blah, blah, blah

someone stole something.

You know there is no penalty for stealing right lady? You know that stealing is totally fine now. wrong.

Thou shalt not steal? That’s real. If you think the government, courts, or police are the supreme ruling power, you are wrong my friend. Be sure your sins will find you out. That’s a promise from the King of Kings and Lord of Lords.

If you think the Senate, or the The Supreme Court of the United States will be the balance of power in this situation, you are also wrong. What if this current administration, in their sinful plunder, what if they reveal their own evil? What if they expose themselves in the most powerful display of God’s power. Interesting? The Lord works in mysterious ways.

Following the release of a bombshell special counsel’s report in the pivotal battleground state of Wisconsin, Charlie walks through the damning charges levied against Mark Zuckerberg and the Democrats who instituted a corrupt, rigged, and likely illegal ballot harvesting scheme in a state Joe Biden purportedly carried by a razor thin margin in 2020. Charlie also also aligns this latest story with a theory hatched by this show on November 8th—just 5 days after the election, about how they pulled it off and brings the receipts that prove our prognosis of their shady tactics turned out to be all to true, and at an extreme cost to the republic. 

Play Now

Article I, Section 4, Clause 1:

The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.

By its terms, Article I, Section 4, Clause 1, also contemplates the times, places, and manner of holding elections being prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof, subject to alteration by Congress (except as to the place of choosing Senators). However, the Court did not have occasion to address what constitutes regulation by a state Legislature for purposes of the Elections Clause until its 2015 decision in Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission.¹ There, the Court rejected the Arizona legislature’s challenge to the validity of the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (AIRC) and AIRC’s 2012 map of congressional districts.² The Commission had been established by a 2000 ballot initiative, which removed redistricting authority from the legislature and vested it in the AIRC.³ The legislature asserted that this arrangement violated the Elections Clause because the Clause contemplates regulation by a state Legislature and Legislature means the state’s representative assembly.⁴

The Court disagreed and held that Arizona’s use of an independent commission to establish congressional districts is permissible because the Elections Clause uses the word Legislature to describe the power that makes laws, a term that is broad enough to encompass the power provided by the Arizona constitution for the people to make laws through ballot initiatives.⁵ In so finding, the Court noted that the word Legislature has been construed in various ways depending upon the constitutional provision in which it is used, and its meaning depends upon the function that the entity denominated as the Legislature is called upon to exercise in a specific context.⁶ Here, in the context of the Elections Clause, the Court found that the function of the Legislature was lawmaking and that this function could be performed by the people of Arizona via an initiative consistent with state law.⁷ The Court also pointed to dictionary definitions from the time of the Framers;⁸the Framers’ intent in adopting the Elections Clause;⁹ the harmony between the initiative process and the Constitution’s conception of the people as the font of governmental power;¹⁰ and the practical consequences of invalidating the Arizona initiative.¹¹

State authority to regulate the times, places, and manner of holding congressional elections has been described by the Court as embrac[ing] authority to provide a complete code for congressional elections …; in short, to enact the numerous requirements as to procedure and safeguards which experience shows are necessary in order to enforce the fundamental rights involved.¹² The Court has upheld a variety of state laws designed to ensure that elections—including federal elections – are fair and honest and orderly.¹³ But the Court distinguished state laws that go beyond protection of the integrity and regularity of the election process, and instead operate to disadvantage a particular class of candidates.¹⁴ Term limits, viewed as serving the dual purposes of disadvantaging a particular class of candidates and evading the dictates of the Qualifications Clause, crossed this line,¹⁵ as did ballot labels identifying candidates who disregarded voters’ instructions on term limits or declined to pledge support for them.¹⁶ [T]he Framers understood the Elections Clause as a grant of authority to issue procedural regulations, and not as a source of power to dictate electoral outcomes, to favor or disfavor a class of candidates, or to evade important constitutional restraints.¹⁷