No, The Conservative Answer To America’s Affordability Crisis Isn’t Just To ‘Move’
'Conservatism,' as a political ideology, has failed to conserve anything meaningful, and that's a serious problem.'Conservatism,' as a political ideology, has failed to conserve anything meaningful, and that's a serious problem.Trump Is Right. Senate Republicans Should End The Filibuster Before It’s Too Late
The filibuster will end sooner or later, so conservatives should act now while they have power in the House, Senate, and White House.Yes, President Trump Can Pardon The 77 People Prosecuted For 2020 Election Integrity Efforts
Media wrongly insist that the pardon clause only applies to federal charges, yet every attempt to narrow the scope of pardons has failed.Trump’s pardons expose the left’s vast lawfare machine
On Sunday night, the Oversight Project announced the culmination of a long effort: President Trump’s pardons for the so-called “alternate electors” and their affiliates who faced state-level prosecution for their role in the 2020 election.
Credit belongs to President Trump and Pardon Attorney Ed Martin for seeing this process through — and for having the political will and moral memory to leave no MAGA supporter behind. These pardons are the result of over a year of focused work by the Oversight Project. And because the corporate left-wing media has predictably denounced them for their politics, prudence, and legal effect, it’s worth explaining the pardons’ justification and impact.
Participation in a constitutional process is not a crime. Operation Arctic Frost and its imitators will not define the future of American justice. These pardons will.
First, terminology matters. “Contingent electors” is the correct phrase. “Alternate electors” or “fake electors” are loaded terms invented by the press to imply criminality.
In reality, these electors prepared slates to be submitted to Congress while investigations and legal challenges into the 2020 presidential election were still pending. Their purpose was simple: to preserve flexibility should fraud or irregularities be confirmed.
The 2020 election was unlike any in modern history. Under the pretext of COVID-19, officials across multiple states expanded mail-in voting without the safeguards required by law. Signature verification, chain-of-custody rules, and registration requirements were ignored. Courts refused to hear evidence, dismissing cases on procedural grounds rather than the merits.
And somehow, we were told that the vice president and Congress — bodies that have historically played a role in adjudicating electoral disputes — no longer had any role to play. As a result, President Biden’s victory will forever carry an asterisk in the history books.
Debunking modern myths
The notion that elections can only be challenged in court is a modern myth. Since the founding, Congress has played a central role in resolving disputed elections, as have state legislatures empowered to ensure the integrity of their own processes — including, when necessary, selecting electors directly.
The list of precedents is long.
- In 1797, John Adams, as president of the Senate, allowed time for objections to Vermont’s votes.
- In 1801, Thomas Jefferson counted Georgia’s contested votes — for himself.
- In 1857, a snowstorm kept Wisconsin’s electors from voting, but their ballots were counted anyway.
- In 1876, during the Hayes-Tilden standoff, Congress created a commission to adjudicate dueling slates from four states.
- In 1961, Hawaii submitted a contingent slate while its results were still being certified.
- In 2005, both chambers of Congress debated and ultimately rejected objections to Ohio’s votes.
- And as recently as 2017, multiple House members objected to electors from several states, though they lacked Senate co-sponsors.
This long record makes clear that the use of contingent electors is not criminal — it is, in fact, perfectly constitutional.
From constitutional to criminal
So why are good-faith contingent electors from 2020 now facing state prosecutions and financial ruin? The answer is weaponization.
During the Biden years, the federal government, blue-state prosecutors, and activist networks have coordinated to transform lawful political activity into criminal conduct. The same machinery that pursued President Trump through endless investigations was turned on ordinary citizens whose only “crime” was preserving constitutional options.
Operation Arctic Frost — the campaign of “map, harass, and isolate” tactics aimed at Trump allies — illustrates this perfectly. It was designed to intimidate lawyers, donors, and officials who supported Trump’s legal challenges, freezing them out of professional and financial life. The contingent electors were swept up in that same apparatus: coordinated prosecutions, media smears, and punitive lawfare intended to silence dissent.
RELATED: Biden FBI’s Arctic Frost surveillance of lawmakers could cost the government
From Fani Willis’ politically motivated prosecutions in Georgia to Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson’s efforts to organize partisan coalitions against perceived “threats,” the coordination has been unmistakable. Government, activist, and media arms all moved together with one goal: to erase the America First movement and criminalize its constitutional exercise of power.
That is the true definition of weaponization — using the law to destroy political opposition.
The legal case for Trump’s pardons
Critics claim the president cannot pardon state-level offenses. But that view collapses under constitutional scrutiny. States cannot prosecute conduct that falls under federal authority once it has been pardoned.
The selection of electors is a hybrid function — both state and federal — but the contingent electors acted in service of a federal purpose: the certification of the presidency. By issuing these pardons, the federal government has declared that these individuals acted lawfully, in good faith, and consistent with historic precedent.
If the federal government deems their actions lawful, how can states claim they committed crimes? That’s a question any fair court — or any fair jury — should be able to answer easily.
If these pardons are treated honestly, the state cases will collapse. More important, this should reassure every American committed to election integrity that defending the Constitution will never again be treated as a criminal act.
RELATED: The bureaucracy strikes back — and we’re striking harder
Now what?
The toll on those targeted has been immense. Many have endured years of legal harassment, public vilification, and financial ruin simply for acting according to their constitutional duty.
The Oversight Project is exploring every possible avenue to secure restitution for those harmed — whether through private support, legislative action, or further executive remedies. These pardons mark the first step in correcting the record and restoring faith in the justice system.
They are not merely acts of mercy; they are acts of correction. They affirm that Americans who act to preserve election integrity, often at great personal cost, were right to do so.
The message is clear: Participation in a constitutional process is not a crime. Operation Arctic Frost and its imitators will not define the future of American justice. These pardons will.
Calling It ‘Biden’s FBI’ Diminishes The Real Threat Of A Bureaucracy Gone Wild
The corruption didn’t begin under Biden, and it won’t end under a Republican administration.How Sharia law violates everything the founding fathers built
From the moment I first studied the United States Constitution through the lens of scripture, I’ve been struck by how carefully our founders embedded God-given liberty into the fabric of our nation. Freedom of conscience, equality before God, and protection from government overreach are not just political ideas; they are biblical principles.
The more I study, the clearer it becomes that Islamic systems like sharia law, enforced as government policy abroad, stand in sharp contrast to both the freedoms our Constitution guarantees and the liberties scripture upholds.
Christians must be informed, discerning, and proactive in defending freedoms that allow people to come to God freely.
Sharia law, when enforced as government policy, conflicts with constitutional freedom and biblical principles of liberty, including protections for personal conscience, speech, and moral choice.
Sharia law vs. constitutional liberty
Sharia law is a system derived from Islamic religious texts, guiding personal conduct and societal governance.
In countries where it is enforced, it often dictates punishments, civil law, and social norms based on religious authority rather than individual liberty. This approach contrasts sharply with the U.S. Constitution, which separates church and state, ensuring that government does not dictate religious belief or practice.
Scripture emphasizes the importance of freedom in Christ. Galatians 5:1 reminds us, "It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery.” The Constitution mirrors this principle, protecting Americans from coercion in matters of conscience, ensuring that individuals may follow God freely without fear of government reprisal.
Real-world examples of sharia governance
When we examine Muslim nations governed by sharia-based systems, the consequences for personal freedom are clear.
In countries like Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Afghanistan, civil and criminal codes often derive directly from religious texts. These laws enforce strict moral codes, restrict freedom of speech, and impose severe punishments on offenses such as theft, adultery, or apostasy.
RELATED: The Islamification of America is well under way
Punishments include public lashings, stonings, and even amputations for certain crimes. LGBTQ individuals face particularly harsh treatment, including imprisonment, corporal punishment, or death. Women’s rights and freedom of expression are often restricted as well.
These policies illustrate a system in which government enforces religious conformity, which directly conflicts with the freedom of conscience guaranteed by the Constitution. The U.S. founders recognized that human governments are fallible; they designed laws to protect liberty and allow people to make moral and spiritual choices voluntarily rather than under coercion.
The biblical perspective on liberty and government
Scripture provides a firm framework for understanding liberty. Romans 13:1-4 teaches that governments are instituted to punish wrongdoers and maintain order, but within limits. Civil authority is meant to restrain evil while upholding justice, not to enforce religious orthodoxy.
John 8:32 reminds us, “Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” True freedom, in both spiritual and civil contexts, comes from the ability to choose God and live according to His moral order voluntarily.
The Constitution’s protections for freedom of religion, speech, and equal protection under the law reflect these same biblical principles. They ensure that no one is coerced into adherence to a particular religious code, preserving liberty and human dignity.
Sharia-based governance, when implemented as law, replaces personal conscience with mandatory religious observance, undermining the freedoms that God and the founders intended.
How Christians should respond
Loving our neighbors does not mean ignoring the truth about systems of governance. But discernment calls us to distinguish between individuals and systems of law that impose religious authority on entire societies.
Christians are called to defend freedom and truth, speaking boldly yet compassionately.
Understanding the differences between sharia-based governance and constitutional liberty is not purely academic; it’s practical. Nations that merge religion and state often face suppression of speech, persecution of minorities, and human rights violations. Christians must be informed, discerning, and proactive in defending freedoms that allow people to come to God freely.
Practical engagement may include:
- Praying for wisdom to navigate cultural and political issues.
- Educating others about the value of freedom of conscience.
- Participating in civic discourse in ways that honor God while upholding liberty.
Sharia law and the protection of minorities
One area that starkly highlights the contrast is treatment of LGBTQ individuals. In sharia-governed regions, homosexuality is often criminalized, with penalties ranging from imprisonment to corporal punishment, even death. Theft or other criminal offenses can result in amputations, and adultery may be punished by stoning.
Christians are charged to uphold liberty, educate themselves on systems that restrict freedom, and advocate for policies that reflect God’s justice while protecting human conscience.
These practices illustrate the deep conflict between enforced religious law and personal freedom, especially for vulnerable minorities.
In contrast, the U.S. Constitution protects all citizens, ensuring legal equality, freedom of conscience, and due process. The biblical principle that every person is made in the image of God (Genesis 1:27) supports the need to defend dignity and liberty for all.
Historical lessons and modern implications
History demonstrates that societies enforcing religious law as government policy often struggle with oppression and instability. By embedding freedom and separation of powers, the U.S. Constitution creates space for citizens to practice faith voluntarily, without fear of legal coercion.
As Christians, we can see how these principles align with biblical teaching and recognize why coercive religious legal systems are incompatible with God’s design for human freedom.
Standing for freedom with compassion
Understanding these contrasts calls us to vigilance, prayer, and action. Christians are charged to uphold liberty, educate themselves on systems that restrict freedom, and advocate for policies that reflect God’s justice while protecting human conscience.
Loving our neighbors does not mean compromising truth; it means defending freedom in a way that is rooted in Christ’s example of compassion and moral clarity.
By examining Islam as a governance system, we see clearly the importance of constitutional and biblical liberty. Freedom of conscience, protection of minorities, and the ability to choose God freely are not negotiable — they are foundational to both faith and the American experiment.
Standing for these freedoms is an act of love, truth, and obedience to God.
This article is adapted from an essay originally published at Arch Kennedy's blog.
The Voting Rights Act Needs To Be Aligned With A Constitutional Definition Of Equality
VRA Needs Aligning With A Constitutional Definition Of EqualityWhy It’s Impossible For Public Schools To Be ‘Neutral’ About Politics And Religion
By their definition and history, public schools are conservative government institutions and the only 'ideology' currently aligned with that purpose is found on the right, not the left.Today's top stories
www.theblaze.com