed 42 percent of Americans thought the same.

No Such Thing As ‘False Electors’

In her charges, Nessel repeatedly painted the Michigan defendants as “false elector” co-conspirators who participated in a “desperate effort” to “interfere with and overturn our free and fair election process, and along with it, the will of millions of Michigan voters.” Legally, however, there’s no such thing as “false electors.”

“There were contingent Republican electors named consistent with legal precedent to preserve the still ongoing legal challenges to the validity of Georgia’s certified vote,” my colleague Margot Cleveland explained in May when corporate media tried to smear Republican electors in the Peach State.

A similar elector swap to those in Michigan and Georgia happened in Hawaii in 1960. As Cleveland pointed out, it received praise instead of scrutiny because Democrats and their preferred candidate came out on top.

After Richard Nixon was initially declared the victor in Hawaii in 1960, both Nixon’s and John F. Kennedy’s electors decided to meet and “cast their votes for President and Vice President, and certified their own meeting and votes.” The three Hawaii electors, all Democrats, cast their votes for Kennedy.

When state circuit court Judge Ronald Jamieson eventually ruled Kennedy the winner of the presidency, Cleveland said he “stressed the importance of the Democrat electors having met on Dec. 19, as prescribed by the Electoral Count Act, to cast their ballots in favor of Kennedy.”

“That step allowed the Hawaii governor to then certify Kennedy as the winner of Hawaii’s three electoral votes and, in turn, Congress to count Hawaii’s electoral votes in favor of Kennedy,” she continued.

The stark difference between how Democrats and Republicans are treated on the elector issue merely confirms Americans’ worst fears about the nation’s two-tiered system of justice. More Democrats denied that former President Donald Trump won the 2016 election than the people who claimed President Joe Biden wasn’t legitimately elected in 2020 — but it’s Republicans who face jail time for expressing concern.

If you’re a loyal leftist partisan harping on voting machines and Russian “hacking,” objecting to every GOP victory, and demanding electors vote against the will of the people, you’re a hero and protector of democracy. If you do the same to the benefit of a Republican candidate, you’ve fomented a “coup attempt” and betrayed the soul of the nation.

At a time when the justice system is weaponized against Trump and his followers, that’s a damning double standard that not even the most corrupt, partisan actors can ignore.


Jordan Boyd is a staff writer at The Federalist and co-producer of The Federalist Radio Hour. Her work has also been featured in The Daily Wire, Fox News, and RealClearPolitics. Jordan graduated from Baylor University where she majored in political science and minored in journalism. Follow her on Twitter @jordanboydtx.

Stop Arguing for Religious Liberty and Start Arguing Against Religious Discrimination


COMMENTARY BY: AUGUSTE MEYRAT | MARCH 28, 2022

Read more at https://thefederalist.com/2022/03/28/stop-arguing-for-religious-liberty-and-start-arguing-against-religious-discrimination/

catholic charities

For an increasingly secular populace, actions and policies must be defended on the basis of reason much more than faith.

Author Auguste Meyrat profile

AUGUSTE MEYRAT

VISIT ON TWITTER@MEYRATAUGUSTE

MORE ARTICLES

In a recent legal settlement, Catholic Charities West Michigan successfully challenged Michigan’s decision to bar state funds to adoption agencies that do not serve same-sex couples. The settlement forced Michigan to reimburse the charity for its legal fees and other costs. Using an argument that has now become familiar to most Americans, Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel, a lesbian mother of two and former gay rights activist, charged Catholic adoption agencies with discriminating against same-sex couples. In response, the Catholic adoption agencies used the same logic, accusing the Michigan state government of discriminating against Catholics and effectively denying them their religious freedom.

While Christians should celebrate this recent victory, it’s nonetheless sad this appeal had to be made. When gay marriage was legalized in Obergfell v. Hodges, Christians were assured that they could practice their faith and live out their values in peace, but this was almost immediately proven wrong. As the ink of Justice Anthony Kennedy’s majority opinion was drying, LGBT groups immediately went after Christian bakersfloristsphotographers, popular chicken sandwich chains, and other Christian organizations for their religious beliefs.

Defense Based on Reason not Faith

This war will continue so long as Christians keep using the religious freedom defense. Even though this argument has the best chance of winning in legal courts, it is unconvincing in the court of public opinion. As more Americans drift away from Christianity, they increasingly view this defense for denying service to same-sex couples not as a valid objection, but as a childish copout: “The Christian God doesn’t like gay people.”

Rather, it’s important to establish that most Christian churches are established on natural law (that is, moral laws based on objective truth) as much as the Bible. To be sure, faith and reason both matter enormously, but for an increasingly secular populace, actions and policies must be defended on the basis of reason much more than faith.

This has been the case with abortion, with the pro-life position steadily gaining popular support as it has adopted more reason-based arguments. The pro-life movement has grown because it has argued that unborn babies are people, and therefore abortion is murder. Although the Bible acknowledges this argument, the argument itself isn’t strictly based on the Bible.

Reasons Against Same-Sex Couples Adopting

Similarly, in issues involving marriage and children, Christians need to appeal to reason more than their faith. In the case of same-sex couples adopting, two issues need to be addressed. First, do all couples have a right to adopt a child? Second, do children have a right to a father and mother?

Concerning whether all couples have a right to adopt, the answer is that they do not. As any couple who has gone through the process of adoption understands all too well, many screenings and conditions have to be met. Someone from the adoption agency will inspect their home, rifle through their personal information, interview them and others, and then, after so many legal hurdles, possibly allow a child to live with them. Even then, the biological parent may change his or her mind and take back the child.

As painful and expensive as this process is, it is necessary because children are human beings with rights of their own, not objects a couple acquires out of boredom or simply some charitable impulse. Consequently, adoption agencies must discriminate among couples wanting to adopt, only selecting those who meet the criteria of good caretakers.

A Right to a Mother and Father?

This leads to the second issue of whether a child’s rights include having a mother and father, as opposed to two fathers or two mothers. The science on this is mixed, both because it’s a politically charged issue and because it’s a difficult thing to measure. One may say that a loving committed couple is enough, but one may contend that a loving committed heterosexual couple is necessary.

Katy Faust persuasively argues this latter view in her excellent book “Them Before Us.” She explains that men and women represent two distinct and essential supports to a child growing up; fatherhood and motherhood are not interchangeable or dispensable. Furthermore, she argues that a child does best with his or her biological parents in nearly all cases. For Faust, adoption is an alternative that should only be considered in cases of serious abuse or neglect.

Not only does Faust support her argument with a multitude of studies, but she has both a homosexual parent and an adopted child. Even though her situation would suggest that same-sex adoption should be treated the same as any other parental arrangement, her reasoning leads her to think otherwise.

Faust’s example is a good model for all Christians trying to serve their community in accordance with their values. Whatever charitable work they do — whether it is finding homes for orphans or allowing those orphans to be born in the first place — it is done for the person in need, first and foremost. This is not a political or religious issue, but a human one.

It is not a coincidence that this means they are doing God’s will in the process. Contrary to what opponents claim, Christian values are based on objective truth, not blind faith to various Bronze Age prejudices. As such, the goal is not about winning, but about making the world a better place.


Auguste Meyrat is an English teacher in the Dallas area. He holds an MA in humanities and an MEd in educational leadership. He is the senior editor of The Everyman and has written essays for The Federalist, The American Conservative, and The Imaginative Conservative, as well as the Dallas Institute of Humanities and Culture. Follow him on Twitter.

Tag Cloud