KennisonDF

REVERSING THE BURDEN OF PROOF Democratic elections should not be presumed “valid until proven fraudulent”. In a classical liberal, democratic, constitutional republic, just as the burden of proof lies with the state in criminal proceedings, before the exercise of state power to punish defendants might be justified, the burden of proof lies with the state in democratic elections, before the exercise of state power to govern citizens might be justified.  Unjustified governance and unjustified punishment are both tyrannical. Criminal defendants are to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt and subject to appeal, and political elections are to be presumed illegitimate until proven legitimate, beyond a reasonable doubt and subject to appeal.  The burden of proof lies with the state, before exercise of the awesome, monopolistic power of the state, whether to punish or to govern, might be considered legitimate. Consistently, in both cases, liberalism demands that the presumption always be in favor of personal liberty and against state authority. Democratic elections should be presumed “invalid until proven not fraudulent”. Trump supporters made a fatal error in 2020 when they based challenges of the results of the election on claims of consequential election fraud. Their fatal error was to take on the onerous burden of proving election fraud, when it is the states which should have borne the burden of proving election integrity. By primarily advancing the complaint that Trump would have won the election were it not for election fraud, instead of the complaint that election procedures had been rigged so as to make proof of election integrity a practical impossibility, the candidate and his supporters put the outcome of a single election above the future of the republic. A constitutional republic is imperiled, not only by illegitimacy of its criminal procedures and institutions, but also by illegitimacy of its electoral procedures and institutions. To reverse the burden of proof, either in criminal trials or in democratic elections, can only lead to abject failure of the “American experiment” in limited government, marked by the ultimate fall of the constitutional republic while still in its adolescence.

a stammering Tom Homan on AOC: "She's the dumbest congresswoman ever elected to Congress."

REVERSING THE BURDEN OF PROOF Democratic elections should not be presumed “valid until proven fraudulent”. In a classical liberal, democratic, constitutional republic, just as the burden of proof lies with the state in criminal proceedings, before the exercise of state power to punish defendants might be justified, the burden of proof lies with the state in democratic elections, before the exercise of state power to govern citizens might be justified.  Unjustified governance and unjustified punishment are both tyrannical. Criminal defendants are to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt and subject to appeal, and political elections are to be presumed illegitimate until proven legitimate, beyond a reasonable doubt and subject to appeal.  The burden of proof lies with the state, before exercise of the awesome, monopolistic power of the state, whether to punish or to govern, might be considered legitimate. Consistently, in both cases, liberalism demands that the presumption always be in favor of personal liberty and against state authority. Democratic elections should be presumed “invalid until proven not fraudulent”. Trump supporters made a fatal error in 2020 when they based challenges of the results of the election on claims of consequential election fraud. Their fatal error was to take on the onerous burden of proving election fraud, when it is the states which should have borne the burden of proving election integrity. By primarily advancing the complaint that Trump would have won the election were it not for election fraud, instead of the complaint that election procedures had been rigged so as to make proof of election integrity a practical impossibility, the candidate and his supporters put the outcome of a single election above the future of the republic. A constitutional republic is imperiled, not only by illegitimacy of its criminal procedures and institutions, but also by illegitimacy of its electoral procedures and institutions. To reverse the burden of proof, either in criminal trials or in democratic elections, can only lead to abject failure of the “American experiment” in limited government, marked by the ultimate fall of the constitutional republic while still in its adolescence.

REVERSING THE BURDEN OF PROOF Democratic elections should not be presumed “valid until proven fraudulent”. In a classical liberal, democratic, constitutional republic, just as the burden of proof lies with the state in criminal proceedings, before the exercise of state power to punish defendants might be justified, the burden of proof lies with the state in democratic elections, before the exercise of state power to govern citizens might be justified.  Unjustified governance and unjustified punishment are both tyrannical. Criminal defendants are to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt and subject to appeal, and political elections are to be presumed illegitimate until proven legitimate, beyond a reasonable doubt and subject to appeal.  The burden of proof lies with the state, before exercise of the awesome, monopolistic power of the state, whether to punish or to govern, might be considered legitimate. Consistently, in both cases, liberalism demands that the presumption always be in favor of personal liberty and against state authority. Democratic elections should be presumed “invalid until proven not fraudulent”. Trump supporters made a fatal error in 2020 when they based challenges of the results of the election on claims of consequential election fraud. Their fatal error was to take on the onerous burden of proving election fraud, when it is the states which should have borne the burden of proving election integrity. By primarily advancing the complaint that Trump would have won the election were it not for election fraud, instead of the complaint that election procedures had been rigged so as to make proof of election integrity a practical impossibility, the candidate and his supporters put the outcome of a single election above the future of the republic. A constitutional republic is imperiled, not only by illegitimacy of its criminal procedures and institutions, but also by illegitimacy of its electoral procedures and institutions. To reverse the burden of proof, either in criminal trials or in democratic elections, can only lead to abject failure of the “American experiment” in limited government, marked by the ultimate fall of the constitutional republic while still in its adolescence.

It is wise to question the question before answering it. David Faber asked (and Elon Musk answered) the wrong question: REVERSING THE BURDEN OF PROOF Democratic elections should not be presumed “valid until proven fraudulent”. In a classical liberal, democratic, constitutional republic, just as the burden of proof lies with the state in criminal proceedings, before the exercise of state power to punish defendants might be justified, the burden of proof lies with the state in democratic elections, before the exercise of state power to govern citizens might be justified.  Unjustified governance and unjustified punishment are both tyrannical. Criminal defendants are to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt and subject to appeal, and political elections are to be presumed illegitimate until proven legitimate, beyond a reasonable doubt and subject to appeal.  The burden of proof lies with the state, before exercise of the awesome, monopolistic power of the state, whether to punish or to govern, might be considered legitimate. Consistently, in both cases, liberalism demands that the presumption always be in favor of personal liberty and against state authority. Democratic elections should be presumed “invalid until proven not fraudulent”. Trump supporters made a fatal error in 2020 when they based challenges of the results of the election on claims of consequential election fraud. Their fatal error was to take on the onerous burden of proving election fraud when it is the states which should have borne the burden of proving election integrity. By primarily advancing the complaint that Trump would have won the election were it not for election fraud, instead of the complaint that election procedures had been rigged so as to make proof of election integrity a practical impossibility, the candidate and his supporters put the outcome of a single election above the future of the republic. A constitutional republic is imperiled, not only by illegitimacy of its criminal procedures and institutions, but also by illegitimacy of its electoral procedures and institutions. To reverse the burden of proof, either in criminal trials or in democratic elections, can only lead to abject failure of the “American experiment” in limited government, marked by the ultimate fall of the constitutional republic while still in its adolescence.

REVERSING THE BURDEN OF PROOF Democratic elections should not be presumed “valid until proven fraudulent”. In a classical liberal, democratic, constitutional federal republic, just as the burden of proof lies with the state in criminal proceedings, before the exercise of state power to punish defendants might be justified, the burden of proof lies with the state in democratic elections, before the exercise of state power to govern citizens might be justified. Unjustified governance and unjustified punishment are both tyrannical. Criminal defendants are to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt and subject to appeal, and political elections are to be presumed illegitimate until proven legitimate, beyond a reasonable doubt and subject to appeal.  The burden of proof lies with the state, before exercise of the awesome, monopolistic power of the state, whether to punish or to govern, might be considered legitimate. Consistently, in both cases, liberalism demands that the presumption always be in favor of personal liberty and against state authority. Democratic elections should be presumed “invalid until proven not fraudulent”. Trump supporters made a fatal error in 2020 when they based challenges of the results of the election on claims of consequential election fraud. Their fatal error was to take on the onerous burden of proving election fraud, when it is the states which should have borne the burden of proving election integrity. By primarily advancing the complaint that Trump would have won the election were it not for election fraud, instead of the complaint that election procedures had been rigged so as to make proof of election integrity a practical impossibility, the candidate and his supporters put the outcome of a single election above the future of the republic. A constitutional republic is imperiled, not only by illegitimacy of its criminal procedures and institutions, but also by illegitimacy of its electoral procedures and institutions. To reverse the burden of proof, either in criminal trials or in democratic elections, can only lead to abject failure of the “American experiment” in limited government, marked by the ultimate fall of the constitutional republic while still in its adolescence.

They are not “importing democrat voters.” They are importing people, names, that allows the state fraud process to generate ballots. This is an important distinction. The migrants will not use the ballots. The DNC harvesters will collect them, fill them out (Obama), then the Precinct workers will scan them and count them (Clyburn). Illegals don’t need to vote. They only need to exist to create a ballot.

REVERSING THE BURDEN OF PROOF Democratic elections should not be presumed “valid until proven fraudulent”. In a classical liberal, democratic, constitutional federal republic, just as the burden of proof lies with the state in criminal proceedings, before the exercise of state power to punish defendants might be justified, the burden of proof lies with the state in democratic elections, before the exercise of state power to govern citizens might be justified. Unjustified governance and unjustified punishment are both tyrannical. Criminal defendants are to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt and subject to appeal, and political elections are to be presumed illegitimate until proven legitimate, beyond a reasonable doubt and subject to appeal.  The burden of proof lies with the state, before exercise of the awesome, monopolistic power of the state, whether to punish or to govern, might be considered legitimate. Consistently, in both cases, liberalism demands that the presumption always be in favor of personal liberty and against state authority. Democratic elections should be presumed “invalid until proven not fraudulent”. Trump supporters made a fatal error in 2020 when they based challenges of the results of the election on claims of consequential election fraud. Their fatal error was to take on the onerous burden of proving election fraud, when it is the states which should have borne the burden of proving election integrity. By primarily advancing the complaint that Trump would have won the election were it not for election fraud, instead of the complaint that election procedures had been rigged so as to make proof of election integrity a practical impossibility, the candidate and his supporters put the outcome of a single election above the future of the republic. A constitutional republic is imperiled, not only by illegitimacy of its criminal procedures and institutions, but also by illegitimacy of its electoral procedures and institutions. To reverse the burden of proof, either in criminal trials or in democratic elections, can only lead to abject failure of the “American experiment” in limited government, marked by the ultimate fall of the constitutional republic while still in its adolescence.

REVERSING THE BURDEN OF PROOF Democratic elections should not be presumed “valid until proven fraudulent”. In a classical liberal, democratic, constitutional federal republic, just as the burden of proof lies with the state in criminal proceedings, before the exercise of state power to punish defendants might be justified, the burden of proof lies with the state in democratic elections, before the exercise of state power to govern citizens might be justified. Unjustified governance and unjustified punishment are both tyrannical. Criminal defendants are to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt and subject to appeal, and political elections are to be presumed illegitimate until proven legitimate, beyond a reasonable doubt and subject to appeal.  The burden of proof lies with the state, before exercise of the awesome, monopolistic power of the state, whether to punish or to govern, might be considered legitimate. Consistently, in both cases, liberalism demands that the presumption always be in favor of personal liberty and against state authority. Democratic elections should be presumed “invalid until proven not fraudulent”. Trump supporters made a fatal error in 2020 when they based challenges of the results of the election on claims of consequential election fraud. Their fatal error was to take on the onerous burden of proving election fraud, when it is the states which should have borne the burden of proving election integrity. By primarily advancing the complaint that Trump would have won the election were it not for election fraud, instead of the complaint that election procedures had been rigged so as to make proof of election integrity a practical impossibility, the candidate and his supporters put the outcome of a single election above the future of the republic. A constitutional republic is imperiled, not only by illegitimacy of its criminal procedures and institutions, but also by illegitimacy of its electoral procedures and institutions. To reverse the burden of proof, either in criminal trials or in democratic elections, can only lead to abject failure of the “American experiment” in limited government, marked by the ultimate fall of the constitutional republic while still in its adolescence.

REVERSING THE BURDEN OF PROOF Democratic elections should not be presumed “valid until proven fraudulent”. In a classical liberal, democratic, constitutional federal republic, just as the burden of proof lies with the state in criminal proceedings, before the exercise of state power to punish defendants might be justified, the burden of proof lies with the state in democratic elections, before the exercise of state power to govern citizens might be justified. Unjustified governance and unjustified punishment are both tyrannical. Criminal defendants are to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt and subject to appeal, and political elections are to be presumed illegitimate until proven legitimate, beyond a reasonable doubt and subject to appeal.  The burden of proof lies with the state, before exercise of the awesome, monopolistic power of the state, whether to punish or to govern, might be considered legitimate. Consistently, in both cases, liberalism demands that the presumption always be in favor of personal liberty and against state authority. Democratic elections should be presumed “invalid until proven not fraudulent”. Trump supporters made a fatal error in 2020 when they based challenges of the results of the election on claims of consequential election fraud. Their fatal error was to take on the onerous burden of proving election fraud, when it is the states which should have borne the burden of proving election integrity. By primarily advancing the complaint that Trump would have won the election were it not for election fraud, instead of the complaint that election procedures had been rigged so as to make proof of election integrity a practical impossibility, the candidate and his supporters put the outcome of a single election above the future of the republic. A constitutional republic is imperiled, not only by illegitimacy of its criminal procedures and institutions, but also by illegitimacy of its electoral procedures and institutions. To reverse the burden of proof, either in criminal trials or in democratic elections, can only lead to abject failure of the “American experiment” in limited government, marked by the ultimate fall of the constitutional republic while still in its adolescence.