The Coming ‘January 6’ Train Wreck

With the DOJ’s first sentencing, the legal realities are disappointing the left’s lust for blood. The January 6 Capitol clash may be the gift that keeps on giving to cynics everywhere. In the coming months, Americans will likely see jaw-dropping bureaucratic debacles, stunning abuses by federal prosecutors, and appalling bloodlust by angry Biden supporters. Perhaps […]
The post The Coming ‘January 6’ Train Wreck appeared first on PRICKLY PEAR.With the DOJ’s first sentencing, the legal realities are disappointing the left’s lust for blood. The January 6 Capitol clash may be the gift that keeps on giving to cynics everywhere. In the coming months, Americans will likely see jaw-dropping bureaucratic debacles, stunning abuses by federal prosecutors, and appalling bloodlust by angry Biden supporters. Perhaps
The post The Coming ‘January 6’ Train Wreck appeared first on PRICKLY PEAR.Read MoreFeedzyEstimated Reading Time: 5 minutes

With the DOJ’s first sentencing, the legal realities are disappointing the left’s lust for blood.

The January 6 Capitol clash may be the gift that keeps on giving to cynics everywhere. In the coming months, Americans will likely see jaw-dropping bureaucratic debacles, stunning abuses by federal prosecutors, and appalling bloodlust by angry Biden supporters. Perhaps the least likely outcome is that the coming train wreck will restore faith in American democracy.

The Justice Department declared last week, “The investigation and prosecution of the Capitol Breach will be the largest in American history, both in terms of the number of defendants prosecuted and the nature and volume of the evidence.” The feds are sorting through “237,000 digital tips, 1 million Parler videos and images comprising 40 terabytes of data scraped from the Internet — roughly equivalent to 10 million photos, 20,000 hours of video, or 50,000 filing cabinets of paper documents,” the Washington Post reported. Investigators are also sorting through “cell tower data for thousands of electronic devices that connected to the Capitol’s interior distributed antenna system,” information provided by phone companies, Google, and other data aggregation companies. The problem will be compounded because many government employees are slow readers.

More than 500 protestors have already been charged in federal court, but their trials will likely be delayed at least until next year. Federal judge John Bates recently warned that evidence snafus could result in judges “going on the warpath.” If judges conclude that the Justice Department is unreasonably keeping January 6 defendants locked up (often in solitary confinement) too long, judicial edicts could unravel prosecutors’ long-term plans.

Federal cases against January 6 protestors are being built on what one savvy electronic evidence consultant called a “Tower of Babel nightmare.” While federal agents gloated at the 300,000 plus tips that poured into the FBI with regards to January 6 protestors, prosecutors are obliged to sift the hairballs and provide each defendant and their lawyers with potentially exculpatory evidence. The biggest data dump on record will likely spur a deluge of inadvertent or intentional withholding of evidence. The Justice Department recently notified defense lawyers that they would have to “build a system to receive the data” the feds delivered. The prosecution is also whining because a federal judge prevented them from relying on a private contractor to organize secret grand jury evidence.

The Justice Department may be delaying the release of the bulk of the more than 14,000 hours of video surveillance from inside the Capitol on January 6 in an attempt to preserve Biden’s “domestic terrorism” storyline of that day’s events. Even before Trump supporters poured into the Capitol that day, Democrats were accusing them of sedition for filing legal challenges to the 2020 election results, including popular Twitter hashtags such as #GOPSeditiousTraitors and #TreasonAgainstAmerica. After the mob delayed congressional proceedings for six hours, congressional leaders compared the interruption to the 9/11 attacks, Pearl Harbor, and the War of 1812. The Justice Department may also be foot-dragging on releasing evidence because it is reluctant to disclose what role, if any, federal informants or undercover agents had in instigating or propagating violence that day.

For January 6 defendants, federal prosecutors are using a simple formula: Trespassing plus thought crimes equals terrorism. On Monday, Paul Hodgkins was sentenced to 8 months in prison, though the feds admitted he was guilty simply of taking selfies, wearing a Trump T-shirt, and carrying a Trump flag into the Senate chamber and “did not personally engage in or espouse violence or property destruction.” Though Hodgkins pled guilty only to one count of obstructing an official proceeding, Biden’s Justice Department demanded a lengthy prison sentence for Hodgkins to “deter…domestic terrorism.” This is akin to prosecutors seeking harsh punishment for a confessed jaywalker because his negligent behavior could have caused a school bus to crash.

At the same time, the Justice Department is bumbling towards paralysis, many Americans are howling for the heads of January 6 defendants. In his Gulag Archipelago, Alexander Solzhenitsyn described the vast public outrage that went along with a prominent Soviet show trial of accused wreckers: “There were universal meetings and demonstrations (including even school-children). It was the newspaper march of millions, and the roar rose outside the windows of the courtroom: ‘Death! Death! Death!’” The same spectacle has been stark on Twitter and in the comment section of the Washington Post, among other places.

One Washington Post commenter declared that “the only effective way for the government to respond to an act of war by domestic terrorists is to be prepared to meet them with machine guns and flamethrowers and mow them down. Not one of those terrorists who broke through police lines [on January 6] should have escaped alive.” Hodgkins’s sentence terrified and enraged Post readers. One wrote, “The pitiful 8-month sentence scares me badly… I’m afraid the government is losing its ability to protect us from madmen (consider the mentally ill and tweakers roaming our streets untreated) and right-wing Q-inspired terrorists.” Another commented, “He should have been given the death penalty for sedition.” As always, one commenter even reached back to the Nazis for an analogy, writing, “It is comparable to the 9 months that Adolf Hitler served after his participation in an attempted 1923 putsch against the German government. Remember how that turned out?”

Federal judge Randolph Moss, when he sentenced Hodgkins, declared that his action will make it “harder for all of us to tell our children and grandchildren that democracy stands as the immutable foundation of our nation.” Unfortunately, judges seem nonchalant when American democracy is subverted instead by federal agencies. After FBI Assistant General Counsel Kevin Clinesmith admitted falsifying key evidence to get a FISA warrant to spy on the Trump presidential campaign, federal judge James Boasberg gushed with sympathy at the sentencing hearing: “Mr. Clinesmith has lost his job in government service—what has given his life much of its meaning.” Scorning the recommendation of the federal prosecutor (who said the resulting harm is immeasurable recommendation” from Clinesmith’s action), Boasberg gave Clinesmith a wrist slap—400 hours of community service and 12 months of probation. The Justice Department Inspector General documented many other abuses of power and deceit by FBI officials in the Hillary Clinton or Trump investigations, but not a single FBI official has spent a day behind bars.

Will Justice Department prosecutors be caught in a Catch-22, pressured by the White House to harvest as many scalps as possible but crippled by the lack of proof that most of the accused were guilty of anything besides trespassing or “willfully and knowingly parading” in the Capitol? Political pressure for high-profile convictions resulted in disastrous courtroom defeats for federal attorneys prosecuting Ruby Ridge, the Branch Davidian standoff at Waco, and other cases. If juries rebuff prosecutors on more than a few January 6 cases, then the entire political storyline could quickly collapse.

Federal prosecutor Mona Sedky is calling for harsh punishment for January 6 defendants because of “the need to preserve respect for the law.” But at this point, “respect for the law” is a loss leader in this process. That won’t be remedied when people realize that taking selfies can result in a federal sentencing enhancement.

*****

This article was published on July 22, 2021 and is reproduced with permission from The American Conservative.

Democrats’ Lawless Governments Can Get Even Worse

It has taken 72 years since the publication of the book 1984 for us to finally arrive at being led by President Orwell. He has been sending out his shock troops to convince Americans not to believe their own eyes and ears and blame Republicans for defunding the police and surging crime. They are truly […]
The post Democrats’ Lawless Governments Can Get Even Worse appeared first on PRICKLY PEAR.It has taken 72 years since the publication of the book 1984 for us to finally arrive at being led by President Orwell. He has been sending out his shock troops to convince Americans not to believe their own eyes and ears and blame Republicans for defunding the police and surging crime. They are truly
The post Democrats’ Lawless Governments Can Get Even Worse appeared first on PRICKLY PEAR.Read MoreFeedzyEstimated Reading Time: 3 minutes

It has taken 72 years since the publication of the book 1984 for us to finally arrive at being led by President Orwell. He has been sending out his shock troops to convince Americans not to believe their own eyes and ears and blame Republicans for defunding the police and surging crime. They are truly shock troops because Americans are dazed and confused by the bewildering arguments that blame Republicans. Only the most desperate Democrats are adopting this line. I am here to tell you as bad as the lawlessness being unleashed on Americans by Democrat mayors and district attorneys it can and will most likely get even worse.

The trashing of our laws to allow criminals to walk out of stores with hundreds of dollars of goods without legal recourse or allowing violent criminals out after arrest without bail to further their personal crime wave bafflingly can get even worse. We know that because it is going on in France.

Kobili Traore was an immigrant from Mali who obtained French citizenship. He had been arrested and sentenced by French courts 20 times for violent assaults. His only known means of support was as a drug dealer. Despite that, the French government made no attempt to take away his citizenship and deport him back to Mali.

Traore met retired Jewish physician Dr. Sarah Halami numerous times along with her daughter in the stairwell of the Paris building where they lived. He called them “dirty Jews.” This was witnessed by numerous neighbors.

Traore proceeds to break into the home of Dr. Halimi at four in the morning. He tortured her for over an hour while reciting verses from the Quran and shouting “Allahu Akbar!” He used anti-Semitic names and call her Satan.

In testimony from her neighbors, the police arrived at Dr. Halimi’s place while she was still alive. They became aware first-hand of the activities inside and heard her screaming. Instead of asserting there were exigent circumstances and breaking down the door, the police decide to go back downstairs and wait for reinforcements.

At that time, Traore threw Dr. Halimi from the third-story balcony of her home where she fell to her death. Only at this point did the police arrest him.

The murderer was not sent to prison but instead was sent to a mental institution because he was under the influence of an illegal substance. Traore was high on marijuana, but apparently in a state of delirium. Most people who digest too much marijuana want to sit on a couch and consume bags of Cheetos. Not Traore. He went into a murderous anti-Semitic rage. It is still not clear why the murderer was not sent to prison where he could be cleansed of the drug and held there.

Seems like an open and shut case of first-degree murder, but not in France. Not only was the fact it was a hate crime suppressed for nine months, but the case was also assigned to a judge who was known as a member of an anti-Semitic group.

The judge proceeded to prejudice the process. She refused to allow a reconstruction of the crime. She stated a reconstruction of the crime would be “traumatic” for the defendant. The judge never heard arguments from the victim’s family.

The judge ordered her own psychiatric analysis of Traore. Her hand-picked psychiatrist determined that Traore was in a state of acute delirium (on marijuana) and stated that because of that he could not be responsible for his actions and could not be tried. The judge in coordination with two other judges declared the murderer not guilty and free of all charges.

The case immediately was sent to the Court of Appeal. The Court acknowledged that Traore had committed an anti-Semitic murder. It went on to validate the lower court opinion that Traore was not responsible for his actions and set him free.

As despicable as this story may seem to you, are we that far from situations like this? We allow criminals to sneak back into the country multiple times. From all appearances, our southern border is largely being controlled by drug cartels that have become human traffickers.

Our society is consistently amplifying any slight against Blacks, Asians, or Muslims, but has muffled anti-Semitic attacks which remain 60% of hate crimes. We have violent criminals let out of jail prematurely or without bail, after a crime with some clueless thought, these people will become humanitarians in the interim. We have Democrat elected officials hog-tying police preventing them from protecting the people they were hired to protect.

Instead of changing police back to their intended role and ridding us of these criminals, the mayors, city councils, and DA’s are responsible for our plunging law enforcement and the corresponding explosion of crimes at all levels. The Democrats are busy creating fairy tales about Republicans defunding the police. Unless we cleanse ourselves of these irresponsible souls, we will soon descend to the levels that France has already achieved.

*****

This article was published in Flash Report on Jul7 17, 2021 and is reproduced with permission from the author.

The Danger Of Wokeness In Uniform

The surrender to leftist ideology among military leaders endangers all Americans.   Until recently, decades of failed senior officer leadership in a series of disastrous American military interventions, from Vietnam to Afghanistan—operations that compromised basic principles of military leadership and produced a stable of morally bankrupt sycophants in the senior ranks of the armed forces—awakened […]
The post The Danger Of Wokeness In Uniform appeared first on PRICKLY PEAR.The surrender to leftist ideology among military leaders endangers all Americans.   Until recently, decades of failed senior officer leadership in a series of disastrous American military interventions, from Vietnam to Afghanistan—operations that compromised basic principles of military leadership and produced a stable of morally bankrupt sycophants in the senior ranks of the armed forces—awakened
The post The Danger Of Wokeness In Uniform appeared first on PRICKLY PEAR.Read MoreFeedzyEstimated Reading Time: 4 minutes

The surrender to leftist ideology among military leaders endangers all Americans.

Until recently, decades of failed senior officer leadership in a series of disastrous American military interventions, from Vietnam to Afghanistan—operations that compromised basic principles of military leadership and produced a stable of morally bankrupt sycophants in the senior ranks of the armed forces—awakened surprisingly little concern in Washington, D.C. Cold War triumphalism had run its course everywhere in the world, but not inside the Washington Beltway.

Then, “wokeness,” along with a senior officer’s defense of teaching critical race theory (CRT) at West Point, suddenly became topical for many Republican members of the House and Senate. One concluded that Congress should defend patriotic service members against the services’ woke leadership.

Is it true? Are America’s four stars (44 of them) becoming the military equivalent of Davos Men; denationalized cosmopolitans who view national identities and boundaries as antiquated obstacles to the liberating force of globalism? Or is “wokeness” really just a matter of civilian control of the military?

It would be wrong to suggest that today’s senior officers (three and four stars) are gold collar globalists. It would be more accurate to suggest that steadily rising defense spending combined with the absence of accountability for performance has devalued the importance of character, competence, and intelligence in the selection of senior officers.

In addition, Washington has lots of revolving doors. Just as political appointees move from the defense industries or think tanks to and from the Pentagon, retired senior officers work or consult for defense contractors and sit on the boards of defense conglomerates. For appointees and retired senior military officers, the opportunity for self-enrichment is substantial.

Most of the time, the revolving door reinforces a static military mindset that thrives on bureaucratic routine and preserves existing money flows to satisfy congressional, private sector, and service interests. Officers who question the status quo are sidelined, ensuring that generations of senior military officers are very homogenous. Sometimes, the outcome is ethically shady behavior.

The result is a class of senior officers ready to adopt whatever politically mandated social policy their civilian superiors demand, provided they are left to run the service bureaucracies, control promotions, and structure the forces as they like. Thus, punishing midshipmen who criticize Black Lives Matter and compelling soldiers to march in high heels or to embrace identity politics even in the face of evidence that such policies might weaken, if not subvert, American fighting power is carried out with surprisingly little fanfare.

All discipline is a form of habit and the habit of conforming in the senior ranks is quite strong. Young officers learn that in battle, hesitation, indecision, or the refusal to obey orders under fire can cost the lives of American soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines.

Unfortunately, this learned behavior also persists in matters of national military strategy, which produce policies affecting the morale, discipline, and fighting power of the nation’s armed forces. When confronted with tough issues from the Gulf of Tonkin to disbanding the Iraqi military, senior military leaders are inclined to acquiesce to bad strategic policy decisions on the grounds that it is their military duty to comply or because they fear exclusion from access to greater income in retired life. In any case, it’s ill-advised, even immoral.

Why is it wrong for senior officers to simply go along to get along? National military leaders must fuse the body and soul of the nation into one united fighting force. Decisions that commit forces to vague objectives based more on wishful thinking than reality, as was the case in Vietnam and Iraq, or policies that nurture hatred against all or some of the nation’s service members put the very survival of the force at risk.

Today, Americans in uniform confront an extremist ideology that is unapologetic in its hatred of all things Western, white, and Christian in America. Many serving in the ranks think this extremism takes the form of de-nationalization and believe that it is being institutionalized by the Biden administration.

Perhaps the poster child for anti-Western and anti-white extremism is Bishop Garrison, the man tasked by the Biden administration to fight alleged extremism in the military. Garrison subscribes to the “1619 Project,” a twisted, hate-filled Marxist interpretation of American history that vilifies Western culture, Western civilization, and the Europeans who created it. The project rests on the belief that Americans of color, especially black Americans, are “marginalized” and oppressed inside American society.

Predictably, the 1619 Project divides American society along racial lines to condemn white Americans as the privileged class. It inspires policies that classify soldiers, by forcing them to wear badges identifying them by race and socio-economic status during “diversity and inclusion training.”

Much like the members of Antifa and Black Lives Matter, the advocates in uniform for CRT and the 1619 Project seem unable to conceive or admit of anything good or positive in America’s past. To many Americans serving inside the armed forces, those in uniform who proselytize for CRT seem determined to purge the ranks of anyone who might question whether “systemic racism” really is the defining feature of 21st century American society. Put another way by a serving sailor, “if you are straight, white, and male, especially if you are a Christian, the military does not want you.”

“History,” wrote Alexis de Tocqueville, “is a picture gallery containing a host of copies and very few originals.” It is not the first time mankind has witnessed a radical reordering of politics that rejects compromise and destroys a nation in pursuit of an allegedly more just society.

In 1917, Lenin argued for a democratically elected assembly to govern Russia. In January 1918, when the Assembly met and Lenin discovered the vast majority of Russian delegates elected to Russia’s Constituent Assembly opposed his policies, he told his followers, “To wait for the [Russian] constituent assembly which will clearly not be with us is senseless.” Lenin dissolved the assembly and turned his attention to control of the state organs of power: the military and the police.

Extremists are never concerned with the truth or compromise, but extremists do understand power. Lenin organized his supporters into Red Guards—a volunteer paramilitary force that could terrorize Lenin’s opponents. Lenin and his successors built an internal police force (the NKVD) with political watchdogs to transform the military into an instrument of the Communist Party.

A political force or idea taken to its extreme always produces its opposite. If the senior leaders of the armed forces do not halt the radical attempt to de-nationalize the American military and weaponize it for the use of the American Left, the U.S. armed forces will be compromised. Americans will reject appeals to conservatism and moderation, and turn instead to the power of American nationalism, the force diametrically opposed to the radical left.

Senators and congressmen should be worried, and so should the American people.

*****

This article was published on July 13, 2021 and is reproduced with permission from The American Conservative.

Implications of the Arizona Audit- Part II

The widening implications will likely depend on whether the results show there has been significant discrepancy or fraud, whether those results are credible and believable, and whether the press actually covers the story and public opinion shifts. Once Republicans believe they have a solid case, then strategies will need to be developed to go into […]
The post Implications of the Arizona Audit- Part II appeared first on PRICKLY PEAR.The widening implications will likely depend on whether the results show there has been significant discrepancy or fraud, whether those results are credible and believable, and whether the press actually covers the story and public opinion shifts. Once Republicans believe they have a solid case, then strategies will need to be developed to go into
The post Implications of the Arizona Audit- Part II appeared first on PRICKLY PEAR.Read MoreFeedzyEstimated Reading Time: 5 minutes

The widening implications will likely depend on whether the results show there has been significant discrepancy or fraud, whether those results are credible and believable, and whether the press actually covers the story and public opinion shifts.

Once Republicans believe they have a solid case, then strategies will need to be developed to go into the political and legal unknown where there is a great political risk for this already badly divided country. There is little precedent for what to do and many will argue that it is better to “let sleeping dogs lie” until the next election. However, a better case can be made that the lying dogs who perpetrated election fraud should never be allowed to sleep.

Should legislators in various states simply fix the election procedures and processes? Should those that engaged in fraud be prosecuted?  What happens to those already in office? What happens to the legislation illegitimate leaders have passed?

The problem is there are obviously partisan reasons for either believing or not believing. You can expect partisan fury will attempt to overwhelm evidence and procedure.

Right now, we are at the point of a discrepancy, which is itself an important milestone. But if Maricopa County officials continue to block the investigation, it will be argued that it was not complete and credibility will be reduced. Ironically, at least in Arizona, it is Republicans that will determine whether this election integrity project has credibility.

As we have come this far that many believe the election was fraudulent, and we are at least at the point of a discrepancy, it is alarming the Board of Supervisors should continue to block a legitimate inquiry conducted by elected representatives. This story affects the whole state and the nation, and they are mere county officials, albeit elected as well.

For the sake of party unity if not the integrity of the democratic process, they should go along with this investigation, especially if they have done nothing wrong. If no wrongdoing occurred, they will be able to make their opponents look like idiots.

If they have done wrong, it is not worth destroying the electoral reputation of this great Republic just to save the political hides of county officials. We should remember their names for sure for the next election cycle, and see that they are all removed, hopefully in the primary stage of the election cycle.

But in the interim, maybe a bargain should be struck. Come clean and cooperate and no one gets prosecuted.

We need to break out of the conundrum formed by those that opposed the investigation in the first place. They will contend, no credible evidence has been developed, while all along blocking the path to develop the credible evidence.

It is similar to the “the courts have found no evidence of fraud”, when in most cases the courts refused to even hear the case as they claimed that plaintiffs had “no standing”.

Just for the sake of intellectual speculation, let’s assume that results do show “significant” fraud, that is fraud on a sufficient scale to alter the results of a close election.

Let’s further assume that results are considered supportable. That could be a hard sell since we have few examples of true audits rather than just recounts by the same officials that may have been conducting the fraud. There are few examples of outside parties actually not just counting the ballots, but verifying the ballots that are being counted. Thus, we don’t have a lot of precedents.

Arizona may be setting a new precedent.

A recount is not enough. Recounting fraudulent ballots simply cannot tell you which are fraudulent and those that are not. It might find if there are issues of mechanical counting errors or improper or inaccurate counting, but counting illegitimate ballots simply gives you a tally of illegitimate ballots mixed in with proper ballots.

Recounts can’t determine if voters were not citizens, or have moved, are deceased, or if the chain of custody was compromised, or if machines are internally or externally manipulated.

But assuming the conclusions of fraud are supportable, will the mainline press bury the story? Probably not, although they have buried other big stories that offend Democrats like Hunter Biden. Can they, in the end, truly bury this story?

So, let’s assume significant fraud is determined, the means and methods of determining said are supportable and accepted by the majority of voters. And we assume, the press can’t ultimately deep-six the story. It gets widespread coverage and more states copy Arizona and look into their elections as well and similar things are found.

Now, what happens? Republicans will be in the position of the “dog that caught the bus”, to wit, what do you do with it once you have it? One does not get the sense they have a plan that is thought through to its full logical implications.

Obviously, the people in office, are in office. In this case, given the Democrat party’s ability to unite and the Republican party’s ability to fragment, nothing is likely to happen until the next election cycle. I doubt Democrats will step down, even if it is determined they are illegitimate officeholders.

However, it would appear Democrats are putting out signs of desperation. Midterm elections don’t go well historically in any case, and in this particular case, with fraud, dementia, DOJ collusion, inflation, their created border crisis, the critical race theory they embrace, a crime way they caused, and illegitimacy issues dogging them; they act like they want to stuff the channel with as much radical legislation as possible. They must fear a short tenure.

Assuming this plays out, the Democrats will lose the House and Senate at the mid-term election, but maintain the Executive Branch and the fourth branch of government, the bureaucratic establishment.

Then what do the Republicans do especially if the courts continue to run from the issue?  Clearly, under the Constitution, state legislatures ultimately are in charge of election procedures and processes.

For those in office that benefited from election fraud, impeachment would be in order. But if mid-term elections are not decisive, we are stuck with a full Democrat presidential term and all the executive orders and legislation that got through in the first two years and executive orders in the final two years. The Democrats would surely be wounded, but they will have crammed through their desired radical legislation nonetheless.

Biden is already using Executive Orders at a faster pace than any previous President, as well.

Assuming in four years, Republicans have both the Executive and Legislative branches, then what?

We saw what happened when they had that situation with George Bush, and it was not impressive was it? So, Republican leaders need to develop a clear strategy if election fraud is determined.

Conservatives should not brook any talk of a military coup or this kind of nonsense. Our guide has to be the Constitution, but not necessarily tradition.

Democrats will have to be removed either by impeachment or preferably, elections. Hopefully, honest elections. That means election integrity is essential for constitutional remedies to work. Election integrity is not a threat to the republic, continued election fraud is.

That means at a minimum, the GOP must have the courage to pursue a course that ensures election integrity in as many states as politically possible.

The minimum effort would be the least disruptive I suppose, but what then do Republicans do if they come back into power?

My own preference would be to see that every piece of legislation and executive order be legally repealed going back to say…Grover Cleveland.

But seriously, we should want to repeal anything put in place by a government that was formed on the basis of fraud and deceit. It would indeed be undemocratic to let stand legislation that was put in place by individuals not properly elected. To honor laws written by illegitimate politicians is certainly a greater affront to democracy than questioning an election.

Then, some important people need to go to jail.

As far as the bureaucratic agencies, clean house. If that requires modifying civil service laws, then that will be necessary.

*****

Read The Arizona Election Audit and Its Implications – Part I here.

EXPOSED: The Most Comprehensive PROOF of Election Fraud in Georgia

Editors’ Note: This video is representative of what is occurring in several of the states many Americans believe election fraud occurred and determined the outcome of the 2020 Presidential election. Currently in Arizona the forensic audit is moving toward completion with findings made known in the near future. The Democrat assault on the Arizona audit […]
The post EXPOSED: The Most Comprehensive PROOF of Election Fraud in Georgia appeared first on PRICKLY PEAR.Editors’ Note: This video is representative of what is occurring in several of the states many Americans believe election fraud occurred and determined the outcome of the 2020 Presidential election. Currently in Arizona the forensic audit is moving toward completion with findings made known in the near future. The Democrat assault on the Arizona audit
The post EXPOSED: The Most Comprehensive PROOF of Election Fraud in Georgia appeared first on PRICKLY PEAR.Read MoreFeedzyEstimated Reading Time: < 1 minute

Editors’ Note: This video is representative of what is occurring in several of the states many Americans believe election fraud occurred and determined the outcome of the 2020 Presidential election. Currently in Arizona the forensic audit is moving toward completion with findings made known in the near future. The Democrat assault on the Arizona audit process at the state and national levels is unrelenting with near total support of the media. The question Americans should ask is simple. If the election was honest, fair and transparent, what is the problem with assuring (proving) the result with audits that confirm the result?

New Evidence Indicates Enough Illegal Votes In Georgia To Tip 2020 Results

In Georgia, there was both an audit and a statewide recount confirming Biden’s victory, but ignored in the process was evidence that nearly 35,000 Georgians had potentially voted illegally. New evidence indicates that more than 10,300 illegal votes were cast in Georgia in the November 2020 general election — a number that will continue to […]
The post New Evidence Indicates Enough Illegal Votes In Georgia To Tip 2020 Results appeared first on PRICKLY PEAR.In Georgia, there was both an audit and a statewide recount confirming Biden’s victory, but ignored in the process was evidence that nearly 35,000 Georgians had potentially voted illegally. New evidence indicates that more than 10,300 illegal votes were cast in Georgia in the November 2020 general election — a number that will continue to
The post New Evidence Indicates Enough Illegal Votes In Georgia To Tip 2020 Results appeared first on PRICKLY PEAR.Read MoreFeedzyEstimated Reading Time: 6 minutes

In Georgia, there was both an audit and a statewide recount confirming Biden’s victory, but ignored in the process was evidence that nearly 35,000 Georgians had potentially voted illegally.

New evidence indicates that more than 10,300 illegal votes were cast in Georgia in the November 2020 general election — a number that will continue to rise over the next several months, potentially exceeding the 12,670 votes that separated Joe Biden and Donald Trump.

While this evidence does not change the fact that Joe Biden is our president, all Americans who genuinely care about free and fair elections and the disenfranchisement of voters should demand both transparency and solutions to prevent a repeat in future elections. This evidence also vindicates former President Trump and his legal team for the related public (and private) comments and legal arguments made in challenging the Georgia election results.

Under the cover of COVID-19, Georgia, like many other states, flooded residents with absentee ballot applications. Also like sister states, Georgia ignored various legislative mandates designed to prevent fraud and to ensure the integrity of the vote. These facts, coupled with the closeness of the presidential contest in Georgia and other states, led to a flurry of accusations and litigation charging vote fraud, illegal voting, and violations of the Elector’s Clause of the constitution.

In Georgia, there was both an audit and a statewide recount confirming Biden’s victory, but ignored in the process was evidence that nearly 35,000 Georgians had potentially voted illegally.

Under Georgia law, residents must vote in the county in which they reside, unless they changed their residence within 30 days of the election. As Jake Evans, a well-known Atlanta election lawyer, told me, outside of the 30-day grace period, if people vote in a county in which they no longer reside, “Their vote in that county would be illegal.”

Soon after the November general election, Mark Davis, the president of Data Productions Inc. and an expert in voter data analytics and residency issues, obtained data from the National Change of Address (NCOA) database that identified Georgia residents who had confirmed moves with the U.S. Postal Service. After excluding moves with effective dates within 30 days of the general election, and by using data available from the Georgia Secretary of State’s Office, Davis identified nearly 35,000 Georgia voters who indicated they had moved from one Georgia county to another, but then voted in the 2020 general election in the county from which they had moved.

Casting Doubt on Potential Illegal Votes

Some of those moves could have been temporary, involving students or members of the military, Davis stressed, adding that under Georgia law temporary relocations do not alter citizens’ residency status or render their votes illegal. But, given the margin separating the two presidential candidates, approximately one-third of the votes at issue could have altered the outcome of the election. Yet the media, the courts, and the Secretary of State’s Office ignored or downplayed the issue.

“It was disconcerting to see the media and the courts largely ignore serious issues like these, especially since the data I was seeing showed very legitimate issues,” Davis said. “In fact, I heard members of the Secretary of State’s team admit some votes were cast with residency issues, but then claimed there weren’t enough of them to cast the outcome of the election in doubt,” Davis added. “That was not at all what I was seeing, and as far as I am aware the Secretary of State’s Office has never put an actual number on the ones they did see.”

While frustrated, Davis told me that he never stopped working on these issues. “In May I received an updated voter database from the Secretary of State’s office, and I imported the data and compared voter’s addresses to the NCOA information I processed in November.”

The Data Speaks for Itself

When Davis ran the data, he found that, of the approximately 35,000 Georgians who indicated they had moved from one county to another county more than 30 days before the November general election, as of May, more than 10,300 had updated their voter registration information, providing the secretary of state the exact address they had previously provided to the USPS. Those same 10,000-plus individuals all also cast ballots in the county in which they had previously lived.

“That number continues to increase every day as more and more people update their registrations,” Davis said. “I have little doubt that the total number will eventually meet and then exceed President Biden’s margin of victory in Georgia.” Davis, who has testified as an expert witness multiple times in disputed election cases, believes Trump might have won a challenge to the Georgia election results had a court actually heard his case.

“Under Georgia law, a judge can order an election be redone if he or she sees there were enough illegal, irregular, or improperly rejected votes to cast the results of the election in doubt, or if they see evidence of ‘systemic irregularities,’” Davis said.

“These issues were absolutely systemic,” Davis stressed, noting “they occurred in every county in the state, in every state house, state senate, and in every congressional district in the state.”

Evans, who holds the distinction of being the only lawyer in Georgia history to successfully overturn two elections in the same race, concurred. Under Georgia law, Evans explained, “an election should be overturned either if (1) more votes than decided the election were illegal, wrongfully rejected or irregular, or (2) when there were systemic irregularities that cast in doubt the results of the election.”

“In the case of the 2020 general election,” Evans told me, Davis’s analysis indicates both factors could have been in play.

Davis’s data proves significant because critics of Trump’s challenge to the certification of Georgia’s election results framed the NCOA information as either unreliable or of an insufficient magnitude to cast the outcome of the election in doubt. But by updating their voter registration information with the same address as contained in the NCOA database, the voters themselves have established the reliability of that information.

Further, by updating their address for purposes of their voter registration, these same voters are confirming their move is not temporary. “When a person updates their voter registration to a new address, they are informing the county board of elections and correspondingly the Secretary of State that they regard the new address as their legal residence,” Evans explained.

What Do Georgia Officials Know?

Upon learning of this new development, the Georgia Secretary of State’s Office quietly opened an investigation into potentially illegal voting by residents who had moved between counties. Davis provided his data to the office in May, with a detailed explanation of his analysis.

During my interview last week with Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, there was confusion over which, of the many investigations opened by his office, I had sought further information. Immediately following the interview, both his press secretary, Walter Jones, and his deputy secretary of state, Jordan Fuchs, called me back to follow up on my questions on the status of that investigation.

While Jones spoke favorably of Davis, he suggested that Davis’ figure included “false-positives” because Davis lacked access to social security numbers and birth dates of voters, and thus Davis’ list likely included different individuals bearing the same name. Fuchs suggested a similar issue with Davis’ analysis.

“There is no need to have access to Social Security numbers or birth dates,” Davis told me. “Every voter has a unique eight-digit voter identification number,” Davis explained that these voter identification numbers tie to the voters’ names and addresses and to vote-history data, which documents when and where their votes are cast and comes from the secretary of state’s own data.

Davis provided access to that data, following the execution of a non-disclosure agreement, and I confirmed Davis’s representation. Davis also provided processing certification verifying receipt of the NCOA data.

“I provided this exact same information to Frances Watson, the chief investigator for the secretary of state,” Davis told me, sharing a copy of the email sent to Watson.

When asked for the status of Watson’s investigation and other details, while both were receptive to questions, neither Jones nor Fuchs could provide definitive answers. While on Friday Fuchs promised to give Watson permission to speak with me, and while both the deputy secretary of state and the press secretary promised to arrange an interview with Watson and to track down answers to several questions, to date, no further information has been provided and no interview has been arranged, notwithstanding several follow-up communications.

Hopefully, that is because Watson is busy investigating the strong evidence of illegal voting and not because the Secretary of State’s Office is attempting to bury the story — and the fact that Trump might have been right after all — until after Raffensperger fights off a primary challenge.

Clarification: This original article stated, “Yet during my interview last week with Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, he seemed unfamiliar with this most recent evidence of illegal voting.”

Since publication, Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger’s office confirmed he is aware of the latest in the investigation, and that during his interview he was responding to questions posed about out-of-precinct voting.

*****

This article was published on July 9, 2021 and is reproduced with permission from The Federalist.

Maricopa County Auditors Seek Ballot Envelope Images, Splunk Logs After Discovering Discrepancies

Teams conducting a forensic audit in Arizona’s largest county said on July 15 that they want more items to complete their review, which has turned up several major discrepancies. The auditors, led by Florida-based Cyber Ninjas, want ballot envelope images, router images, splunk logs, hard drives that contain information about the 2020 election in Maricopa County, and details […]
The post Maricopa County Auditors Seek Ballot Envelope Images, Splunk Logs After Discovering Discrepancies appeared first on PRICKLY PEAR.Teams conducting a forensic audit in Arizona’s largest county said on July 15 that they want more items to complete their review, which has turned up several major discrepancies. The auditors, led by Florida-based Cyber Ninjas, want ballot envelope images, router images, splunk logs, hard drives that contain information about the 2020 election in Maricopa County, and details
The post Maricopa County Auditors Seek Ballot Envelope Images, Splunk Logs After Discovering Discrepancies appeared first on PRICKLY PEAR.Read MoreFeedzyEstimated Reading Time: < 1 minute

Teams conducting a forensic audit in Arizona’s largest county said on July 15 that they want more items to complete their review, which has turned up several major discrepancies.

The auditors, led by Florida-based Cyber Ninjas, want ballot envelope images, router images, splunk logs, hard drives that contain information about the 2020 election in Maricopa County, and details on the county’s policies and procedures as they try to complete a review that started nearly three months ago.

That information could help clear up issues that have been identified.

Doug Logan, CEO of Cyber Ninjas, told senators at the Arizona State Capitol during a hearing that auditors can find no record of the county sending more than 74,000 mail-in ballots. Ben Cotton, CEO of CyFIR, a subcontractor working on the audit, said the analysis of the election management system and network uncovered “severe cybersecurity problems,” including that antivirus programs weren’t up to date.

The hearing came after Arizona Senate President Karen Fann, whose Republican caucus authorized the audit late last year, said the auditors’ ballot count produced a different number from the county’s count.

Logan said the discrepancies with mail-in ballot records should trigger a canvassing proposal that was put on hold under pressure from the Department of Justice.

“Based on the data we’re seeing, I highly recommend canvassing, because it is the one way to know for sure whether some of the data we’re seeing, if it’s real problems or whether it’s clerical errors of some sort,” he said.

The July 15 testimony, given in front of Fann and Sen. Warren Peterson, chairman of the state Senate’s Judiciary Committee, immediately triggered a push to conduct a new election in the state, where President Joe Biden beat former President Donald Trump by about 10,500 votes…..

*****

Continue reading this article at The Epoch Times.

Long-Suffering Cuban People Yearn for Economic Freedom

Thousands of Cubans have taken to the streets, demanding greater economic freedom and an end to the country’s socialist dictatorship. The rallies, quite notable for a country that limits and suppresses dissent, unambiguously stem from a deepening economic crisis, particularly worsened by the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. It’s not surprising that after decades of suffering from […]
The post Long-Suffering Cuban People Yearn for Economic Freedom appeared first on PRICKLY PEAR.Thousands of Cubans have taken to the streets, demanding greater economic freedom and an end to the country’s socialist dictatorship. The rallies, quite notable for a country that limits and suppresses dissent, unambiguously stem from a deepening economic crisis, particularly worsened by the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. It’s not surprising that after decades of suffering from
The post Long-Suffering Cuban People Yearn for Economic Freedom appeared first on PRICKLY PEAR.Read MoreFeedzyEstimated Reading Time: 3 minutes

Thousands of Cubans have taken to the streets, demanding greater economic freedom and an end to the country’s socialist dictatorship.

The rallies, quite notable for a country that limits and suppresses dissent, unambiguously stem from a deepening economic crisis, particularly worsened by the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.

It’s not surprising that after decades of suffering from the failed ideologies of communism and socialism, the Cuban people are calling for liberty. And indeed, the protesters can be heard demanding “libertad.”

Economic freedom is important.

As The New York Times reported Sunday:

“This is no longer a question of freedom of expression. It’s a question of hunger,” said Adonis Milan, a theater director in Havana, moments before he left his house to join the crowd massing in the city.

“People are hitting the street. They are asking for an end to this government, to one-party rule, to repression and the misery we have lived through for 60 years,” he said.

Cuba is badly in need not only of political reforms, but also of economic reforms that can generate greater opportunities for the people.

In December, the government said Cuba’s gross domestic product had shrunk by 11% since the start of 2020. As a matter of fact, the Cuban economy has been suffering for a long time from the lack of economic freedom.

Heavy state intervention has stifled innovation, and the state’s foreign-currency earnings are dependent on a few exports, such as nickel, along with tourism and health care.

According to The Heritage Foundation’s annual Index of Economic Freedom, a global benchmark report that measures the soundness of economic governance and the entrepreneurial environment in countries around the world, the Cuban economy is among the worst in the world, at the bottom of the repressed category since the inception of the index in 1995. Only two of Cuba’s 12 index indicators—monetary and trade components—have scores slightly above 50 (out of 100).

Sharp reductions in economic growth in recent years due to the lack of meaningful economic reform, an economic collapse in client state Venezuela, and the ongoing pandemic have forced the island’s regime to backtrack on a set of very timid measures that were aimed at partial liberalization. Thus, the 2021 index reports that Cuba’s economic freedom score is only 28.1, making its economy the 176th-freest out of 178 countries ranked, ahead of only Venezuela and North Korea.

A small number of limited reforms beginning in 2010 have allowed Cubans to work as “self-employed people” in the private sector, but currently they can work only in narrow categories defined by the state.

While a revised partial liberalization of the labor market was introduced early this year to allow private sector employment in almost 2,000 professions, reserving 124 of the most strategic activities for state involvement, the state—which spends more than 60% of the island’s economic output—has remained firmly in control of the private sector and the daily economic life of the Cuban people.

In a recent article, “Cuba’s new leadership will have to deliver results fast,” The Economist pointed out: “Younger Cubans are digitally connected and impatient with the socialist regime.” The article further noted:

Cuba’s communist regime has outlasted countless premature obituaries. A new, slightly younger leadership has seamlessly taken over, under the slogan ‘unity and continuity.’ Yet the fact that the party had to proclaim that nothing is changing suggests that beneath the surface it worries that things might. … The iron control of the Cuban police state is not immediately threatened. But frustration is growing.

What’s currently unfolding in the streets of Cuba is not something unforeseen. Cubans, particularly the young, are fed up with socialism, and they want to move away from it.

*****

This article was published on July 12, 2021 and is reproduced with permission from The Daily Signal.

Oklahoma City: African ‘Man’ Charged with Sexually Assaulting Convenience Store Clerk


Here we go again, get out your secret decoder ring to try to figure out where this likely ‘new American’ came from and how he got here, but good luck with that!
Every time I am sent a story like this the question I am asked is—is this guy a refugee?  And, every time I give an answer like this:
Unless someone slips up in either law enforcement, or some family member steps forward to proclaim the innocence of one of these creeps, you will rarely be told from which country the perp came and which of the MANY legal or illegal pathways the “man” used to get here.
LOL! That information would of course be “perpetuating stereotypes!”
For the refugee question, sometimes if you find out that the person being charged in a crime was from a country that has sent us tens of thousands of their people, you can make an educated guess.  For example, if the perp is Somali, Ethiopian, Congolese, Burmese, Iraqi or from Afghanistan, you could guess, and guess correctly, that the “man” in the news is a refugee.
Sometimes you can make an educated guess based on the location of the incident.  For instance a “man” with a Somali name committing a crime in Minnesota is likely a refugee. Duh!
So, just as Illegal Alien Crime Report does, call him an “African Migrant.”

African ‘Migrant’ Charged With Sexually Assaulting Convenience Store Clerk

OKLAHOMA CITY, OK – On the morning of July 4, police arrested Hakeem Sanusi, 34, after her reportedly sexually assaulted a woman working alone in a convenience store in northwest Oklahoma City. In order to protect the victim’s privacy, the police have not released the store’s exact location.

The crime reporter website then sends us to booking information, but of course no information on whether he is legally or illegally in the country.

A cursory search informed me that Sanusi is a Muslim surname.

Continue reading here.
Then here is the headline of the local news account.  Just some random man, no photo.

Man arrested for alleged sexual assault of Oklahoma City convenience store clerk

OKLAHOMA CITY (KFOR) – A northwest Oklahoma City convenience store clerk says she was sexually assaulted by a customer while on the job.
The suspect, 34-year-old Hakeem Sanusi is now facing charges in the alleged attack.
“It was over the weekend that police were made aware of a sexual assault at a convenience store in Northwest Oklahoma City,” said MSgt. Gary Knight with the Oklahoma City Police Department (OKCPD).

“No one was in the store except for an employee,” Knight said.
Police say Sanusi made inappropriate comments to the alleged victim.
The woman telling officers Hakeem is a regular at the store during the overnight hours, and frequently makes inappropriate statements, making her feel uncomfortable.

The woman claims Sanusi told her, quote, “nothing better come of this.”
Not long after – she was able to call the police.
“Officers at the scene were able to look at surveillance video of the man and get him identified very quickly,” Knight said.
Police say Sanusi was located at a nearby neighborhood – and arrested.

Calling all of you who possess secret decoder rings, let me know if you learn more about Hakeem!
EDITORS NOTE: This Frauds, Crooks and Criminals column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

VIDEO REPORT: U.S. Navy NOT FIT FOR WAR Because of Risk Averse, Politically Correct, Control-Freak Top Brass


Watch former President Trump adviser KT McFarland’s and Senator Tom Cotton’s analysis below. A woke U.S military will not be able to deter or defeat China. This alarming report commissioned by members of Congress on the U.S Navy, should frighten every American who cares about the stability of the world.

‘Every officer is up to speed on diversity training. Not so much ship handling’: Scathing official report finds US Navy is not fit for war because of risk averse, politically correct, control-freak top brass

By Daily Mail, July 13, 2021

  • Members of Congress commissioned the report on issues in the surface Navy
  • Came in response to fire on ship in San Diego and two ship collisions in Pacific 
  • Retired Marine general and Navy admiral spoke with current and former officers
  • They identified a number of disturbing trends in Navy leadership and training
  • Many officers said that diversity training took precedence over warfighting
  • They claimed combat readiness had become a ‘box-checking’ exercise 

A scathing new report commissioned by members of Congress has claimed that the Navy’s surface warfare forces have systemic training and leadership issues, including a focus on diversity that overshadows basic readiness skills.

The report prepared by Marine Lt. Gen. Robert Schmidle and Rear Adm. Mark Montgomery, both retired, came in response to recent Naval disasters, including the burning of the USS Bonhomme Richard in San Diego, two collisions involving Navy ships in the Pacific and the surrender of two small craft to Iran.

The authors conducted hour-long interviews with 77 current and retired Navy officers, offering them anonymity to identify issues they wouldn’t feel comfortable raising in the chain of command.

The report found that a staggering 94 percent of the subjects believed the recent Naval disasters were ‘part of a broader problem in Navy culture or leadership.’

‘I guarantee you every unit in the Navy is up to speed on their diversity training. I’m sorry that I can’t say the same of their ship handling training,’ said one recently retired senior enlisted leader.

The report focused on issued within the Navy’s surface warfare forces, as opposed to submarine and aviation, and suggested that issues in the surface fleet could be unique due to better funding and training for submarine and aviation units.

One of the key issues raised by the officers interviewed for the report was a concern that Navy leaders spend more time focusing on diversity training than on developing warfighting capacity and key operational skills.

‘Sometimes I think we care more about whether we have enough diversity officers than if we’ll survive a fight with the Chinese navy,’ lamented one lieutenant currently on active duty.

‘It’s criminal. They think my only value is as a black woman. But you cut our ship open with a missile and we’ll all bleed the same color,’ she added.

One recent destroyer captain said: ‘where someone puts their time shows what their priorities are. And we’ve got so many messages about X, Y, Z appreciation month, or sexual assault prevention, or you name it. We don’t even have close to that same level of emphasis on actual warfighting.’

‘While programs to encourage diversity, human sex trafficking prevention, suicide prevention, sexual assault prevention, and others are appropriate, they come with a cost,’ the report’s authors wrote.

‘The non-combat curricula consume Navy resources, clog inboxes, create administrative quagmires, and monopolize precious training time. By weighing down sailors with non-combat related training and administrative burdens, both Congress and Navy leaders risk sending them into battle less prepared and less focused than their opponents,’ the report added.

Navy seizes thousands of weapons hidden on ship ‘sailing to Yemen’

Some of the respondents expressed concerns that when combat lethality and warfighting are emphasized, they are treated in a box-checking manner that can seem indistinguishable from non-combat related exercises.

‘The Navy treats warfighting readiness as a compliance issue,’ said one career commander. ‘You might even use the term compliance-centered warfare as opposed to adversary-centered warfare or warfighter-centered warfare.’

One junior surface warfare officer, still on active duty, confessed: ‘I don’t think that the [surface community] see themselves as people who are engaged in a fight.’

Commander Bryan McGrath, a retired surface warfare officer who agreed to be interviewed on the record, notably dissented on the question of whether excess requirements were distracting sailors from their primary mission, argued that the main issue was was too few surface ships.

 ‘[The ships] are very busy,’ he said. ‘I think there are too few of them for what is being asked,’ he argued. ‘The operational requirements squeeze out maintenance, they squeeze out some training.’

‘When you’re on the ship,’ McGrath said, the ‘sexual assault and victim stuff, all that stuff just seems like a burden. It just seems like it’s never-ending…[But] the further I get from it, the more I understand why it’s important and why there does have to be very clear signals sent to deck plate sailors that they’re, you know, that issues that are important to them are important to leadership.’

RELATED ARTICLE: Lawmakers Survey: 94% of Sailors Say ‘Damaging Operational Failures’ Related to Navy Culture, Leadership Problems
EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.
Quick note: Tech giants are shutting us down. You know this. Twitter, LinkedIn, Google Adsense, Pinterest permanently banned us. Facebook, Google search et al have shadow-banned, suspended and deleted us from your news feeds. They are disappearing us. But we are here. We will not waver. We will not tire. We will not falter, and we will not fail. Freedom will prevail.
Subscribe to Geller Report newsletter here — it’s free and it’s critical NOW when informed decision making and opinion is essential to America’s survival. Share our posts on your social channels and with your email contacts. Fight the great fight.
Remember, YOU make the work possible. If you can, please contribute to Geller Report.

Identifying The “Root Causes” of The Migrant Crisis On The Southern Border: Conclusion

This series of articles began with a number – 891,213 encounters with undocumented aliens reported by the Border Patrol on the southern U.S. border during the first nine months of this fiscal year.  That number was followed by a statement by Vice President Harris that she would focus her attention on determining the “root causes” […]
The post Identifying The “Root Causes” of The Migrant Crisis On The Southern Border: Conclusion appeared first on PRICKLY PEAR.This series of articles began with a number – 891,213 encounters with undocumented aliens reported by the Border Patrol on the southern U.S. border during the first nine months of this fiscal year.  That number was followed by a statement by Vice President Harris that she would focus her attention on determining the “root causes”
The post Identifying The “Root Causes” of The Migrant Crisis On The Southern Border: Conclusion appeared first on PRICKLY PEAR.Read MoreFeedzyEstimated Reading Time: 2 minutes

This series of articles began with a number – 891,213 encounters with undocumented aliens reported by the Border Patrol on the southern U.S. border during the first nine months of this fiscal year.  That number was followed by a statement by Vice President Harris that she would focus her attention on determining the “root causes” of the surge of illegal immigration on the southern border.

For the four largest identified sending countries – Mexico, Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador – those causes have not been too difficult to identify.

Mexico is a fragile state wracked by years of violence by competing drug trafficking organizations, public corruption, and poverty and may well on its way to becoming a failed state.

Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador are all exceptionally poor, violent, and corrupt.

If we had identifying data for the nationalities of the 137,176 encounters during the same period classified as “other” by the Border Patrol, we would likely find these people come from countries experiencing similar conditions. It requires no great leap of the imagination to understand why people who live under such circumstances would flee their homelands to find better lives for themselves and their families.

The information presented in this series of articles came entirely from publicly available sources, documented at the end of each country section. As readers may have noticed, much of it came from U.S. government sources, including the Central Intelligence Agency, the Congressional Research Service, and the U.S. Department of State. This information is not difficult to find and, presumably, is readily available to the Vice President and her staff.

Critics may argue this series of articles have described the symptoms contributing to, rather than the “root causes,” of mass migration from sending countries. Further research concerning the systemic causes of poverty, violence, and corruption in Mexico, Honduras, Guatemala, El Salvor, and elsewhere would no doubt yield a great deal of additional historical and sociological data pointing toward the underlying causes of mass migration from these countries. All of which, while interesting, would contribute little toward addressing the immediate problem on the southern border.

National security strategy, foreign policy, and federal law enforcement are not academic exercises. Significantly, Raul Ortiz, the new Biden-appointed chief of the Border Patrol has publicly recognized the urgent need for a “whole of government” approach to border strategy (the Border Patrol’s Mr. Ortiz discusses the shift away from Trump-era policies at yahoo!news). The migrant crisis on the southern border is a real problem, with real consequences for real people on both sides of that border, a problem that demands a real and effective strategic solution, not just further pointless study of its not very mysterious “root causes.”

See the author’s first part: Identifying the “Root Causes” of the Immigration Crisis on the Southern Border: Part 1

See the author’s second part: Identifying the “Root Causes” of the Immigration Crisis on the Southern Border: Part 11

See the author’s third part: Identifying The “Root Causes” of The Migrant Crisis On The Southern Border: Part III

*****

Ed Cochran, a retired U.S. Army officer and a retired senior civilian employee of the U.S. Department of Defense, is a regular contributor to The Prickly Pear on national security issues. He holds an MS in Strategic Intelligence from the Joint Military Intelligence College (now National Intelligence University), and an MA in National Security and Strategic Studies from the U.S. Naval War College. His published work has appeared in The Journal of Strategic Studies, Israel Affairs, Parameters, The International Journal of Intelligence and Counterintelligence, and the International Bulletin of Political Psychology.

Islamic Republic of Iran Sent Goons to Kidnap Iranian Freedom Activist in NYC and Take Her Back to Iran


Meanwhile, they were sitting down with Biden’s handlers to demand the end of sanctions. The mullahs know that there is nothing they can do that will make Biden’s handlers not want to give them everything they want.

Iranian Operatives Planned to Kidnap a Brooklyn Author, Prosecutors Say

by Benjamin Weiser, New York Times, July 13, 2021:
An Iranian American journalist living in Brooklyn was the target of an international kidnapping plot orchestrated by an Iranian intelligence network, federal prosecutors said Tuesday.
In an indictment unsealed in federal court in Manhattan, four Iranians were charged with conspiring to kidnap the journalist and author, Masih Alinejad, who has long been a staunch critic of the Iranian government.
Ms. Alinejad was not identified by prosecutors, but confirmed in an interview that she was the intended target of the plot. Last year, Ms. Alinejad wrote in a newspaper article that Iranian government officials had unleashed a social media campaign calling for her abduction.
The four defendants all live in Iran, the prosecutors said, identifying one of them, Alireza Shavaroghi Farahani, as an Iranian intelligence official and the three others as “Iranian intelligence assets.” A fifth defendant, accused of supporting the plot but not participating in the kidnapping conspiracy, was arrested in California.
A federal indictment describes a plot that included attempts to lure Ms. Alinejad to a third country to capture her and forcibly render her to Iran. The intelligence official, Mr. Farahani, and his network used private investigators to surveil, photograph and video record Ms. Alinejad and members of her household in Brooklyn, the government said.
The extensive surveillance that Mr. Farahani’s network procured included the use of a live, high-definition video feed depicting Ms. Alinejad’s home, prosecutors said.
“This is not some far-fetched movie plot,” William F. Sweeney Jr., the head of the F.B.I.’s New York office, said in a statement.
In a 2018 essay in The New York Times, Ms. Alinejad described her decision to leave Iran a decade earlier.
“As a journalist in Iran, I often got into trouble exposing the regime’s mismanagement and corruption until, eventually, my press pass was revoked,” she wrote. “I was often threatened with arrest or worse for writing articles critical of former President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Ultimately, I was forced to flee my homeland in 2009.”…

RELATED VIDEO: Jay Smith and Robert Spencer on the revised and expanded edition of ‘Did Muhammad Exist?’

RELATED ARTICLES:
Taliban say China is friend of Afghanistan, promise not to allow Uighur jihadis to enter the country
Missouri: Muslim threatens to blow up and shoot up factory where he works
Afghanistan: Taliban scream ‘Allahu akbar’ as they murder 22 Afghan commandos who were surrendering
Tennessee: After two-year investigation for criticizing Islam, DA cleared by Board of Professional Responsibility
EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Identifying The “Root Causes” of The Migrant Crisis On The Southern Border: Conclusion

This series of articles began with a number – 891,213 encounters with undocumented aliens reported by the Border Patrol on the southern U.S. border during the first nine months of this fiscal year.  That number was followed by a statement by Vice President Harris that she would focus her attention on determining the “root causes” of the surge of illegal immigration on the southern border.

For the four largest identified sending countries – Mexico, Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador – those causes have not been too difficult to identify.

Mexico is a fragile state wracked by years of violence by competing drug trafficking organizations, public corruption, and poverty and may well on its way to becoming a failed state.

Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador are all exceptionally poor, violent, and corrupt.

If we had identifying data for the nationalities of the 137,176 encounters during the same period classified as “other” by the Border Patrol, we would likely find these people come from countries experiencing similar conditions. It requires no great leap of the imagination to understand why people who live under such circumstances would flee their homelands to find better lives for themselves and their families.

The information presented in this series of articles came entirely from publicly available sources, documented at the end of each country section. As readers may have noticed, much of it came from U.S. government sources, including the Central Intelligence Agency, the Congressional Research Service, and the U.S. Department of State. This information is not difficult to find and, presumably, is readily available to the Vice President and her staff.

Critics may argue this series of articles have described the symptoms contributing to, rather than the “root causes,” of mass migration from sending countries. Further research concerning the systemic causes of poverty, violence, and corruption in Mexico, Honduras, Guatemala, El Salvor, and elsewhere would no doubt yield a great deal of additional historical and sociological data pointing toward the underlying causes of mass migration from these countries. All of which, while interesting, would contribute little toward addressing the immediate problem on the southern border.

National security strategy, foreign policy, and federal law enforcement are not academic exercises. Significantly, Raul Ortiz, the new Biden-appointed chief of the Border Patrol has publicly recognized the urgent need for a “whole of government” approach to border strategy (the Border Patrol’s Mr. Ortiz discusses the shift away from Trump-era policies at yahoo!news). The migrant crisis on the southern border is a real problem, with real consequences for real people on both sides of that border, a problem that demands a real and effective strategic solution, not just further pointless study of its not very mysterious “root causes.”

See the author’s first part: Identifying the “Root Causes” of the Immigration Crisis on the Southern Border: Part 1

See the author’s second part: Identifying the “Root Causes” of the Immigration Crisis on the Southern Border: Part 11

See the author’s third part: Identifying The “Root Causes” of The Migrant Crisis On The Southern Border: Part III

*****

Ed Cochran, a retired U.S. Army officer and a retired senior civilian employee of the U.S. Department of Defense, is a regular contributor to The Prickly Pear on national security issues. He holds an MS in Strategic Intelligence from the Joint Military Intelligence College (now National Intelligence University), and an MA in National Security and Strategic Studies from the U.S. Naval War College. His published work has appeared in The Journal of Strategic Studies, Israel Affairs, Parameters, The International Journal of Intelligence and Counterintelligence, and the International Bulletin of Political Psychology.

Going Postal: How the Left Will Use Vote by Mail to Federalize Elections

In the lead up to 2020, big philanthropy and progressive Democrats teamed up to make mail-in ballots the new normal. If anyone thinks the flood of mail-in ballots the country witnessed in 2020 was just a one-off fluke, they haven’t been paying attention. Vote by mail is the future of American democracy, with all the […]
The post Going Postal: How the Left Will Use Vote by Mail to Federalize Elections appeared first on PRICKLY PEAR.In the lead up to 2020, big philanthropy and progressive Democrats teamed up to make mail-in ballots the new normal. If anyone thinks the flood of mail-in ballots the country witnessed in 2020 was just a one-off fluke, they haven’t been paying attention. Vote by mail is the future of American democracy, with all the
The post Going Postal: How the Left Will Use Vote by Mail to Federalize Elections appeared first on PRICKLY PEAR.Read MoreFeedzyEstimated Reading Time: 12 minutes

In the lead up to 2020, big philanthropy and progressive Democrats teamed up to make mail-in ballots the new normal.

If anyone thinks the flood of mail-in ballots the country witnessed in 2020 was just a one-off fluke, they haven’t been paying attention.

Vote by mail is the future of American democracy, with all the accompanying opportunities for ballot harvesting, mail fraud, and deceit—at least if the left has its way. This was evident in the failed For the People Act (H.R. 1/S. 1), the Democrat’s vision for federalizing U.S. elections into a top-down nightmare that undermines voter I.D. laws and forces every state to adopt automatic and same-day voter registration, voting rights for felons, no-excuse absentee balloting, mandatory early voting, and taxpayer funding for political campaigns. If that weren’t enough, it would violate free speech rights by forcibly disclosing nonprofits’ donors and imposing state legislatures with redistricting committees for every state—committees that are more accountable to special interests than the American public.

Don’t celebrate H.R. 1’s demise just yet. The worst of its provisions are also in its successor, the John Lewis Voting Rights Act (H.R. 4). The left isn’t done trying to radically transform the United States just yet, and it’ll use vote by mail to do it.

My colleagues and I have studied the left’s involvement in pushing mail-in voting in the 2020 election since the mischief began in November. We’ve uncovered a vast network of professional activists, wealthy foundations, Democratic mega-donors, and political operatives who conspired to flood America with mail-in ballots and turn the election against President Donald Trump.

Creating an Election Nightmare

In an all-mail election, the state sends ballots to every registered voter. Oregon has been conducting all-mail elections since the mid-1990s using a system of “ballot secrecy envelopes” that obscure the voter’s identity while allowing him to track the ballot’s status after returning it via mail or a polling station. Four more states have since adopted permanent all-mail elections, and 18 others allow local jurisdictions to hold all-mail elections. Currently, 16 states allow absentee voting with a valid excuse, and 34 states have no-excuse absentee voting.

Some locales have clearly figured it out. But hastily imposing their model on an unready nation created a comedy of errors almost everywhere else in 2020:

More than 49,000 people received incorrect ballots in Franklin County, Ohio.
A vote-by-mail drop box was set on fire in Los Angeles.
A mayoral candidate was arrested for and charged with committing voter fraud with absentee ballots in Carrollton, Texas.
And 100,000 New Yorkers received absentee ballots with incorrect names and addresses.

Mail-in ballots have significantly higher rejection rates than ballots cast in-person, with the highest being 4.5 percent rejected in 2008. That can be the difference between victory and defeat. Nearly 28,000 mail-in ballots were rejected in Florida’s 2016 election, where Trump’s margin of victory was 112,000 votes. Obama won Florida in 2012 by 74,000 votes, when 24,000 ballots were rejected. Mail-in ballot rejection rates averaged 1 percent nationwide in 2016 and 1.4 percent in 2018, perhaps 10 times higher than in-person rates, usually because they arrived too late to count or had mismatching signatures.

NPR reports that 550,000 mail-in ballots were disqualified in the 2020 primaries alone, much more than in 2016. Yet rejection rates averaged just 0.7 percent nationwide in the 2020 general election. Why were they suddenly so low? Either tens of millions of voters voting by mail (many for the first time) miraculously submitted flawless ballots, elections officials didn’t perform their due diligence, or the rejection rate was pushed down by an extraordinarily high number of “cured” ballots (fixing mistakes such as a forgotten signature), which is allowed in 19 states, including North Carolina, Georgia, and Arizona. If the answer is either of the last two, vote-by-mail’s “success” in 2020 is hardly something to be celebrated.

Until recently, mail-in voting was just as controversial among liberals as conservatives, not least because it hurts turnout among Democratic constituencies. A 2016 ACLU study found that “younger and racial and ethnic minority voters casting VBM [vote-by-mail] ballots were at least twice as likely as older and white voters to have their VBM ballot rejected.” That same study concluded that voters under 30 made up 9.2 percent of all vote-by-mail voters, but accounted for almost 31 percent of rejected mail-in ballots. Liberal journalists railed against high mail-in ballot rejection rates for “disproportionately affect[ing] minorities” in 2018.

Former President JimThen there’s the potential for fraud, which is why most European Union countries long ago banned “postal voting.” my Carter’s own bipartisan commission in 2005 concluded that mail-in ballots presented the “largest source of potential voter fraud” of any voting system.

Democrats were deeply divided over the trustworthiness of mail-in ballots as recently as the 2008 election, when the Obama campaign voiced its “real deep concerns” about the security of mail-in ballots in the Florida Democratic primary, which Hillary Clinton won by some 294,000 votes. Obama questioning whether the system was “fraud-proof” on national television.

Simply put, it isn’t that mail-in ballots can’t work anywhere, just that they don’t work everywhere. That was 2020’s big experiment: entrusting the election to the U.S. Postal Service (USPS), the institution that routinely delivers you your neighbor’s mail. Let’s not forget that USPS warned last July that it might not be able to deliver ballots on time.

Yet the Washington Post ran a slew of op-eds calling for expanding voting by mail since COVID-19 quarantines began in early March 2020. An ACLU director declared in the New York Times that “voting by mail will save the 2020 election.” The Atlantic even conjectured that voting by mail could stop election “interference” by Republicans who might otherwise create a Trump dictatorship.

What changed? The coronavirus—and the itching need to defeat President Trump by whatever means necessary—ultimately overcame whatever concerns the left had over mail-in voting. Mail-in voting presented a powerful, once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to federalize elections and cement the left’s control over America. So they went all in on radically changing our republic—and it almost worked.

Making Vote-by-Mail Permanent

But some on the left had been pushing for vote by mail for years. Meet the National Vote at Home Coalition (NVHC) and its 501(c)(3) arm, National Vote At Home Institute, a pair of advocacy groups formed in 2017 to push all-mail elections nationwide. From the start, the effort was heavily supported by the National Association of Letter Carriers, the postal service union, which co-founded NVHC and hosted its kick-off event at the union’s headquarters in Washington, D.C. The event was attended by AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka, Oregon Sen. Ron Wyden (D.)—who was elected in the country’s first-ever all-mail federal election—and Oregon Secretary of State Phil Keisling. Keisling, who is now board chairman for NVHC, illustrated the future of voting and automatic voter registration:

Imagine a state where voters never have to show a photo ID; wait in voting lines; leave home or work early to get to their designated polling place; or worry about bad weather, traffic jams, finding parking or public transportation, or arranging childcare.

AVR’s [automatic voter registration] underlying policy premise is identical to vote-at home’s; if the government knows you’re a citizen, you become a registered voter [emphasis added].

The majority of the 501(c)(4) NVHC’s funding comes from the Letter Carriers union, other AFL-CIO unions, and liberal billionaire Pierre Omidyar’s Democracy Fund Voice. The (c)(3) institute is bankrolled by various AFL-CIO unions, the Letter Carriers union, Arabella Advisors’ Hopewell Fund and New Venture Fund, and the foundation of liberal mega-donor Stephen Silberstein. Silberstein is a NVHC board member, National Popular Vote board member, and part of the Democracy Alliance.

Early on NVHC targeted state ballot initiatives, beginning with vote by mail in South Dakota in 2018 (it failed to make the ballot), Hawaii in 2019 (passed), and automatic voter registration in Michigan in 2018 (passed). Soon it would expand its scope to the federal level after hiring a new director, Amber McReynolds.

Amber McReynolds: The New Face of Soft Totalitarianism

McReynolds is a professional activist and leading figure in the left’s fight to transform American elections. She started registering voters in Iowa in the 2004 election with the New Voters Project, part of a vast network of activist groups called the Public Interest Network. The most famous of these groups are the Public Interest Research Groups (PIRGs), which date back to the 1960s. A Colorado native, she was hired by the Denver Elections Commission in 2005, rising to deputy director in 2007 and finally elections director in 2011. She was given the city’s “rising star” award in 2012 by the Democratic mayor for overseeing the creation of Denver’s ballot-tracking and electronic petition-gathering software.

Critically, she pushed for and oversaw Colorado’s adoption of all-mail voting in 2013, reportedly downplaying the threat of illegal voting in her testimony before the state legislature by claiming ignorance of the term: “I’m not sure, to be honest, what is an illegal vote. . . . What does that mean?” By 2018, McReynolds was considered one of the state’s political up-and-comers and a likely candidate for challenging its Republican secretary of State, Wayne K. Williams.

She opted instead to join NVHC and take her plans for vote by mail nationwide. Under McReynolds, NVHC released its first national vote-by-mail proposal in mid-2020, “catapulting” this small organization into the center of the left’s scheme to use COVID-19 to transform the 2020 election.

McReynolds is often hailed as a nonpartisan, reform-minded moderate. She’s listed on the website of the National Association of Nonpartisan Reformers and was featured in Governing Magazine’s 2018 Top Public Officials of the Year.

But NVHC is closely connected to left-wing groups ranging from the ACLU to Rock the Vote. McReynolds herself also spoke at the Democracy Alliance’s Fall 2018 conference, the biggest Who’s Who of the elite left. This writer has interviewed a former elected city and county of Denver election commissioner who knew McReynolds during her years with the city (and who wishes to remain anonymous). In the commissioner’s words, McReynolds is “smart, power-driven,” and the “new face of soft totalitarianism.” Far from being nonpartisan, she couldn’t be further to the political left. One senior Trump administration appointee and elections expert told me that McReynolds is a “vote-by-mail fanatic” whose meteoric rise perfectly coincided with the COVID-19 pandemic.

That became obvious after Time released its infamous article “The Secret History of the Shadow Campaign That Saved the 2020 Election.” At the heart of that “conspiracy unfolding behind the scenes” was Michael Podhorzer, a senior AFL-CIO advisor and Democratic operative who organized a legion of activist groups and big foundations to use COVID-19 “relief funds” to pump up voter registration, push mail-in voting, and supplement mail ballots with private dropboxes to help Joe Biden win the 2020 election.

McReynolds and NVHC led the conspiracy’s mail-in voting crusade, supplying secretaries of state with drop box locations and encouraging mail-in ballots in 37 states and the District of Columbia. NVHC even published a 60-page report pushing DeKalb County, Georgia—an Atlanta suburb that received $4 million in “Zuck Bucks” and gave Biden 300,000 votes—to “create a modern, lean vote-by-mail program.” California also hired McReynolds to consult on expanding its vote-by-mail plans in May 2020.

While Time tried to spin the cabal as “bipartisan,” in reality it was as left-wing—and partisan—as could be.

In March, Wisconsin journalists revealed that a NVHC staffer and Democratic operative, Michael Spitzer-Rubinstein, practically ran Green Bay’s election as the city’s “de facto elections administrator,” with access to its absentee ballots days before the election.

Spitzer-Rubinstein had access to four of the five keys to the ballroom where early ballots were stored and counted, and he even asked the city clerk to “cure” problematic absentee ballots. Green Bay “went rogue” under NVHC, in the words of the Brown County clerk. Green Bay also received $1.1 million, Wisconsin’s third-largest grant, from the Mark Zuckerberg–funded Center for Technology and Civic Life.

Where else did NVHC taint local elections in 2020? Does it plan to have representatives in the Spitzer-Rubinstein mold in every major elections office in 2024? Short of a government inquiry, we may never know.

For her services McReynolds, President Biden nominated her to the U.S. Postal Service where she was touted as an “independent,” not a Democrat, and for good reason: By law the USPS governing board may have no more than five members from the same political party. Confirming her as an independent frees up President Biden to appoint another Democrat and grants her vast power as the deciding vote on future mail-in voting and election integrity decisions.

And that’s after McReynolds “covered up her connections to radical left-wing groups [by] scrubbing affiliations from her own organization’s website,” according to the conservative American Accountability Foundation.

As if to prove their point, since her confirmation McReynolds has signed an open letter critical of Arizona’s ongoing 2020 election audit alongside 19 other liberal groups and individuals. She has also attacked Republican “disinformation” as the “biggest election security issue we face” and called for federalizing elections to stop it: “We need to think about some federal standards because it’s easy for bad actors to spread the wrong information because the rules vary so much by state.”

But switching America to mail-in voting requires a serious change in infrastructure. For that, the left needed the NVHC to ensure that the coming flood of mail-in ballots would defeat Trump. They needed the support of Big Philanthropy.

Mark Zuckerberg: Laying the Groundwork for Vote by Mail

In a free and fair election, ballots are traceable from the time they’re filled out until they’re counted. Drop boxes threaten that chain by bypassing the Postal Service altogether and entrusting absentee ballots with a private third party. They also encourage ballot harvesting by partisan interests and raise the risk of fraudsters using private collection bins to return illegal ballots. Chain of custody is still missing for 400,000 absentee ballots delivered via drop box in Georgia alone.

To pay for so many drop boxes, the activists turned to Facebook founder and billionaire Mark Zuckerberg. In fall 2020, he funneled $350 million into a small Chicago nonprofit, the Center for Technology and Civic Life (CTCL), which repackaged the funds as COVID-19 “relief” grants to thousands of local elections offices that would supposedly go underfunded in the election—despite receiving $400 million from the federal government through the CARES Act.

To date, my colleagues and I have traced $112 million in “Zuck bucks” flowing to nine critical states: Texas, Virginia, North Carolina, Michigan, Wisconsin, Georgia, Pennsylvania, Arizona, and Nevada.

CTCL has claimed that its funds were distributed on a nonpartisan basis. In reality, “Zuck bucks” favored big, Democratic cities that pumped out enough votes for Biden to clinch contested states. In Pennsylvania, for instance, CTCL grants to counties Biden won averaged $3.11 per capita and just $0.57 in counties Trump won. In Arizona, CRCL grants provided a staggering $5.83 per capita in counties Biden won versus $1.29 in counties Trump won.

In June, Todd Shepherd, chief investigative reporter for the Pennsylvania Broad & Liberty, published an email chain revealing early contact between CTCL, a councilwoman in Delaware County (a Philadelphia suburb), and a Democratic get-out-the-vote strategist. Shepherd has also discovered evidence that Democratic counties neighboring Philly were given early invitations to apply for multi-million-dollar CTCL grants, well before the rest of the right-leaning state.

CTCL’s funds were supposed to aid in voting during the COVID-19 pandemic, yet a recent letter from House Republicans points out that less than 1 percent of its funds went to personal protective equipment (PPE). What CTCL’s “Zuck bucks” did pay for was the infrastructure required to unleash an unprecedented flood of mail-in ballots.

Public records requests reveal that nearly $6.5 million of Philadelphia’s $10 million grant funded “mail-in and absentee” processing equipment, 15 “secure dropboxes” scattered around the city, and postage (presumably for mail-in ballots). A $1.4 million grant to Fairfax County, Virginia—which contains close to a quarter of the state’s population and 18 percent of all Biden’s statewide votes—also paid for vote-by-mail equipment, temporary staffing, and “voting materials other than in English.” Alarmingly, the county’s CTCL-provided spending report also leaves room for “non-partisan voter education”—what does that entail and where was it used?

In Wisconsin, a former elections clerk told reporter John Solomon that CTCL grants to Green Bay caused the city to effectively “take over” county election functions. CTCL itself worked “primarily with our five major Democratic base cities,” breaking processes across the key battleground state. “As we got closer to the November election,” she said, “we found out that this outside group had come in and was basically trying to redo our forms and documents that we use statewide. And these people were from out of state and had no business doing that.”

In short, Big Philanthropy had its way with the 2020 election, to the left’s delight. National Public Radio even credits “private money from Facebook’s CEO” with “sav[ing] the 2020 election.” Faced with a private takeover of our elections, the same set of radicals who once cried “eat the rich” and “abolish billionaires” simply yawned. Yet the greatest irony is that, for all the left’s newfound love of mail-in voting, its sudden emphasis on drop boxes is a vote of no confidence in the Postal Service’s ability to competently manage so many mail-in ballots.

CTCL’s meddling prompted dozens of states to ban private funding of elections, but the damage is done. Racine, Wisconsin, recently purchased a $250,000 “mobile voting precinct” using CTCL funds. How much money will Zuckerberg or others like him spend influencing the 2024 election?

Page Gardner: Soliciting Absentee Ballots

Voters in many states were assailed with partially pre-filled absentee ballot requests in the months leading up to Election Day. The requests came from a pair of shadowy nonprofits: the Center for Voter Information (CVI) and the Voter Participation Center (VPC), “sister” groups formed in 2003 by former Bill Clinton presidential campaign staffer and operative Page Gardner.

Gardner’s groups take advantage of IRS rules allowing nonprofits to engage in nonpartisan voter registration to target the “New American Majority,” which they define as “young people, people of color and unmarried women”—a group that gave more than 60 percent of its votes for Biden in 2020.

The nonprofits are hardly “nonpartisan”—CVI, the network’s 501(c)(4), spent $583,000 directly aiding Biden—but it’s their support for voting by mail that should concern conservatives. Unlike the Right, the left is all in on funding groups that do nothing more than voter registration.

Gardner’s groups claim they registered more than 1.5 million new voters and generated 4.8 million vote-by-mail applications in 2020 alone.

Many of these absentee ballot applications were faulty, listing the wrong jurisdictions. In Virginia, mailing applications mislabeled for the City of Fairfax were sent to residents of neighboring Fairfax County. But for all the ballots faults, they were clearly sent for one purpose: flood key states with tens of millions of mail-in ballots.

One Virginia polling place worker who wishes to remain anonymous sent me a copy of an envelope (archived here) mailed to him by CVI prior to the election containing an absentee ballot request, but the return address (3125 W. Cary St. #305, Richmond, VA) is a UPS store, not CVI’s office in Washington, D.C. He has found similar envelopes in eight other states—Pennsylvania, Georgia, Nevada, Ohio, Wisconsin, North Carolina, New Mexico, and Missouri—with return addresses for UPS stores.

What happened to the absentee ballot requests that bounced back to CVI’s UPS boxes? Could they have been used to generate a universe of registered but nonresponsive voters? Given the multitude of reports from across the country of voters who tried to vote on Election Day and were told that they couldn’t cast a ballot because they had already voted, it raises serious questions about tax-exempt nonprofits exploiting IRS rules to swing elections for their political allies.

The Future of Elections Isn’t So Grim

There’s little doubt that left-wing operatives would love to make every future election mimic 2020. But it doesn’t have to end that way.

Despite high hopes among many Democrats, new studies show that mail-in ballots had a smaller than expected effect on turnout and did not dramatically help the Democratic Party. What they did change was how Americans voted—opening the door to the kind of ballot harvesting and fraud that characterize countries like Venezuela.

The left’s dependence on so many CTCL-funded drop boxes also suggests that vote by mail won’t plague the future in the 15-plus states (and counting) that have already banned private funding of elections, and likely others. Without drop boxes, the effectiveness of mail-in ballots will entirely depend on the U.S. Postal Service—the 18th century institution that’s been utterly outcompeted by private industry and may be privatized by a future Republican administration. With its present difficulties, it’s a safe bet that running elections will never be USPS’s top priority. As one elections expert recently told me, “If you want to screw up voter I.D., put the DMV in charge of it. If you want to screw up voting, put the Postal Service in charge of it.”

Is the left prepared to hang its future on that? In an age of reliable two-day delivery, will Americans ever support elections that take 5–7 days to transit their ballots each way and upwards of 15 days to certify? The more America moves forward, the more America’s left looks backward.

*****

This article was published on July 9, 2021 and is reproduced with permission from Capital Research.

#FREECUBA! Watch Massive ANTI-COMMUNIST Protests Erupt, Cubans Demand End To Communist Dictatorship


The courageous people of Cuba desperately yearn for freedom after decades of socialist and communist rule. Let’s see how Bernie Sanders, AOC, Tlaib, and Omar respond to the freedom rallies being held by the people of Cuba, who are protesting against the ideology that they want to implement in America. Pray for the Cuban people.
Cubans in over 32 cities protested in retaliation to the communist regime chanting “Freedom! “Down with Communism!” and “Patria y Vida” (Homeland and Life) in a live Facebook video. The demonstrators demanded access to food, medicine, vaccines and the end to communism amid a massive COVID-19 outbreak (Daily Caller).  From CNN International Corresponded and Havana Bureau Chief Patrick Oppmann: I have lived in Cuba for nine years and the scenes we saw today were stunning. The protests spread more quickly than anyone could have imagined. I don’t know what tomorrow will bring but the level of discontent and anger isn’t going anywhere (Twitter). From Wall Street Journal Latin America Correspondent Jose de Cordoba: Cubans always talk about the “doble cara” – hiding your true feelings and thoughts because of the fear that comes with living in a police state. This is what happens when a people take off their masks (Twitter). White House press secretary Jen Psaki said it’s not about freedom (RedState). As of late last night, Socialist Bernie Sanders, who heaped high praise on the government of Cuba, was silent (Fox News). From Katie Pavlich last night: Nothing from the @WhiteHouse@JoeBiden or @SecBlinken on Cuba. Telling (Twitter). From Erielle Davidson: Biden WH predictably out to lunch as Cuba erupts in protest against its socialist government while waving the American flag (Twitter). From Marco Rubio: Frustration with the dictatorships incompetence,greed & repression is mounting rapidly (Twitter). From Dan McLaughlin: … one hopes that the Cuban regime can & will fall to the Cuban people, if not now, soon. And we should do whatever we can to help that along. Cuba Libre (Twitter).

Massive Protests Erupt In Cuba As Citizens Demand End To Communist Dictatorship: ‘We Want Freedom!’

By Daily Wire, July 11, 2021
Massive protests erupted on Sunday in Cuba as citizens of the island nation demanded an end to the communist dictatorship as they suffer in poverty while having limited freedom.
“In a country known for repressive crackdowns on dissent, the rallies were widely viewed as astonishing,” The New York Times reported. “Activists and analysts called it the first time that so many people had openly protested against the Communist government since the so-called Maleconazo uprising, which exploded in the summer of 1994 into a huge wave of Cubans leaving the country by sea.”
The report noted that numerous videos that were posted online that showed the protests had “suddenly disappeared.” “The people are dying of hunger!” one woman shouted during a protest highlighted by The Times, “Our children are dying of hunger!” Other chants included “We want freedom” and “We want vaccines.”
“Never seen images from #Havana,” Alexandre Krauss, Senior Advisor EU Parliament, tweeted. “Thousands are mobilizing across #Cuba demanding the end of the communist dictatorship while screaming ‘we are not afraid…we are not afraid.’”


“I have been covering Cuba since the 1994 rafter crisis,” New York Times reporter Frances Robles tweeted. “I have never ever seen anything like the protests today.”
The AP reported:
Police initially trailed behind as protesters chanted “Freedom,” “Enough” and “Unite.” One motorcyclist pulled out a U.S. flag, but it was snatched from him by others. … Cuba is going through its worst economic crisis in decades, along with a resurgence of coronavirus cases.
The demonstration grew to a few thousand in the vicinity of Galeano Avenue and the marchers pressed on despite a few charges by police officers and tear gas barrages. People standing on many balconies along the central artery in the Centro Habana neighborhood applauded the protesters passing by. Others joined in the march.
“We are fed up with the queues, the shortage,” one protester told the AP. “That’s why I’m here.”

RELATED ARTICLES:
Biden Administration Claims Cuban Anti-Communist Protests Are About ‘Rising COVID Cases/Deaths’
Socialist Sanders silent on Cubans begging for freedom after praising Castro’s communist policies
Leaders of the Democratic Socialists of America travel to Venezuela to meet with dictator Nicolas Maduro
EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.
Quick note: Tech giants are shutting us down. You know this. Twitter, LinkedIn, Google Adsense, Pinterest permanently banned us. Facebook, Google search et al have shadow-banned, suspended and deleted us from your news feeds. They are disappearing us. But we are here. We will not waver. We will not tire. We will not falter, and we will not fail. Freedom will prevail.
Subscribe to Geller Report newsletter here — it’s free and it’s critical NOW when informed decision making and opinion is essential to America’s survival. Share our posts on your social channels and with your email contacts. Fight the great fight.
Remember, YOU make the work possible. If you can, please contribute to Geller Report.

IG REPORT: Islamic Terrorists Lead Religious Services in 25% of U.S. Federal prisons


Prisons are a notorious hotbed of jihad recruitment. Who better to target than the violent, broken and disenfranchised? Why would authorities give violent jihadis access to the general population? In no fewer than five states, New York, New Jersey, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Michigan, Muslims make up 1 out of 4 or 1 out of 5 prisoners. Overrepresentation may be partially a product of the success of Islamic dawah or missionary activity in prisons. Islamic prison dawah has produced many converts and at least some terror plots. And it may serve to explain high Muslim prison numbers in some states, but not necessarily in others.

Islamic terrorists lead religious services in a quarter of federal prisons: inspector general report

Audit found inmates affiliated with Islamic State, al-Qaeda, al-Shabaab allowed to lead services.
By: Just the News, July 9, 2021:
Inmates convicted on terrorism-related charges or with “known connections to terrorist organizations,” including the Islamic State, al-Qaeda and al-Shabaab, were allowed to lead religious services at a third of the federal prisons audited by a federal watchdog, raising deep security concerns.
A recent audit by the Justice Department’s inspector general of the Chaplaincy Services Program in the Federal Bureau of Prisons found four out of 12 facilities in which terrorist inmates were eligible to lead religious services.
At three of the facilities, the prisoners were affiliated with Islamic terrorist groups, with at least two leading services “on a regular basis” or a “frequent basis.” One of them was chosen to lead services by other inmate coreligionists “due to his extensive faith knowledge and Arabic fluency.”
This wasn’t the first time the IG found terrorist inmates leading services, the report states, citing a March 2020 audit.
The July report blamed the absence of a “fully-staffed and diverse chaplaincy” for such lapses: The 236 chaplains are about 30 percent below BOP targets. This prompted many institutions to “turn to alternatives such as inmate-led services and heavy reliance on contract faith providers and minimally vetted volunteer faith providers to fill the gaps in the chaplaincy staff. These staffing shortages and alternatives present risks.”
BOP policies don’t restrict “certain inmates from leading services and appear to be inconsistent regarding the level of required monitoring,” the report states. It found only one chaplain who “reportedly took preemptive action to prevent a known terrorist from leading religious services.”

RELATED ARTICLES:
Alaska must pay $100,000 to Muslim inmates over Ramadan food options, TERROR ORG CAIR will give religious sensitivity training to Department of Corrections
Thousands of “radicalized” jihad inmates set to be freed from prisons
Nation of Islam receiving federal cash to teach federal inmates
Terror-Tied ICNA Solicits Donations for Prison Program
Scroll: Prison jihad
EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Quick note: Tech giants are shutting us down. You know this. Twitter, LinkedIn, Google Adsense, Pinterest permanently banned us. Facebook, Google search et al have shadow-banned, suspended and deleted us from your news feeds. They are disappearing us. But we are here. We will not waver. We will not tire. We will not falter, and we will not fail. Freedom will prevail.

Subscribe to Geller Report newsletter here — it’s free and it’s critical NOW when informed decision making and opinion is essential to America’s survival. Share our posts on your social channels and with your email contacts. Fight the great fight.
Remember, YOU make the work possible. If you can, please contribute to Geller Report.

Governor Ron DeSantis & Florida Republicans Lead Response To Support Freedom Protests Erupting In Cuba


Florida is ground zero for freedom and liberty. That is why much of the country is flocking to the Sunshine State.
Remember how Obama empowered Castro and the communists?

DeSantis, Florida Republicans Lead Response To Freedom Protests Erupting In Cuba

By Daily Wire, July 11, 2021
Florida Republicans were among the most vocal proponents of the freedom protests that erupted in Cuba over the weekend.
Citizens of the island nation demanded an end to the communist dictatorship, under which they suffer poverty and a lack of freedom.
Numerous videos that were posted online showing the protests had “suddenly disappeared” as government censors appeared to take action to stop the movement from growing. “The people are dying of hunger!” one woman shouted, “Our children are dying of hunger!” Other chants included “We want freedom” and “We want vaccines.”
“Florida supports the people of Cuba as they take to the streets against the tyrannical regime in Havana,” Florida Republican Governor Ron DeSantis wrote on Twitter. “The Cuban dictatorship has repressed the people of Cuba for decades & is now trying to silence those who have the courage to speak out against its disastrous policies.”


Miami Republican Mayor Francis Suarez wrote on Twitter: “The Cuban regime’s military police are shooting at unarmed Cuban protestors fighting for freedom. 60 years of communism, cruelty, & oppression cannot last any longer! We are imploring the USA to take action as we peacefully demonstrate on the streets of Miami.”


https://twitter.com/SenRickScott/status/1414354074292690951?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1414354075601276930%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es2_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fgellerreport.com%2F2021%2F07%2Fof-course-gov-desantis-florida-republicans-lead-response-to-freedom-protests-erupting-in-cuba.html%2F

RELATED TWEET:


RELATED ARTICLES:
Biden Admin Blasted For Claiming Cubans Are Protesting ‘COVID Cases,’ Other Issues: ‘So Disrespectful’
Top Florida GOP Official On Biden’s Response To Cuban Protests: ‘Democrats Just Ceded Florida For The Foreseeable Future’
EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.
Quick note: Tech giants are shutting us down. You know this. Twitter, LinkedIn, Google Adsense, Pinterest permanently banned us. Facebook, Google search et al have shadow-banned, suspended and deleted us from your news feeds. They are disappearing us. But we are here. We will not waver. We will not tire. We will not falter, and we will not fail. Freedom will prevail.
Subscribe to Geller Report newsletter here — it’s free and it’s critical NOW when informed decision making and opinion is essential to America’s survival. Share our posts on your social channels and with your email contacts. Fight the great fight.
Remember, YOU make the work possible. If you can, please contribute to Geller Report.

Going Postal: How the Left Will Use Vote by Mail to Federalize Elections

In the lead up to 2020, big philanthropy and progressive Democrats teamed up to make mail-in ballots the new normal.

If anyone thinks the flood of mail-in ballots the country witnessed in 2020 was just a one-off fluke, they haven’t been paying attention.

Vote by mail is the future of American democracy, with all the accompanying opportunities for ballot harvesting, mail fraud, and deceit—at least if the left has its way. This was evident in the failed For the People Act (H.R. 1/S. 1), the Democrat’s vision for federalizing U.S. elections into a top-down nightmare that undermines voter I.D. laws and forces every state to adopt automatic and same-day voter registration, voting rights for felons, no-excuse absentee balloting, mandatory early voting, and taxpayer funding for political campaigns. If that weren’t enough, it would violate free speech rights by forcibly disclosing nonprofits’ donors and imposing state legislatures with redistricting committees for every state—committees that are more accountable to special interests than the American public.

Don’t celebrate H.R. 1’s demise just yet. The worst of its provisions are also in its successor, the John Lewis Voting Rights Act (H.R. 4). The left isn’t done trying to radically transform the United States just yet, and it’ll use vote by mail to do it.

My colleagues and I have studied the left’s involvement in pushing mail-in voting in the 2020 election since the mischief began in November. We’ve uncovered a vast network of professional activists, wealthy foundations, Democratic mega-donors, and political operatives who conspired to flood America with mail-in ballots and turn the election against President Donald Trump.

Creating an Election Nightmare

In an all-mail election, the state sends ballots to every registered voter. Oregon has been conducting all-mail elections since the mid-1990s using a system of “ballot secrecy envelopes” that obscure the voter’s identity while allowing him to track the ballot’s status after returning it via mail or a polling station. Four more states have since adopted permanent all-mail elections, and 18 others allow local jurisdictions to hold all-mail elections. Currently, 16 states allow absentee voting with a valid excuse, and 34 states have no-excuse absentee voting.

Some locales have clearly figured it out. But hastily imposing their model on an unready nation created a comedy of errors almost everywhere else in 2020:

More than 49,000 people received incorrect ballots in Franklin County, Ohio.
A vote-by-mail drop box was set on fire in Los Angeles.
A mayoral candidate was arrested for and charged with committing voter fraud with absentee ballots in Carrollton, Texas.
And 100,000 New Yorkers received absentee ballots with incorrect names and addresses.

Mail-in ballots have significantly higher rejection rates than ballots cast in-person, with the highest being 4.5 percent rejected in 2008. That can be the difference between victory and defeat. Nearly 28,000 mail-in ballots were rejected in Florida’s 2016 election, where Trump’s margin of victory was 112,000 votes. Obama won Florida in 2012 by 74,000 votes, when 24,000 ballots were rejected. Mail-in ballot rejection rates averaged 1 percent nationwide in 2016 and 1.4 percent in 2018, perhaps 10 times higher than in-person rates, usually because they arrived too late to count or had mismatching signatures.

NPR reports that 550,000 mail-in ballots were disqualified in the 2020 primaries alone, much more than in 2016. Yet rejection rates averaged just 0.7 percent nationwide in the 2020 general election. Why were they suddenly so low? Either tens of millions of voters voting by mail (many for the first time) miraculously submitted flawless ballots, elections officials didn’t perform their due diligence, or the rejection rate was pushed down by an extraordinarily high number of “cured” ballots (fixing mistakes such as a forgotten signature), which is allowed in 19 states, including North Carolina, Georgia, and Arizona. If the answer is either of the last two, vote-by-mail’s “success” in 2020 is hardly something to be celebrated.

Until recently, mail-in voting was just as controversial among liberals as conservatives, not least because it hurts turnout among Democratic constituencies. A 2016 ACLU study found that “younger and racial and ethnic minority voters casting VBM [vote-by-mail] ballots were at least twice as likely as older and white voters to have their VBM ballot rejected.” That same study concluded that voters under 30 made up 9.2 percent of all vote-by-mail voters, but accounted for almost 31 percent of rejected mail-in ballots. Liberal journalists railed against high mail-in ballot rejection rates for “disproportionately affect[ing] minorities” in 2018.

Former President JimThen there’s the potential for fraud, which is why most European Union countries long ago banned “postal voting.” my Carter’s own bipartisan commission in 2005 concluded that mail-in ballots presented the “largest source of potential voter fraud” of any voting system.

Democrats were deeply divided over the trustworthiness of mail-in ballots as recently as the 2008 election, when the Obama campaign voiced its “real deep concerns” about the security of mail-in ballots in the Florida Democratic primary, which Hillary Clinton won by some 294,000 votes. Obama questioning whether the system was “fraud-proof” on national television.

Simply put, it isn’t that mail-in ballots can’t work anywhere, just that they don’t work everywhere. That was 2020’s big experiment: entrusting the election to the U.S. Postal Service (USPS), the institution that routinely delivers you your neighbor’s mail. Let’s not forget that USPS warned last July that it might not be able to deliver ballots on time.

Yet the Washington Post ran a slew of op-eds calling for expanding voting by mail since COVID-19 quarantines began in early March 2020. An ACLU director declared in the New York Times that “voting by mail will save the 2020 election.” The Atlantic even conjectured that voting by mail could stop election “interference” by Republicans who might otherwise create a Trump dictatorship.

What changed? The coronavirus—and the itching need to defeat President Trump by whatever means necessary—ultimately overcame whatever concerns the left had over mail-in voting. Mail-in voting presented a powerful, once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to federalize elections and cement the left’s control over America. So they went all in on radically changing our republic—and it almost worked.

Making Vote-by-Mail Permanent

But some on the left had been pushing for vote by mail for years. Meet the National Vote at Home Coalition (NVHC) and its 501(c)(3) arm, National Vote At Home Institute, a pair of advocacy groups formed in 2017 to push all-mail elections nationwide. From the start, the effort was heavily supported by the National Association of Letter Carriers, the postal service union, which co-founded NVHC and hosted its kick-off event at the union’s headquarters in Washington, D.C. The event was attended by AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka, Oregon Sen. Ron Wyden (D.)—who was elected in the country’s first-ever all-mail federal election—and Oregon Secretary of State Phil Keisling. Keisling, who is now board chairman for NVHC, illustrated the future of voting and automatic voter registration:

Imagine a state where voters never have to show a photo ID; wait in voting lines; leave home or work early to get to their designated polling place; or worry about bad weather, traffic jams, finding parking or public transportation, or arranging childcare.

AVR’s [automatic voter registration] underlying policy premise is identical to vote-at home’s; if the government knows you’re a citizen, you become a registered voter [emphasis added].

The majority of the 501(c)(4) NVHC’s funding comes from the Letter Carriers union, other AFL-CIO unions, and liberal billionaire Pierre Omidyar’s Democracy Fund Voice. The (c)(3) institute is bankrolled by various AFL-CIO unions, the Letter Carriers union, Arabella Advisors’ Hopewell Fund and New Venture Fund, and the foundation of liberal mega-donor Stephen Silberstein. Silberstein is a NVHC board member, National Popular Vote board member, and part of the Democracy Alliance.

Early on NVHC targeted state ballot initiatives, beginning with vote by mail in South Dakota in 2018 (it failed to make the ballot), Hawaii in 2019 (passed), and automatic voter registration in Michigan in 2018 (passed). Soon it would expand its scope to the federal level after hiring a new director, Amber McReynolds.

Amber McReynolds: The New Face of Soft Totalitarianism

McReynolds is a professional activist and leading figure in the left’s fight to transform American elections. She started registering voters in Iowa in the 2004 election with the New Voters Project, part of a vast network of activist groups called the Public Interest Network. The most famous of these groups are the Public Interest Research Groups (PIRGs), which date back to the 1960s. A Colorado native, she was hired by the Denver Elections Commission in 2005, rising to deputy director in 2007 and finally elections director in 2011. She was given the city’s “rising star” award in 2012 by the Democratic mayor for overseeing the creation of Denver’s ballot-tracking and electronic petition-gathering software.

Critically, she pushed for and oversaw Colorado’s adoption of all-mail voting in 2013, reportedly downplaying the threat of illegal voting in her testimony before the state legislature by claiming ignorance of the term: “I’m not sure, to be honest, what is an illegal vote. . . . What does that mean?” By 2018, McReynolds was considered one of the state’s political up-and-comers and a likely candidate for challenging its Republican secretary of State, Wayne K. Williams.

She opted instead to join NVHC and take her plans for vote by mail nationwide. Under McReynolds, NVHC released its first national vote-by-mail proposal in mid-2020, “catapulting” this small organization into the center of the left’s scheme to use COVID-19 to transform the 2020 election.

McReynolds is often hailed as a nonpartisan, reform-minded moderate. She’s listed on the website of the National Association of Nonpartisan Reformers and was featured in Governing Magazine’s 2018 Top Public Officials of the Year.

But NVHC is closely connected to left-wing groups ranging from the ACLU to Rock the Vote. McReynolds herself also spoke at the Democracy Alliance’s Fall 2018 conference, the biggest Who’s Who of the elite left. This writer has interviewed a former elected city and county of Denver election commissioner who knew McReynolds during her years with the city (and who wishes to remain anonymous). In the commissioner’s words, McReynolds is “smart, power-driven,” and the “new face of soft totalitarianism.” Far from being nonpartisan, she couldn’t be further to the political left. One senior Trump administration appointee and elections expert told me that McReynolds is a “vote-by-mail fanatic” whose meteoric rise perfectly coincided with the COVID-19 pandemic.

That became obvious after Time released its infamous article “The Secret History of the Shadow Campaign That Saved the 2020 Election.” At the heart of that “conspiracy unfolding behind the scenes” was Michael Podhorzer, a senior AFL-CIO advisor and Democratic operative who organized a legion of activist groups and big foundations to use COVID-19 “relief funds” to pump up voter registration, push mail-in voting, and supplement mail ballots with private dropboxes to help Joe Biden win the 2020 election.

McReynolds and NVHC led the conspiracy’s mail-in voting crusade, supplying secretaries of state with drop box locations and encouraging mail-in ballots in 37 states and the District of Columbia. NVHC even published a 60-page report pushing DeKalb County, Georgia—an Atlanta suburb that received $4 million in “Zuck Bucks” and gave Biden 300,000 votes—to “create a modern, lean vote-by-mail program.” California also hired McReynolds to consult on expanding its vote-by-mail plans in May 2020.

While Time tried to spin the cabal as “bipartisan,” in reality it was as left-wing—and partisan—as could be.

In March, Wisconsin journalists revealed that a NVHC staffer and Democratic operative, Michael Spitzer-Rubinstein, practically ran Green Bay’s election as the city’s “de facto elections administrator,” with access to its absentee ballots days before the election.

Spitzer-Rubinstein had access to four of the five keys to the ballroom where early ballots were stored and counted, and he even asked the city clerk to “cure” problematic absentee ballots. Green Bay “went rogue” under NVHC, in the words of the Brown County clerk. Green Bay also received $1.1 million, Wisconsin’s third-largest grant, from the Mark Zuckerberg–funded Center for Technology and Civic Life.

Where else did NVHC taint local elections in 2020? Does it plan to have representatives in the Spitzer-Rubinstein mold in every major elections office in 2024? Short of a government inquiry, we may never know.

For her services McReynolds, President Biden nominated her to the U.S. Postal Service where she was touted as an “independent,” not a Democrat, and for good reason: By law the USPS governing board may have no more than five members from the same political party. Confirming her as an independent frees up President Biden to appoint another Democrat and grants her vast power as the deciding vote on future mail-in voting and election integrity decisions.

And that’s after McReynolds “covered up her connections to radical left-wing groups [by] scrubbing affiliations from her own organization’s website,” according to the conservative American Accountability Foundation.

As if to prove their point, since her confirmation McReynolds has signed an open letter critical of Arizona’s ongoing 2020 election audit alongside 19 other liberal groups and individuals. She has also attacked Republican “disinformation” as the “biggest election security issue we face” and called for federalizing elections to stop it: “We need to think about some federal standards because it’s easy for bad actors to spread the wrong information because the rules vary so much by state.”

But switching America to mail-in voting requires a serious change in infrastructure. For that, the left needed the NVHC to ensure that the coming flood of mail-in ballots would defeat Trump. They needed the support of Big Philanthropy.

Mark Zuckerberg: Laying the Groundwork for Vote by Mail

In a free and fair election, ballots are traceable from the time they’re filled out until they’re counted. Drop boxes threaten that chain by bypassing the Postal Service altogether and entrusting absentee ballots with a private third party. They also encourage ballot harvesting by partisan interests and raise the risk of fraudsters using private collection bins to return illegal ballots. Chain of custody is still missing for 400,000 absentee ballots delivered via drop box in Georgia alone.

To pay for so many drop boxes, the activists turned to Facebook founder and billionaire Mark Zuckerberg. In fall 2020, he funneled $350 million into a small Chicago nonprofit, the Center for Technology and Civic Life (CTCL), which repackaged the funds as COVID-19 “relief” grants to thousands of local elections offices that would supposedly go underfunded in the election—despite receiving $400 million from the federal government through the CARES Act.

To date, my colleagues and I have traced $112 million in “Zuck bucks” flowing to nine critical states: Texas, Virginia, North Carolina, Michigan, Wisconsin, Georgia, Pennsylvania, Arizona, and Nevada.

CTCL has claimed that its funds were distributed on a nonpartisan basis. In reality, “Zuck bucks” favored big, Democratic cities that pumped out enough votes for Biden to clinch contested states. In Pennsylvania, for instance, CTCL grants to counties Biden won averaged $3.11 per capita and just $0.57 in counties Trump won. In Arizona, CRCL grants provided a staggering $5.83 per capita in counties Biden won versus $1.29 in counties Trump won.

In June, Todd Shepherd, chief investigative reporter for the Pennsylvania Broad & Liberty, published an email chain revealing early contact between CTCL, a councilwoman in Delaware County (a Philadelphia suburb), and a Democratic get-out-the-vote strategist. Shepherd has also discovered evidence that Democratic counties neighboring Philly were given early invitations to apply for multi-million-dollar CTCL grants, well before the rest of the right-leaning state.

CTCL’s funds were supposed to aid in voting during the COVID-19 pandemic, yet a recent letter from House Republicans points out that less than 1 percent of its funds went to personal protective equipment (PPE). What CTCL’s “Zuck bucks” did pay for was the infrastructure required to unleash an unprecedented flood of mail-in ballots.

Public records requests reveal that nearly $6.5 million of Philadelphia’s $10 million grant funded “mail-in and absentee” processing equipment, 15 “secure dropboxes” scattered around the city, and postage (presumably for mail-in ballots). A $1.4 million grant to Fairfax County, Virginia—which contains close to a quarter of the state’s population and 18 percent of all Biden’s statewide votes—also paid for vote-by-mail equipment, temporary staffing, and “voting materials other than in English.” Alarmingly, the county’s CTCL-provided spending report also leaves room for “non-partisan voter education”—what does that entail and where was it used?

In Wisconsin, a former elections clerk told reporter John Solomon that CTCL grants to Green Bay caused the city to effectively “take over” county election functions. CTCL itself worked “primarily with our five major Democratic base cities,” breaking processes across the key battleground state. “As we got closer to the November election,” she said, “we found out that this outside group had come in and was basically trying to redo our forms and documents that we use statewide. And these people were from out of state and had no business doing that.”

In short, Big Philanthropy had its way with the 2020 election, to the left’s delight. National Public Radio even credits “private money from Facebook’s CEO” with “sav[ing] the 2020 election.” Faced with a private takeover of our elections, the same set of radicals who once cried “eat the rich” and “abolish billionaires” simply yawned. Yet the greatest irony is that, for all the left’s newfound love of mail-in voting, its sudden emphasis on drop boxes is a vote of no confidence in the Postal Service’s ability to competently manage so many mail-in ballots.

CTCL’s meddling prompted dozens of states to ban private funding of elections, but the damage is done. Racine, Wisconsin, recently purchased a $250,000 “mobile voting precinct” using CTCL funds. How much money will Zuckerberg or others like him spend influencing the 2024 election?

Page Gardner: Soliciting Absentee Ballots

Voters in many states were assailed with partially pre-filled absentee ballot requests in the months leading up to Election Day. The requests came from a pair of shadowy nonprofits: the Center for Voter Information (CVI) and the Voter Participation Center (VPC), “sister” groups formed in 2003 by former Bill Clinton presidential campaign staffer and operative Page Gardner.

Gardner’s groups take advantage of IRS rules allowing nonprofits to engage in nonpartisan voter registration to target the “New American Majority,” which they define as “young people, people of color and unmarried women”—a group that gave more than 60 percent of its votes for Biden in 2020.

The nonprofits are hardly “nonpartisan”—CVI, the network’s 501(c)(4), spent $583,000 directly aiding Biden—but it’s their support for voting by mail that should concern conservatives. Unlike the Right, the left is all in on funding groups that do nothing more than voter registration.

Gardner’s groups claim they registered more than 1.5 million new voters and generated 4.8 million vote-by-mail applications in 2020 alone.

Many of these absentee ballot applications were faulty, listing the wrong jurisdictions. In Virginia, mailing applications mislabeled for the City of Fairfax were sent to residents of neighboring Fairfax County. But for all the ballots faults, they were clearly sent for one purpose: flood key states with tens of millions of mail-in ballots.

One Virginia polling place worker who wishes to remain anonymous sent me a copy of an envelope (archived here) mailed to him by CVI prior to the election containing an absentee ballot request, but the return address (3125 W. Cary St. #305, Richmond, VA) is a UPS store, not CVI’s office in Washington, D.C. He has found similar envelopes in eight other states—Pennsylvania, Georgia, Nevada, Ohio, Wisconsin, North Carolina, New Mexico, and Missouri—with return addresses for UPS stores.

What happened to the absentee ballot requests that bounced back to CVI’s UPS boxes? Could they have been used to generate a universe of registered but nonresponsive voters? Given the multitude of reports from across the country of voters who tried to vote on Election Day and were told that they couldn’t cast a ballot because they had already voted, it raises serious questions about tax-exempt nonprofits exploiting IRS rules to swing elections for their political allies.

The Future of Elections Isn’t So Grim

There’s little doubt that left-wing operatives would love to make every future election mimic 2020. But it doesn’t have to end that way.

Despite high hopes among many Democrats, new studies show that mail-in ballots had a smaller than expected effect on turnout and did not dramatically help the Democratic Party. What they did change was how Americans voted—opening the door to the kind of ballot harvesting and fraud that characterize countries like Venezuela.

The left’s dependence on so many CTCL-funded drop boxes also suggests that vote by mail won’t plague the future in the 15-plus states (and counting) that have already banned private funding of elections, and likely others. Without drop boxes, the effectiveness of mail-in ballots will entirely depend on the U.S. Postal Service—the 18th century institution that’s been utterly outcompeted by private industry and may be privatized by a future Republican administration. With its present difficulties, it’s a safe bet that running elections will never be USPS’s top priority. As one elections expert recently told me, “If you want to screw up voter I.D., put the DMV in charge of it. If you want to screw up voting, put the Postal Service in charge of it.”

Is the left prepared to hang its future on that? In an age of reliable two-day delivery, will Americans ever support elections that take 5–7 days to transit their ballots each way and upwards of 15 days to certify? The more America moves forward, the more America’s left looks backward.

*****

This article was published on July 9, 2021 and is reproduced with permission from Capital Research.

 

Identifying The “Root Causes” of The Migrant Crisis On The Southern Border: Part III

The third article in this series examines the “root causes” of migration from Guatemala and El Salvador. So far this fiscal year, the Border Patrol reports having encountered 153,478 people from Guatemala and 49,845 from El Salvador on the southern border (Southwest Land Border Encounters (By Component) | U.S. Customs and Border Protection (cbp.gov). Much […]
The post Identifying The “Root Causes” of The Migrant Crisis On The Southern Border: Part III appeared first on PRICKLY PEAR.The third article in this series examines the “root causes” of migration from Guatemala and El Salvador. So far this fiscal year, the Border Patrol reports having encountered 153,478 people from Guatemala and 49,845 from El Salvador on the southern border (Southwest Land Border Encounters (By Component) | U.S. Customs and Border Protection (cbp.gov). Much
The post Identifying The “Root Causes” of The Migrant Crisis On The Southern Border: Part III appeared first on PRICKLY PEAR.Read MoreFeedzyEstimated Reading Time: 3 minutes

The third article in this series examines the “root causes” of migration from Guatemala and El Salvador. So far this fiscal year, the Border Patrol reports having encountered 153,478 people from Guatemala and 49,845 from El Salvador on the southern border (Southwest Land Border Encounters (By Component) | U.S. Customs and Border Protection (cbp.gov). Much like migrants from Mexico and Honduras, the reasons citizens of Guatemala and El Salvador flee their countries are not that difficult to discern.

GUATEMALA

With a population of 17 million, Guatemala is the most populous country in Latin America. Guatemala is also poor, corrupt, and extremely violent. Guatemala’s per capita distribution of gross domestic product, $8,637, is roughly half the average for Latin America and the Caribbean. The distribution of income within Guatemala is highly unequal with the richest 20% of the population accounting for more than 51% of Guatemala’s overall consumption. More than half of the population, 59.3%, lives below the national poverty line, and 23% of the population lives in extreme poverty. Poverty among indigenous groups, which make up more than 40% of the population, averages 79%, with 40% of the indigenous population living in extreme poverty.

Nearly one-half of Guatemala’s children under age five are chronically malnourished, one of the highest malnutrition rates in the world.

Guatemala is major transit country for cocaine and heroin; and estimated 1,000 metric tons of cocaine are smuggled through the country each year, primarily destined for the U.S. market. Money laundering is a serious problem in Guatemala, and corruption is a major problem. Guatemala ranks 149th out of 180 countries on the Transparency International Corruption Perceptions Index.

Violence and extortion by powerful criminal organizations, which the government has often been unable or unwilling to control, are also serious problems in Guatemala. Guatemala is one of the most dangerous countries in the world, with a homicide rate of 23 per 100,00 in 2018. Guatemala’s alarmingly high murder rate appears driven by narco-trafficking activity, gang-related violence, particularly by the Barrio 18 (18th Street) and Mara Salvatrucha (MS13) gangs, a heavily armed population, and a police and judicial system unable to hold criminals accountable. Gang-related violence is an important factor prompting people, including unaccompanied children and young adults, to leave the country.

Sources for Guatemala: “Guatemala” in Central Intelligence Agency, World Factbook, 2021, Guatemala – The World Factbook (cia.gov); “Guatemala: Events of 2020,” Human Rights Watch, World Report 2021: Guatemala | Human Rights Watch (hrw.org); Transparency International, Corruption Perception Index, 2020, 2020 – CPI – Transparency.org); US Department of State, Overseas Advisory Council, Guatemala 2020 Crime and Safety Report, March 31, 2020, Guatemala 2020 Crime & Safety Report (osac.gov); “Intentional Homicides Per 100,00 People – Guatemala,” World Bank, Intentional Homicides (per 100,000 people) – Guatemala | Data (worldbank.org).

EL SALVADOR

The smallest and most densely populated country in Central America, El Salvador is beset by poverty, extreme violence, and corruption. With an estimated per capita distribution of gross domestic product of $8,776, Honduras has an estimated unemployment rate of at least 7% and 22.8% of Hondurans live below the national poverty level. About 20% of Honduras’s 6.5 million people already live outside the country, and remittances from abroad are a substantial source of national income.

El Salvador is a transshipment point for cocaine and narcotics trafficking, organized crime, and street gangs generate high levels of violence. El Salvador has one of the world’s highest homicide rates (36 per 100,000), as well as the highest concentration of gang members per capita in Central America. Violent, well-armed street gangs — MS-13 (Mara Salvatrucha) and 18th Street (Barrio 18) being the largest — operate throughout the country. As with Mexico, Honduras, and Guatemala, public corruption is also a serous problem in El Salvador, which ranks 104th out of 180 countries on Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index.

Sources for El Salvador: “El Salvador,” in Central Intelligence Agency, World Factbook, 2021, El Salvador – The World Factbook (cia.gov); Congressional Research Service, El Salvador: Background and U.S. Relations, November 20, 2018, El Salvador: Background and U.S. Relations (congress.gov); Transparency International, Corruption Perception Index, 2020, 2020 – CPI – Transparency.org; US Department of State, Overseas Advisory Council, El Salvador 2020 Crime & Safety Report, March 31, 2020, El Salvador 2020 Crime & Safety Report (osac.gov) ).

*****

Ed Cochran, a retired U.S. Army officer and a retired senior civilian employee of the U.S. Department of Defense, is a regular contributor to The Prickly Pear on national security issues. He holds an MS in Strategic Intelligence from the Joint Military Intelligence College (now National Intelligence University), and an MA in National Security and Strategic Studies from the U.S. Naval War College. His published work has appeared in The Journal of Strategic Studies, Israel Affairs, Parameters, The International Journal of Intelligence and Counterintelligence, and the International Bulletin of Political Psychology.

What is China doing?


On May 26, 2021, President Joe Biden announced that he had asked the U.S. intelligence community to redouble its efforts to determine the origins of the COVID-19 virus. The U.S. findings are expected in about 90 days. So now we know what the Biden administration is doing, but what will the Chinese government, or the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), do? In light of China’s obfuscation so far, it is absurd to imagine that it will be cooperating with the U.S. investigation. Neither will it be sitting idly by waiting to learn of the U.S. intelligence community’s conclusions. Instead, the CCP will be doing everything it can to shape the report and ensure that the findings will be released in a context saturated by Chinese propaganda.
What does China want the narrative to be? The ideal outcome would be that the virus originated outside of China. Failing that, an acceptable outcome would be, as highlighted in a recent Wall Street Journal (WSJ) article, that the virus “that killed millions of people and shattered the global economy” would be “among the world’s most consequential mysteries.”
There is one outcome that would be unacceptable to the CCP: China will do almost anything to keep the U.S. from concluding that the virus was developed in the Wuhan Institute of Virology. The CCP is already taking steps to encourage the U.S. to reach “the right” judgment, and it appears to have people in the West, including in the U.S., who are willingly supporting those efforts.
On July 5, 2021, The Lancet published “Science, not speculation, is essential to determine how SARS-CoV-2 reached humans.” This letter was written by the same “reputable” experts who in early 2020, shortly after the outbreak of the pandemic, hurried to state — despite egregiously insufficient evidence — that the virus developed naturally and could not have been manufactured in a lab. That false narrative set the tone for more than one year.
Now, one-and-a-half years later, The Lancet has again come out with an unjustified dismissal of the lab leak theory, couched in support for the G7’s call for a new COVID origins study, led by the World Health Organization (WHO). Among repeated affirmations of “solidarity… with those in China who [have] confronted the outbreak,” the letter piously cautions that “it might take years of field and laboratory study to assemble and link data essential to reach rational and objective conclusions…” This type of delay, strategically accompanied by a strong but carefully hedged reassertion of the original claim that “we believe the strongest clue from new, credible, and peer reviewed evidence in the scientific literature is that the virus evolved in nature, while suggestions of a laboratory leak source of the pandemic remain without scientifically validated evidence that directly supports it in peer-reviewed scientific journals,” is exactly what the WSJ warned might happen. More significantly, it is exactly what China wants. Nothing could be better for China than having The Lancet as the messenger, lending scientific credibility to what the CCP wants the world to believe.
Click HERE to read more.
Originally published by the Gatestone Institute
COLUMN BY

 Pete Hoekstra

Pete Hoekstra is a former Representative in Congress from Michigan. He served as the Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee. More recently he was U.S. Ambassador to the Kingdom of the Netherlands.
EDITORS NOTE: This Center for Security Policy column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.