Recommended Posts

26 minutes ago, william.scherk said:

I may be misunderstanding -- a "Contingent Election" seems to me to be another term for a tie in Electoral College votes counted "out of the box" the first time. 

William,

It is not.

But keep studying.

(psssst -- When this was set up, the two party system had not yet evolved. :) )

From the way you keep posting as if to wish the Contingent Election process out of existence, I see you have not read that much about it. You keep making mistakes like the one above.

btw - You highlighted something I said above that needs an explanation:

1 hour ago, william.scherk said:

But from everything I have read so far, this has never happened before.

I should have corrected that before, but I will now.

In the Epoch Times article I linked to near where you got that quote from, they mentioned a case where this did happen in Hawaii during the Kennedy-Nixon election. The "extra" slate of electors was from a recount, though, not from the state legislature. And this new slate was presented favoring Kennedy. But two separate slates of electors from Hawaii were presented to Congress.

Ironically, it was Nixon himself (since he was VP and was presiding over the Congressional Session) who tossed the first slate and accepted the electors against himself. I looked it up just now and it appears that the Governor was supposed to sign certification for the second slate, but did not. He only signed the first--the one Nixon tossed. I presume this is the Certificate of Attainment.

btw - I suggest you read that article. All of it. That will give you a pretty good grasp of the process. It filled in holes for me in my own research.

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 15k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Michael Stuart Kelly

    4636

  • Peter

    1445

  • Jon Letendre

    1319

  • Brant Gaede

    884

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

That's what it says at the top of the page.  Your point?  It's not like this thread has devolved into a medley of cat videos.  Yet.  

It is intriguing.  I've been fairly obsessed for about a year with thinking about details.  I find microbiology fascinating. I wouldn't be wise, however, to talk about details.  The schemers are

Posted Images

1 hour ago, william.scherk said:

I just found a Jenna Ellis Facebook denial; Rense did no checking, quelle surprise:

William,

I'm glad you checked this, but I saw it was so flawed in the beginning, I thought there was no real need. When Jenna talks law, she is extremely precise and clear.

At other times, she says things like this:

I, personally, think Jenna rocks.

:)

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Man, ain't this the truth.

🤣 

Michael

This story really made ABC lose its shit.

They lost all short-term logic. Check this out.

"Fired attorney Sidney Powell"?

LOLOLOL...

She suddenly went from fired to one of the closest advisors of Trump in a short amount of time, now able to sway him on a massively self-destructive path?

That's so lame, it's not even good storytelling for the pulps.

Especially since everybody on the Trump side said she wasn't fired and she said so herself. 

This is the fake news media doing what it does. It spews out so much bullshit, I believe many of the writers start believing their own bullshit--and believing it so much, they lose contact with simple observable reality.

They are so afraid of Sidney, they lulled themselves into thinking the "fired" story neutralized her so they didn't need to think about her anymore. It's like a young child closing her eyes to make the monster go away.

And what an apt metaphor since Sidney's nickname among Trump insiders is the Kraken...

:)

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:
17 hours ago, william.scherk said:

I may be misunderstanding -- a "Contingent Election" seems to me to be another term for a tie in Electoral College votes counted "out of the box" the first time. 

It is not.

 

Well, if I am misunderstanding what a "Contingent Election" means in the context of the Electoral College processes under discussion -- what should we believe "Contingent Election" means?

16 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

From the way you keep posting as if to wish the Contingent Election process out of existence, I see you have not read that much about it.

I said what I think a "Contingent Election" is. I suggested that a Contingent Election comes after the ritual counting of the EC votes in the Joint Session --  if no victor can be declared by the President of the Senate.

Maybe another way of asking for clarity: in your opinion, what contingency 'triggers' a Contingent Election?

16 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

You keep making mistakes like the one above.

I'll take them one at a time. If you can explain the mistake more fully, we all are better informed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, william.scherk said:

... what should we believe "Contingent Election" means?

William,

It's a special election called when the Joint Session of Congress is unable to finalize the election, which could be for several reasons, but the most usual one is no candidate reaching 270 electoral votes.

In this case, the electoral votes are tossed and the House of Representatives elects the President, with each state getting only one vote for a total of 50 votes.

The Senate elects the Vice President, with each Senator getting one vote for a total of 100 votes.

That is a Contingent Election.

This information is in the material you are reading.

You don't have to believe it. Just read it and inform yourself.

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:
14 minutes ago, william.scherk said:

what should we believe "Contingent Election" means?

It's a special election called when the Joint Session of Congress is unable to finalize the election, which could be for several reasons, but the most usual one is no candidate reaching 270 electoral votes.

So, can we agree that a pertinent contingency arises if the count supervised by the President of the Senate on January 6 goes awry?

It seems we both agree that a so-called contingent vote comes after the formal count supervised by the Senate President.  It comes after an attempt to finalize the Electoral vote fails. It comes after properly-raised objections are accepted and debated and voted on in separate meetings of the House and Senate.

8 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

In this case, the electoral votes are tossed and the House of Representatives elects the President, with each state getting only one vote for a total of 50 votes.

The Senate elects the Vice President, with each Senator getting one vote for a total of 100 votes.

That is a Contingent Election.

So -- we agree that a Contingent election comes only after the January 6 counting of electors fails to provide a majority for Biden/Harris. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

William,

I don't understand why you are not grokking this.

Can we agree that a criminal who is caught in the act, arrested, brought to court, found guilty and sentenced to jail by a judge will go to jail?

What is there to agree about? This is not a matter of opinion.

This is the process.

I don't get it.

Can we agree that the sky is blue and the grass is green and cowshit smells awful?

Why all this agree agree agree over simple facts?

Oh...

I forgot...

The mainstream media has robbed many people of the ability to see facts...

:evil: 

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, william.scherk said:

... we agree that a Contingent election comes only after the January 6 counting of electors fails to provide a majority for Biden/Harris. 

William,

You still get it wrong.

Outside of why on earth I would ever agree to something like that, the 270 elector vote issue is ONLY ONE reason a Contingent Election may be triggered. It is the main reason but it is not the ONLY ONE.

I've said that a few times already and still you say "we agree that..." I agree to no such thing. How can I make that clearer?

After so many times, I'm beginning to wonder, what are you trying to pull?

For that matter, January 6 can be changed.

Chew on that for a while.

Please read the material and inform yourself...

btw - You are right that a Contingency Election is triggered by the Joint Session of Congress. No law I have read so far says it can be triggered before then. 

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, william.scherk said:

So, can we agree that a pertinent contingency arises if the count supervised by the President of the Senate on January 6 goes awry?

It seems we both agree that a so-called contingent vote comes after the formal count supervised by the Senate President.  It comes after an attempt to finalize the Electoral vote fails. It comes after properly-raised objections are accepted and debated and voted on in separate meetings of the House and Senate.

So -- we agree that a Contingent election comes only after the January 6 counting of electors fails to provide a majority for Biden/Harris. 

This reminds me of the"ground game" of 2016.

President Donald JohnGalt Trump has this six ways to Sunday, and on Sunday he has yet another six ways.

Hillary Clinton has a better chance of being President that Biden.

No chance

Zero.

Nil.

Zip.

If anyone on this board at this point doubts this, call me, I got a great bridge to sell you in Brooklyn.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is a most interesting proposition by Ivan E. Raiklin, a Constitutional Attorney and former Green Beret Commander.

William already posted the first tweet on his blog, but without comment. Right now, I want to comment.

To start with, I am taking Raiklin on his word about about his expertise. I haven't looked into him deeply enough to be 100% sure in today's environment, but I have read a lot of tweets by him and they are always spot. So that's the frame. What he says here is not the same thing as reading the Constitution and federal law (like the US Code), but I trust him to give correct information until and unless proven differently.

Here is his idea as I understand it.

1. VP Mike Pense, as the one presiding over the Joint Session of Congress on January 6, has to receive the slates of electors on December 23 and issue some kind or acceptance. (I did not know that part in my earlier comments.)

2. If Pence believes there are any fraudulently appointed electors presented to him, he can refuse to accept them and demand the state present him with legal electors.

3. If Pence does that, the state can challenge his judgment in the courts (ultimately in the Supreme Court). If SCOTUS refuses to hear the filing, this will be tantamount to SCOTUS accepting Pence's total authority to reject these electors, at least in this case. 

4. If the state does not present Pence with a slate of legal electors by Jan. 6, or if SCOTUS has not made a determination or refused to hear the filing, When the Joint Session of Congress gets underway, Pence will not count the rejected electors. 

5. Raiklin's opinion is that SCOTUS has shown it does not want to be involved in this process, so accepting a filing from a state complaining about Pence's rejection of electors he deems fraudulent is a long shot.

6. In the case the battleground states that held fraudulent election get their electors tossed, Trump and Pence win by a 232-227 majority of appointed electoral votes. (Raiklin cited law that allows this for appointed electors, presumably when the total of appointed electors lowers the majority point below 270. I was not aware of this in my earlier comments.)

7. Apparently, according to Raiklin, in this scenario, it would be up to Pelosi to trigger a Contingent Election, but actually, as I understand it, there are other ways to trigger the Contingent Election. In that case, all electoral college votes are tossed and the House elects the president on the basis of one vote per state. As the Republicans hold the majority in the most number of states (Raiklin gives the vote as 26-21-2, and 52-48 in the Senate presuming the two Republicans win in Georgia in the Senate runoff), this will be a shoe-in for re-electing President Trump and Vice President Pence.

Since the graphic in the tweet is do damn hard to real, I OCR'd it, cleaned it up, and the text is quoted below.

Quote

Dec 23 VP notifies each Secretary of State (that certified for Biden where the fraud occurred) that he hasn't any RECEIVED Certificates of actual "APPOINTED" Electors or their votes (because of the fraud). And then further request that the Secretary of those States (and the relevant District Judge) send the Certificates of the actual "APPOINTED" Electors & their votes based upon non-fraudulent elections that did not violate laws passed by the States legislatures, before Jan. 6. (pursuant to Art 2, Sec 2, Cl 1; 12th Amendment & 3 USC12 & 13).

Since Pence Will NOT HAVE RECEIVED any Certificates or votes from "APPOINTED" Electors (as required by the Constitution in the manner directed by the Legislatures of those States - since all State Legislatures essentially all require (in some form or fashion) that their Electors be "APPOINTED" by honest & non-fraudulent elections. And here there is clearly overwhelming evidence of fraud in those States.

The burden of proof shifts to the Biden campaign to show that the elections were not fraudulent or agree to a new election by Jan 6. Since SCOTUS are cowards and won't get involved based on TX case and Biden only will have 2 weeks to seek redress, Trump/Pence win 232-227 of majority of appointed electoral votes.

After that (assuming no honest elections occur within that time frame) all remaining Certificates, papers, and votes would simply be opened (by Pence) on Jan. 6, handed to the Congressional Tellers, and counted up under normal procedures; which in this case, would would give Trump the presidency, since Trump (& Pence) will have a majority of votes consistent with and as expressly required by the Constitution (under Article Il, Sec I, Cl 2 & the 12th Amendment)  which does not require 270 electoral votes, only a majority of those appointed.

In the alternative, VP Pence, as the Chair and presiding officer at the Joint Session, on Jan 6 can SIMPLY TEAR THEM UP, SIMILAR TO THE WAY NANCY PELOSI TORE UP TRUMP'S SPEECH DURING THE STATE OF UNION ADDRESS and not accept these electoral slates from states providing electors resultant from fraudulent elections that violated laws passed by the States legislatures, in violation of Art 2, Sec 1, Cl 2. This is noteworthy, since Speaker Pelosi set a precedent that tearing up official papers is acceptable behavior in the House of Representatives. Again, Trump/Pence will gain the majority 232-227, if Pence caves, Trump/Pence could also win on a contingent vote if Pelosi forces a contingent vote, which Trump will win 26-21-2 in the House by States Delegations and Pence 52-48 in the Senate. 

 

Here is another tweet where Raiklin goes through this on video.

 

This article from The Epoch Times explains more.

Law Prohibits Pence From Accepting Electoral Votes From Fraudulently Certified States – Constitutional Lawyer

Quote

Citing the United States Constitution and U.S. Code, Constitutional Lawyer Ivan Raiklin says it is Vice President Mike Pence’s duty to instruct states to expeditiously send their Electoral College Certificates immediately if they have not been received.

U.S.C. 12 explains that “When no certificate of vote and list mentioned in sections 9 and 11 of this title from any State shall have been received by the President of the Senate or by the Archivist of the United States by the fourth Wednesday in December, after the meeting of the electors shall have been held, the President of the Senate … shall request, by the most expeditious method available, the secretary of state of the State to send up the certificate…”

Beyond the allegations and evidence of widespread fraud presented by both President Donald Trump’s legal team and independent lawyers and witnesses across the United States, several states have now sent competing slates of delegates to Washington, D.C.

Additionally, Republicans in Pennsylvania and Arizona have asked the U.S. Congress not to accept the votes assigned by the state’s Secretary of State, suggesting they represent fraudulent election results.

Should Pence take this action, he is then instructed by the law to request these states immediately send accurate Electoral College Certificates before January 6.

. . .

According to Raiklin, the Constitution would allow these states to be completely stricken from the Electoral College if Pence should refuse to accept them, and the number of Electoral College votes required to win would shrink dramatically from 270. President Trump would win under a simple majority of Electoral College votes, 232-227, without any risk of triggering a contingent election.

While many legal scholars have indicated there is ambiguity... Raiklin tells National File he is willing to defend his analysis.

“I challenge any attorney anywhere to fact check this. If you have a different legal analysis, prove it.”

Should Republicans push for a contingent election, President Trump’s victory would again rely on Pence to cast the tie breaking vote after the House and Senate are deadlocked on whether battleground states Arizona, Georgia, Nevada, Michigan, and Wisconsin should be stricken from the total. Should neither candidate reach 270 votes, a contingent election would almost certainly see President Trump reelected by a vote cast by individual states, not Representatives, in the House, and Vice President Pence reelected in the Senate.

This last gives a situation I also did not know. In the Joint Session of Congress, if the Senate votes for one thing and the House votes for the opposite, VP Pence votes to break the tie. That is, according to the article.

Cool.

:) 

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

[bold emphasis added]
7.  Apparently, according to Raiklin, in this scenario, it would be up to Pelosi to trigger a Contingent Election, but actually, as I understand it, there are other ways to trigger the Contingent Election. In that case, all electoral college votes are tossed and the House elects the president on the basis of one vote per state. As the Republicans hold the majority in the most number of states (Raiklin gives the vote as 26-21-2, and 52-48 in the Senate presuming the two Republicans win in Georgia in the Senate runoff), this will be a shoe-in for re-electing President Trump and Vice President Pence.

1.  Is there basis for presuming that the two Republicans will win in the Georgia Senate runoff?

2.  Could it happen in a Contingent Election that a President from one party and a Vice-President from another were elected?  Specifically, could it happen that Trump as President was saddled with Kamala Harris as Vice-President?

Ellen

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

1.  Is there basis for presuming that the two Republicans will win in the Georgia Senate runoff?

2.  Could it happen in a Contingent Election that a President from one party and a Vice-President from another were elected?  Specifically, could it happen that Trump as President was saddled with Kamala Harris as Vice-President?

Ellen

Yes indeed for number 2!

Bet you dollars to donuts that Trump would turn her into a Republican as well!!!!!!!!

Would prefer Pence though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been in doubt about whether to post the following video because my intention during this time is to keep hope and a righteous burn alive until President Trump is sworn in next Jan. 20.

From one angle, this video shows weakness and right now is not time for weakness. But then I had an epiphany. So here is the tweet with video (which, incidentally, is powerful).

Emotionally, this is super-charged. It was analyzing why that I had my epiphany.

Strong emotion of the right kind makes people want to share and act. I don't think Tracy Beanz made her video this thinking about a viral publicity campaign, but that's exactly how it is working.

Normally in an appeal video, the emotion has low valence (meaning a low degree of attracting or repulsing). It is usually nothing more than a distress signal, an appeal to pity, which attracts somewhat, but it comes with a tone of defeat. So it shuts down the urge to act.

A high valence emotion makes one want to act and the first act online is sharing stemming from an overwhelming urge to share.

So what makes Tracy Beanz's appeal high valence emotionally and not defeatist? She is not transmitting sadness (low valence), but instead, enormous frustration mixed with enormous love and respect. And she speaks in the name of a huge group which is easily perceived as real. This sends the emotional valence into the stratosphere from simple crowd psychology.

So cognitively this may look like it shows weakness. After all, she is asking for someone else to redress a wrong. But emotionally it is forged out of tungsten steel. She is not speaking to Trump as if he were an anointed superior. She is speaking to him as an equal. He may be in charge of the country right now and doing all the things she wants, but he id no better and no worse than her as a person. They are equals. You will not see her fainting in a worshipping swoon over President Trump.

She is also declaring support for him in the name of tens of millions of people. And she is giving words to what most of them are thinking and feeling.

That makes it as viral as all get out. This will spread.

Michael

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

2.  Could it happen in a Contingent Election that a President from one party and a Vice-President from another were elected?  Specifically, could it happen that Trump as President was saddled with Kamala Harris as Vice-President?

Ellen,

I have read this in several places, but not often using the names, just offices without mention of political party. I would have to look this up to get the wording right. Besides, I am almost sure you will see this referenced in the links to that civics post where I gave a lot of links about the Electoral College.

In the mainstream, CNN of all places came up with this story using the names of Trump and Harris.

CNN: How Harris Could End up as Trump's Vice President

As to presuming the 2 Republicans will win in the Georgia runoff, on the surface I am sure of the opposite. They are setting up the election according to the fraud playbook so it won't matter how many people vote for them. It's like betting on tails in a coin toss with a two-headed coin. Tails will never come up no matter how the coin is tossed or who tossed it or how many times it is tossed.

The only hope I have is that the Trump people are hiding something, like catching them in the act during the actual election with an AG predisposed to send in the US Marshalls to impound ballots and voting machines and things like that and maybe annulling the election due to fraud.

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

... that civics post where I gave a lot of links about the Electoral College.

Where is "that civics post"?

 

2 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

In the mainstream, CNN of all places came up with this story using the names of Trump and Harris.

CNN: How Harris Could End up as Trump's Vice President


The linked "Newsmax article" is dated October 7, 2020, and pertains to the possibility of an Electoral College tie.

 

Quote

A new analysis outlines a startling, albeit unlikely, scenario: President Donald Trump could win reelection and Democrat Kamala Harris could be his vice president.

Writing for CNN, Robert Alexander and David B. Cohen presented the potential outcome to the Nov. 3 election, which could occur if there is an Electoral College tie between Trump and Democrat Joe Biden. In that contested election, the House of Representatives would vote to determine who the next president is.

The Senate, on the other hand, votes to select the vice president.

Democrats already control the House, and the possibility exists that they could take control of the Senate next month.

Each House delegation would get one vote, which is significant, because at the moment, 26 state delegations are controlled by Republicans. Democrats control 23 states and one is divided. Based on that, Trump would hold the advantage.

In the Senate, each member gets one vote to determine the vice president and a simple majority decides who wins.

As Alexander and Cohen wrote, there is, therefore, a chance that the next administration could be a two-party one.

I suppose this would apply as well to a Contingent Election.

Ick if Harris was Trump's VP.

Ellen

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

Where is "that civics post"?

Ellen,

You can find it here. It's from the beginning of November when I first started studying this stuff. I discovered a lot more as time went on. And note, I am still learning this stuff. I have an account at The Great Courses. And Hillsdale College has a lot of free stuff. I'm thinking of just taking a goddam course. :) 

In the meantime, there is also this fantastic article from The Epoch Times. If you don't want to sign up for an account, I provided an archived version link with a major archive service.

On 12/18/2020 at 5:20 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Here is one of the best articles (by Ivan Pentchoukov at The Epoch Times) I have seen on the process in the news. It fills in information I didn't give (like the stuff about Certificates of Vote). As I said in my post on this process where I have links, I am a newbie at this stuff and trying to inform myself with correct information. So I am a witness to efforts right now, not an authority.

Electors in 7 States Cast Dueling Votes for Trump

That's behind a series of hoops you have to go through like signing up for their emails. I actually recommend that since The Epoch Times rocks--it certainly rivals WSJ, but you can read an archived version of the article here.

I want to clear up something.

5 hours ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

I suppose this would apply as well to a Contingent Election.

Those writers in the mainstream news are way too often sloppy in their terms, in their descriptions and in what they leave out.

What the author is talking about is a Contingent election. He's just using the system of why be simple when complicated also works? Either that or he's faking it, but got it fact-checked so he didn't say anything wrong even though he was not clear.

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

Where is "that civics post"?

 


The linked "Newsmax article" is dated October 7, 2020, and pertains to the possibility of an Electoral College tie.

 

I suppose this would apply as well to a Contingent Election.

Ick if Harris was Trump's VP.

Ellen

Keep your friends close. Keep your enemies closer.

--Brant

that's the way to do it, power for nothing and the chick's for free

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, tmj said:

Not exactly Weinstein’s Unity2020

T,

I've tried to listen to Brett Weinstein on social issues other than his persecution at Evergreen State College and I just can't get into him. It's like trying to eat Jello with your fingers.

:)

At least he appears among conservative-sounding people, but I believe that is not by choice. It think he would vastly prefer to be among liberal intellectuals painting a picture of how others should live based on their feelings. But he got ostracized for rebelling against the intellectual leftie social fad of the moment and the conservatives are making him a rock star of sorts (The Victim of the Mean Left) and, for lack of a better option, he is running with it.

That's a long way around to saying I don't even know what his Unity 2020program is and don't really care. At least not until someone I respect says good things about it.

Off the cuff, based on what I have heard him say so far on social issues, I imagine it's another ivory tower pipe dream that dismisses how people are and instead is based on how someone or some people they should be, with a constant surface of poetic-sounding abstract bromides and a subtext of general compliance to authority.

At least as an evolution and biology dude, he's all right.

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

Keep your friends close. Keep your enemies closer.

--Brant

that's the way to do it, power for nothing and the chick's for free

The chick's a viper, and if she were Trump's VP, the incentives for people who'd like to have Trump assassinated would be even higher than if Pence were VP.

Looks like we might have a situation where one way or the other (Trump or Biden), Kamala Harris is only "a heartbeat away" from becoming President.

Ellen

Link to post
Share on other sites

If Kamala per chance did become President Trump's VP (which I seriously doubt will happen), I know what I would do if I were him.

I would send her on constant world tours representing the USA. She could see to the climate change interests of the USA in different part of the Artic and Antarctica, the Easter Islands, Tristan da Cunha, the Cocos Islands, Ittoqqortoormiit in Greenland, and a few other important strategic areas around the globe.

Also, I would create new facilities for the Office of the Vice President on St. Matthew Island in Alaska and have her run her day to day business from there.

:)

Michael 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re Unity2020, it is basically a plan to run a third party ticket to break up the ‘duopoly’. Draft two candidates, one from the left and one from the right , and have them run to act as co-presidents, both would have to agree to any executive actions, a little pipe dreamy and pie in the sky like.

But I liked his qualifications for drafting candidates the first and most important attributes are that they be “ patriotic, courageous and highly capable” . I think a probable ticket would have been Gabbard and Crenshaw.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now