Open Letter To The Connecticut Republican Party

ATTN: Chairman J.R. Romano, Vice Chairwoman Sue Hatfield 

 

Mr. Matt Boland 

E-Mail: FairBol@gmail.com 

 

November 28, 2020

 Fellow Republicans,

  It isn’t too often that I find myself writing a letter to the party at large; I must now take up this assignment.  

  As you no doubt are aware, President Donald Trump has alleged that election fraud has occurred in several states.  Nevertheless, it seems that several prominent individuals in the state party have concluded that Joe Biden has won the election.  The Hartford Courant recently reported on this, saying that “the general consensus” (according to House Leader Vincent Candelora) is that incumbent Trump has been defeated.  

  From the Courant:

   “I don’t see any credible evidence of widespread fraud that would change the outcome”, Candelora said in an interview. “I would hope as these lawsuits are resolved, and the outcome becomes (clearer), that President Trump will concede”1

  I am appalled, and incredulous, at this reaction and statement.  The fact of the matter is that there indeed is evidence to suggest a massive undertaking of fraud.  Yet nobody appears to be willing to call out the left, or to step up and fight for our democracy and freedoms.  If we cannot be assured of “free and fair” elections, then do we have any freedoms at all? Obviously, I think not.  

  Unfortunately, our apparent disposition to the attitude of “going along to get along” is nothing new.  All too often, we seem to be willing to “roll over and play dead”.  And what has that gotten us? I’ll tell you; it’s gotten us a one-party legislature, and a governor who thinks that he can do whatever he wants, whenever he wants to do it.  

  Some of my fellow Republicans may remember that years ago, there used to be a TV ad that said, “lead, follow, or get out of the way”.  We’ve talked the talk for many years; now, it’s time to walk the walk, and actually step up.  Whether you believe that the election is over or not, this needs to happen.  

  There are no prizes for second place, at least not in the political arena.  If those entrusted with power in this party don’t have the heart to fight for what we believe in, I suggest that (perhaps) they should find other things to spend their time on. 2

  “Lead, follow, or get out of the way” -- Former Chrysler Corporation CEO Lee Iacocca 

Presidential Problems

In the presidential contest, I have to say that I don't like what's going on here. 

First of all, President Donald Trump had a commanding lead until 11:30 PM on election night. Then, all of a sudden, votes start coming in for Joe Biden. In the space of about an hour (tops), Biden takes the lead. Kind of fails the logic test, don't you think?

This is when several states that were close say, "we're not counting any more tonight; we'll pick it up in a day or two" (1). Later on, when ordered to do a recount, one area (I think it was DeKalb County in Georgia) says basically "we have to delay the recount, because we don't know what to do" (2).

Come on, SERIOUSLY? You don't have to be a rocket scientist to be able to figure out that in a recount, you....RECOUNT THE VOTES!!

Now, back to my previous statement about those states that stopped counting. You mean to tell me that the delays couldn't possibly have presented any opportunity for "shenanigans"? Do I look like I "just came over on the banana boat", or what?

Here's another important point.  In criminal investigations, there are two main factors that go into the establishment of "criminal intent". 

• First, did the accused have any motive to commit an act? 
• Second, did the accused have an opportunity to act? 

In the case of this vote count, BOTH factors are present.

For four years, the left has had one singular motive and goal; to get Trump out of the White House (and a Democrat in) "by any means necessary".  That has been about as obvious as the sky usually being blue (some may say that the sky isn't usually blue, but I digress).  If riots, violence, and even a sham impeachment trial have not achieved this goal, then why wouldn't the left try election fraud? And no, the left isn't above this, in my opinion.  As I've said before, liberals have proven one thing; that they will go to absolutely any length to seize and maintain power.  

Having established that, it's also clear that the left had ample opportunity to commit acts of fraud. Other than to present this opportunity, why else would it be that states delayed counting?

Let's think about that for a moment.  Even in the 2000 election (between Bush and Gore), initial results were in by around 3 to 4 AM the day after election day. You're telling me that things were so complicated this year as to not be sorted out by that time? Sorry...I don't buy it (3).  

And why is it that Pennsylvania TOTALLY IGNORED court orders to allow observers/stop counting absentee ballots? Again, it's "by any means necessary".

In summary, I'm one hundred percent convinced that something is wrong here. The occurrences alleged, and discrepancies described, simply DO NOT HAPPEN in a "free and fair" election. 

Whether the fix is in or not, Trump is well within his rights to petition for disqualifications and recounts, based on the evidence before us.  Frankly, if you're still saying that "there's no evidence"....then "evidently" you don't have a brain (or at least aren't using it for its intended purpose).

"Something is rotten in Denmark" -- William Shakespeare's "Macbeth"

Note: Many primary sources regarding the facts that I have cited appear to have been taken down.  I have cited any sources that remain available.  

Who Wins Pennsylvania?

Those of you of a certain age may remember that in 2000, the US presidential election came down to "Florida, Florida, Florida" (Tim Russert).  It appears that this time, the race could hinge on "Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania".  We're in nail-biting territory here, folks....and things may have gotten even more complicated, as the lawyers are about to have their say.  

Last week, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court made a major decision regarding absentee ballots, ordering an extension to the voting deadline.  Republicans are challenging the constitutionality of this ruling.  They argue that only state legislatures have the power to grant ballot extensions, and this was not specifically done by Pennsylvania's state leadership (1).  

Now, let's review what federal and state law say on this matter.  The US Constitution (in article II, section 1, clauses 1-2) says thus:

"The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his office during the term of four years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same term, be elected, as follows:

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" (2).  

Notice the part that I have outlined in bold font.  It specifies that state legislatures are in charge of regulating and supervising presidential elections in their respective state.  

We now come to a question involving the Constitution of the State of Pennsylvania.  Specifically, the matter at hand deals with the operation of elections in that state.  To wit:

"Qualifications of Electors.  

Every citizen 21 years of age, possessing the following qualifications, shall be entitled to vote at all elections subject, however, to such laws requiring and regulating the registration of electors as the General Assembly may enact" (Article VII, Section 1, Clause 1)

Regarding the specifics of absentee voting, the State Constitution says thus:

"The Legislature shall, by general law, provide a manner in which, and the time and place at which, qualified electors who may, on the occurrence of any election, be absent from the municipality of their residence, because their duties, occupation or business require them to be elsewhere or who, on the occurrence of any election, are unable to attend at their proper polling places because of illness or physical disability or who will not attend a polling place because of the observance of a religious holiday or who cannot vote because of election day duties, in the case of a county employee, may vote, and for the return and canvass of their votes in the election district in which they respectively reside" (Article VII, Section 14, Sub-Section A)

The state goes further in its description of "election and registration laws".  

"All laws regulating the holding of elections by the citizens, or for the registration of electors, shall be uniform throughout the State, except that...the General Assembly shall by general law, permit the use of voting machines, or other mechanical devices for registering or recording and computing the vote..." (Article VII, Section 6)

It is readily apparent that the US Constitution places the job of election operations with individual state legislatures, not the state courts.  The Pennsylvania Constitution at least implies the same.  Since the General Assembly of that state never authorized an absentee ballot extension, it is my opinion that such an extension (although not specifically unconstitutional) should be struck down. 

In the event that the respective courts find for the Republican Party, Pennsylvania's twenty electoral votes would likely go to Donald Trump.  It is quite possible that this result would deliver victory, and another four years, to the incumbent president.  

Whatever happens in Pennsylvania, this is going to be a BIG deal.  Nevertheless, we may not know the "final score" in the state until Friday.  Hopefully, the courts will make the right call here.  This election, and indeed our freedoms, hang in the balance.  

Author's Note: Even if the state and federal constitutions differed on this matter, the US Constitution's interpretation would take precedence (see the "Supremacy Clause") (3).