When Democrats Tell You They’re Going to Establish Truth and Reconciliation Commissions, Believe Them!


Leftists are saying they want you brainwashed or destroyed, and you should pay attention. They are impossibly mired in lies and hatred, but they have at times been oddly forthright about their plans, such as when Nancy Pelosi declared that Trump would lead at the end of election night but would not win, and when the New York Times claimed that the media would declare the winner of the presidential election, just as it is doing now. So when so many prominent Leftists are calling for the reeducation of Trump supporters or else their total ostracism from society, no one would be wise to dismiss these calls as empty threats.
As PJ Media noted on October 21, Bill Clinton’s Labor Secretary Robert B. “Third” Reich got the ball rolling when he tweeted:

“When this nightmare is over, we need a Truth and Reconciliation Commission. It would erase Trump’s lies, comfort those who have been harmed by his hatefulness, and name every official, politician, executive, and media mogul whose greed and cowardice enabled this catastrophe.”

It quickly became clear that this wasn’t just Reich’s individual lust for Maoism, as numerous others quickly echoed him. Recalling Stalin’s practice of putting his political opponents in mental hospitals, MSNBC’s Chris Hayes couched his call in humanitarian terms:

“The most humane and reasonable way to deal with all these people, if we survive this, is some kind of truth and reconciliation commission.”

Neocon Never-Trumper William Kristol, out for blood, then exposed the vengeful core of all this when he responded to Hayes with,

“How about truth and no reconciliation?”

Sarah Taylor, a professor at Cal East Bay, was likewise in no mood for forgiveness:

“What we need is more along the lines of a Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Empathy at this point would be completely counterproductive – it would exacerbate the harms that have already been done.”

As is typical of the Left, these hate-filled ideologues projected their hatred onto their prospective victims. Wajahat Ali, an op-ed writer for the New York Times, offered the media-anointed president-elect some unsolicited advice:

“Biden/Harris needs to establish a war room just for media and messaging. You have treat [sic] the Republican Party and right wing media as the increasingly extremist group that they are. Biden has to heal the nation, court the voters, but the right wing movement is hostile.”

Yes, as Antifa and Black Lives Matter burn down cities, it’s the “right wing movement” that is “hostile.”
Meanwhile, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-Lubyanka Prison) predicted what would be the fate of the “hostile” — professional and personal ruin:

“Is anyone archiving these Trump sycophants for when they try to downplay or deny their complicity in the future? I foresee decent probability of many deleted Tweets, writings, photos in the future.”

Michael Simon, a former Obama administration staffer, was ready to help. He tweeted in response (and later deleted the tweet):

“Yes, we are. Every administration staffer, campaign staffer, bundler, lawyer who represented them – everyone.”

He linked to “The Trump Accountability Project,” a website that proclaims ominously: “Remember what they did.” Remember it, apparently, in order to hound these people out of public life and into poverty or worse.
Emily Abrams, a Pete Buttigieg campaign worker, tweeted (and then made her account private):

“We’re launching the Trump Accountability Project to make sure anyone who took a paycheck to help Trump undermine America is held responsible for what they did.”

Chief among those who must be held accountable is, of course, Trump himself. Philip Michaels, senior group editor for the tech publication Tom’s Guide, tweeted:

“Well. Announce the truth and reconciliation commissions and impeach him once more, for old time’s sake.”

But it would be by no means limited to Trump, as the Washington Post’s allegedly conservative Jennifer Rubin made clear:

“Any R now promoting rejection of an election or calling to not to follow the will of voters or making baseless allegations of fraud should never serve in office, join a corporate board, find a faculty position or be accepted into ‘polite’ society. We have a list.”

Elizabeth Warren supporter Max Berger of the Justice Democrats added:

“The only unity we should seek with Trump Republicans is a Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Trump should be prosecuted for his crimes to the full extent of the law. Congress should investigate the vast corruption and carelessness of his administration that led to 10000s of needless deaths. Collaborators shouldn’t be able to re-enter society without a mea culpa.”

Beyond the people responsible for the scourge of Trump, Trumpist ideas (presumably including the idea that an American president should put America first and stand for the First and Second Amendments) must be rooted out. The godfather of fake news himself, Dan Rather, chimed in:

“There is no healing without a reckoning on injustice.”

Joe Lockhart of CNN tweeted:

“Truth and reconciliation requires both things. We need to examine what went so wrong in America over the last four years so we don’t ever repeat this dark time. Truth and reconciliation requires both things.”

Sherrilyn Ifill of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund agreed:

“With respect, this not the time for healing. We have not properly diagnosed the sickness or cleaned the wound. We have not begun to investigate why the illness was allowed to fester so long or identified those who withheld early treatment.”

And these were being pushed by Leftist “entertainers” as well. Actress Lesley-Ann Brandt stated: “America needs a truth and reconciliation commission.” Her fellow thespian Quinn Cummings brought in “racism” and “Russia,” neither of which is far from any Leftist’s political discussion:

“Again, a Truth and Reconciliation Commission would be highly useful. Russia is at war with us and cohort of Americans thinks that isn’t true because their skin is white.”

Writer Shay Stewart Bouley thought that writing Trump’s wrongs would involve some remuneration of his supposed victims:

“By the way, we can’t heal from Trump, when we haven’t healed from, or made amends for this country’s history. Reparations? Truth and reconciliation across the board? That’s how healing starts.”

Amid all this, the winner of the prize for the most hysterical tweet about rounding up conservatives was novelist D. C. Petterson:

“Oh, the crimes of the Trump Reich must be punished. We need a Truth and Reconciliation Commission, or a series of Nuremberg Trials, or an extradition treaty with The Hague. That’s a necessary first step.”

Quixotic 2016 presidential candidate Evan McMullin agreed:

“As I’ve done for years, I’m proud to stand with anyone who repudiates Trumpism including his supporters or even most who worked in his administration. But his core cronies in Congress, the White House and elsewhere who enable his attacks on the republic must be held accountable.”

All this makes it clear: the support for personal and professional retribution against Trump supporters is broad and deep on the Left today. If Biden does indeed become president , expect these little Stalinists to be emboldened, and to go as far as they possibly can to achieve their goals.
The showdown for the defense of free society is coming.
RELATED TWEETS:


RELATED ARTICLES:
Outgoing US envoy to Syria admits to lying to Trump in order to prevent withdrawal of US troops from Syria
IAEA: Iran Violating the ‘Iran Deal’ That Biden Wants to Rejoin
Saudi Arabia: Muslim injures three with bomb at French remembrance service in ‘Non-Muslim Cemetery’
EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. All rights reserved.

In May, 2019 Four Democrat Senators questioned Dominion Voting machines’ ‘known vulnerabilities’


The biggest story in 2020 is about the massive election fraud taking places across America. The media (CNN, NBC, ABC, etc.), social media (Twitter, Facebook, Google), the Democrat Party and their supporters are doing anything and everything to make us believe that this is a hoax, a conspiracy theory, and just not true. Let’s look at the facts concerning election fraud in 2020.
The four pillars of Election Fraud in 2020 are:

  1. Voting machines (specifically Dominion Voting).
  2. Mail-in-ballots (people like West Virginian Jeff Harshman who posted on his Facebook page , “I voted 29 times by mail in 29 different districts in battleground states. Vote Joe no matter what!!!”)
  3. Faulty voter roles (dead people voting, people voting who do not live in the state in which the ballot is counted and “ghost voters”).
  4. Failures by the USPS to either deliver ballots (found in dumpsters), failure to properly post mark ballots (in swing states) or caught intentionally destroying ballots.

Let’s look in detail at #1 – Voting Machines.

The 2020 election has now focused, like a laser beam, on Dominion Voting machines, Sequoia Voting Systems and its parent company SmartMatic, as the primary system that has flipped votes from Trump to Biden. This flipping of votes from Trump to Biden was first discovered in Antrim County, Michigan.
WATCH: NBC report on voting machines.
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1327732691979137041

Who is Dominion Systems and why are they suspect in 2020?

On August 14, 2018 in a column titled Louisiana doesn’t need any hacks in its election system Tim Morris wrote:

Election Systems and Software, one of the two losing bidders, complained that the [Louisiana] secretary of state’s office released add-on standards weeks later than allowed and that one set of standards was so specific that only Dominion Voting Systems would qualify, according to records obtained by The Associated Press. [Emphasis added]

In a May 27, 2019 Tech Crunch column titled Senators demand to know why election vendors still sell voting machines with ‘known vulnerabilities’ Zack Whittaker reported:

Four senior senators have called on the largest U.S. voting machine makers to explain why they continue to sell devices with “known vulnerabilities,” ahead of upcoming critical elections.

The letter, sent Wednesday, calls on election equipment makers ES&S, Dominion Voting and Hart InterCivic to explain why they continue to sell decades-old machines, which the senators say contain security flaws that could undermine the results of elections if exploited.
“The integrity of our elections is directly tied to the machines we vote on,” said the letter sent by Sens. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Mark Warner (D-VA), Jack Reed (D-RI) and Gary Peters (D-MI), the most senior Democrats on the Rules, Intelligence, Armed Services and Homeland Security committees, respectively. “Despite shouldering such a massive responsibility, there has been a lack of meaningful innovation in the election vendor industry and our democracy is paying the price,” the letter adds.
Their primary concern is that the three companies have more than 90 percent of the U.S. election equipment market share but their voting machines lack paper ballots or auditability, making it impossible to know if a vote was accurately counted in the event of a bug. [Emphasis added]

It gets worse

James Woods tweeted the following:
https://twitter.com/RealJamesWoods/status/1327648808805703680
On November 14th, 2020 in an article titled The Vote-Switching Ghost in the Machine  Tony Thomas from Quadrant Online reported:

It now looks like Deep State criminals have tweaked voting machine software to switch Trump votes – possibly millions of them —  to Biden to create the illusion of a Democrat victory. You don’t have to believe me on this. If you still retain a smidgen of high-school algebra, the data patterns in voting in the swing state of Michigan speak for themselves.
A team of three engineers and software analysts have demonstrated that a minimum of 69,000 votes there were switched from Trump to Biden. Biden is supposed to have won Michigan and its 16 Electoral College votes by about 146,000 votes in an electorate of 5.4 million.
[ … ]
The Michigan auditing team was Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai, an MIT trained data scientist and Fulbright Scholar and now Republican Senate candidate; Bennie Smith, a Democrat and software engineer, data analyst and an election commissioner; and Phil Evans, engineer and data analyst. They analysed voting patterns in Michigan’s four biggest counties and concluded the patterns must have resulted from an inserted algorithm that switched salami-slices of votes from the Trump tally to the Biden column. The greater the voting support for Trump and Republicans, the bigger was the slicing-off for Biden.
Read more.

Who is Right? Whos Claim Should be Disputed?

PBS News Hour did an analysis of the Dominion Voting system in Georgia, a state where the 2020 election recount is being currently disputed. Note that the Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger in the PBS News Hour report talks about the ability to “audit” the votes if there is a problem. Today this same Brad Raffensperger is refusing to do an audit.
WATCH:

President Trump tweeted the following (note Twitter’s “This claim about election fraud is disputed”):
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1326926226888544256?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1326926226888544256%7Ctwgr%5E&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fthehill.com%2Fpolicy%2Fcybersecurity%2F525743-voting-machine-company-denies-trump-claims-about-software-issues
Dominion Voting Systems tweeted the following (note that Twitter’s disclaimer is absent) :


In an Epoch Times column titled Election Data Team to Call 1.25 Million Voters Over Anomalies in 6 Contested States Charlotte Cuthbertson reports:

The former data and strategy director for President Donald Trump’s 2016 election campaign has canceled his vacation plans to comb through election data for voter fraud.
Matt Braynard and his wife had planned to be in the Dominican Republic, but “right now, this is where I’m needed,” he said on YouTube on Nov. 8.
Braynard has assembled a team to look for inconsistencies in the six contested states—Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, Wisconsin, Arizona, and Nevada.
So far, they’ve identified 1.25 million voter issues that they’re following up on through phone calls and against other databases.
Read more.

Watch Matt Braynard discusses the Voter Integrity Project. (Note from Matt Braynard: yes, I misspoke in the beginning; I was with Trump in 2016, not 1996 and, actually, back in 2015!)

The only way to determine who is right and who is wrong is to do a complete audit of the votes recorded by Dominion. Then, and only then, can each disputed states’ votes be certified.
©Dr. Rich Swier. All rights reserved.
RELATED TWEET: Note the Twitter disclaimer that “this Tweet is disputed.”
https://twitter.com/kylenabecker/status/1324867717808050176
RELATED ARTICLES:
WSJ’s Post-Election Analysis of Bellwether Counties Shows a Clear Presidential Winner and It’s Not Close

Dems who sent formal complaint on problem-prone Dominion Voting in 2019 include Warren, Klobuchar

Giuliani alleges there is enough UNLAWFUL ballots to turn election in Trump’s favor
Pollster: It’s Curious How Biden Underperformed Hillary Clinton In Every City…Except These Four.
Video: USPS Employee Told to Mark All Non-Biden Political Mail as ‘Undeliverable’ US Mail
Election Company Tabulating U.S. Votes Manipulated Millions of Votes, FLIPPED ELECTIONS in Venezuela, Brazil, Philippines
Pennsylvania Mail-In Ballot Snafu Is Ripe For The U.S. Supreme Court To Intervene

VIDEO: 1,000,000 MAGA March on Washington, D.C to Defend the Integrity of the 2020 Election!



Washington, D.C. was filled with peaceful Trump supporters on Saturday, November 14th. Not a single business was burned down. Not a single window smashed. Not a single business looted. Not a single person was attacked, beaten or harmed by a Trump supporter.
The marchers were there for one reason to insure the integrity of the 2020 election. They were there to support President Trump’s efforts to insure a free and fair election and that only legal votes are counted. This is the American way.
The media did not cover this event. The social media blocked posts about this massive march for freedom and the U.S. Constitution. The people get it. The 2020 election was stolen using various methods that can only be exposed by a nation wide audit of the votes.
The bottom line: Until all the states that are being sued or are undergoing a recount report. Donald J. Trump is still the President. Joe Biden is just a candidate.
WATCH:
https://twitter.com/ryanafournier/status/1327692815787290629?s=11


https://twitter.com/sav_says_/status/1327672635644375041


RELATED TWEET:
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1327811527123103746
https://twitter.com/dc_draino/status/1327696188733231104?s=11
©Dr. Rich Swier. All rights reserved.
RELATED ARTICLES:
WSJ’s Post-Election Analysis of Bellwether Counties Shows a Clear Presidential Winner and It’s Not Close
Trump Legal Adviser Dismisses Claims President Has Changed Tone on Verifying Election
Arizonians Call for Recount, Audit of Votes at State Capitol Rally
Antifa, Black Lives Matter Linked to Violence Against Trump Supporters in Washington

The Trump Loss and the Role of Libertarians

As the after-action reports filter in for the most recent Presidential election, for those who lost (which at this writing is still undetermined), high on the list must be the treachery of the mainstream media, the big tech companies and voter fraud.

Not getting sufficient attention yet is the role played by the Libertarian Party and its associated think tanks and publications.

Although final numbers are not yet available in all key swing states, it would appear that the Libertarians have delivered to the nation, the most pro-socialist, big government group of Democrats, ever to walk the earth. It would appear that Trump lost PA, GA, WI, and perhaps AZ because of the Libertarian vote.

Critically, it also likely forced the run-off race for the Senate in Georgia (the Purdue race.) It is the U.S. Senate that must prevent the loudly declared leftist agenda of the Democrats with a Biden Presidency.

It stretches the word irony that a small party that proclaims its dedication to liberty and limited government would willingly deliver such a result. It should cause these merry mischief makers to reflect carefully on what they have done.

And who was the Libertarian candidate? Can you name her? Did you know it was a her? Was she even on your political radar?

Libertarians are supposedly socially liberal and fiscal conservatives. They are supposed to believe in liberty and advance its prospects. But they have been drifting to the left for some time. Libertarians of recent vintage believe in open borders, drug legalization, personal sexual liberty and generally are agnostic or atheists as it relates to the function and role of religion. We say “recent vintage” because many earlier Libertarians endorsed more traditional, religious based morality. If not, they tended to be followers of Ayn Rand, who developed a fairly strong morality based on reason. Neither type of earlier Libertarian endorsed situational ethics.

To have a limited government, people must largely control themselves via some internalized moral system. They must be responsible for their own lives and their own support, except in the gravest failures. And even then, private charity and local support should come before federal intervention and largess. Thus, the attack on morality and the family must necessarily make big government more likely. Do Libertarians understand that?

In theory, open borders promoting the free flow of capital and people, would be ideal. However, when you have that coupled with the welfare state and identity politics which destroys the functioning of the “melting pot”, it falls dangerously short of ideal in terms of sustaining and protecting liberty.

But most Libertarians oppose constant foreign wars, excessive paper money creation, judges that legislate from the bench and the Administrative State. They favor school choice, believe in religious liberty, oppose national healthcare, believe in capitalism usually to an extreme and oppose identity politics because they believe in treating people as individuals as opposed to racial categories. The also strongly support the Second Amendment and federalism with its dispersion of power so important to the American founding. In most ways, they share common ground with Conservatives.

Personally, I like Libertarians. They often produce stimulating arguments and challenging views that make one think and reflect on first principles, like non-aggression, peaceful commerce and social harmony. But when if comes to practical politics, Libertarians are unrealistic and naïve to the point of foolishness. Also, they tend to see little connection between cultural trends and those of politics (it is often said that “politics is downstream from culture”.)

It is hard to see why a Libertarian could vote for a Joe Biden and Kamala Harris.

You might say, they did not and they might believe that. But in a close election, not voting for the Republican means Democrat victory. Get it?

Some might argue it is a sophisticated way of creating divided government. We doubt such careful calculation is in the equation. More likely, it is their own sense of self-importance and their joy in teasing the major parties that pay insufficient attention to them. But the record of Libertarians often electing Democrats is pretty clear. Besides divided government is paralyzed government, which does not work well in crisis. If you want the government to shrink, would you not want to elect or influence the party mostly likely to shrink it?

Likewise, dealing with the Chinese threat to liberty requires greater unification of the parties.

It would seem electing Libertarian leaning candidates within an existing party would be time better spent than sabotaging the party pushing for a smaller, less intrusive government.  The Republican party is often a leaking vessel carrying the ideas of liberty. Isn’t that good enough reason for Libertarians to be within the Republican party, fighting to hold the party of less government accountable for failing the cause rather than helping elect the party of massive government and decreased liberty?

Instead, Libertarians may be responsible for costing Trump the election and put the forces of limited government in a position where recovery could be difficult if not impossible. Trump after all, was NOT an establishment Republican.

While Trump no doubt rankled them for his positions on immigration, abortion, his personality quirks and lack of fiscal conservatism, he was the candidate that started to deregulate, nominated strict constructionist judges, defended the Second Amendment, the First Amendment, promoted school choice, opposed national healthcare, attempted to scale down our endless foreign wars and protected religious liberty. He also endorsed prison reform, enterprise zones, cut tremendous amounts of regulation and cut taxes. He even attempted to appoint Judy Shelton, a pro-gold standard economist to the Federal Reserve.

He was moving his party in a more limited government direction, not perfectly, but substantially.

Whatever his failings, he clearly was better than the weak and confused Biden who already is being besieged by left-wing elements demanding payback for their loyalty.

Trump himself, is the victim of “deep state” machinations that should be opposed by all friends of limited government. Do Libertarians really like the CIA and FBI interfering in elections?

Do Libertarians think the Democrats will deliver fiscal conservatism and sound money?

On some key Libertarian social issues, Trump was largely silent on pot. He largely respected federalism through the Covid pandemic and let the states do their thing, giving us at least a range of public policy choices valuable to future research for what works.

But is pot legalization really more important than the Bill of Rights?  Even if one supports legalization, the priorities are all wrong.

In terms of sexual issues, Trump moved to decriminalize homosexual behavior in foreign countries.

On abortion, Trump is pro-life. Libertarians themselves differ on abortion but all would agree it should not be subsidized by the state. If Roe is overturned, the states will determine abortion policy which should not be offensive to Libertarians.

Neither candidate ran on fiscal conservatism, but the Democrats have openly embraced socialism, free college education, the Green New Deal, racial reparations, Modern Monetary Theory, climate change regulation, harsh Covid lockdown – all of which would make Trump the relative fiscal conservative.

So, if our calculations are right, Trump supported due process for males on college campus, opposed the violence of Antifa and Black Lives Matter, opposed the teaching of critical race theory, reduced foreign wars, reduced our dependence on international organizations, reduced the regulatory state, defended the Bill of Rights. And Libertarians voted against him because of WHAT?  Immigration policy? Marijuana legalization? Failure to balance the budget? His tweets?

With a huge expensive state, how can you balance the budget?  Smaller government means smaller budgets. By defeating Trump, now what are the chances of balancing the budget?

If our analysis of Libertarians is correct, they will rightfully go down as one of the most foolish political movements ever to pretend they support liberty.

In politics, you never get all that you want. The choices are basically who on balance moves the country in the direction you seek. Perfection is not part of the political equation and, frankly, is not part of the human condition. This advice is applicable to Conservatives as well, who often find the Republican Party just as frustrating.

If Libertarians felt their “independence” of either major party signals their moral purity on key issues, they have succeeded in putting in power the least likely party to advance liberty.

That, my friends, is a poor calculation. It is virtue signaling of the worst kind. It is making a moral statement that not just has little meaning. Rather, it actually succeeds in getting the opposite of what your supposed virtue supports.

It goes beyond being childish and ventures into the self-destructive. Pay attention to me, it seems to say, or I will burn down the house.

What is the solution?

Perhaps serious self-examination by Libertarians is in order. As far as Republicans are concerned, the GOP needs to reach out to fellow liberty lovers and make them feel more welcome within the party.

 

Lockdown Despotism and the “Control Panel” Delusion: Why the Biden-Harris COVID-19 plan is so ominous.

Joe Biden and Kamala Harris recently updated their “plan to beat COVID-19.” One passage is worth examining for the dangerous mentality it betrays:

“Social distancing is not a light switch. It is a dial. President-elect Biden will direct the CDC [Centers for Disease Control] to provide specific evidence-based guidance for how to turn the dial up or down relative to the level of risk and degree of viral spread in a community, including when to open or close certain businesses, bars, restaurants, and other spaces; when to open or close schools, and what steps they need to take to make classrooms and facilities safe; appropriate restrictions on size of gatherings; when to issue stay-at-home restrictions.”

The passage brings to mind a warning given to America long ago.

The warning was delivered in 1835 by Alexis de Tocqueville, the famous French observer and admirer of the young republic. In his classic book Democracy in America, de Tocqueville included a chapter called, “What Sort Of Despotism Democratic Nations Have To Fear,” in which he warned the American people of:

“…an immense and tutelary power, which takes upon itself alone to secure their gratifications, and to watch over their fate. That power is absolute, minute, regular, provident, and mild. It would be like the authority of a parent, if, like that authority, its object was to prepare men for manhood; but it seeks on the contrary to keep them in perpetual childhood…”

Does the Biden/Harris “plan to beat COVID-19” represent the kind of despotic power that de Tocqueville warned us about? Let’s see.

Is the power “absolute”? Well not yet, at least, since it refers to CDC “guidance” as opposed to federal mandates. But governors and mayors have proven to be quite deferential to the CDC, so its “guidance” has translated into state and local-level mandates before and likely will again.

Is the power “immense”? Clearly. It covers the opening and closing, not only of restaurants and bars, but of all businesses. Thus, it claims sway over the country’s entire in-person economy and commercial life, regardless of private property and self-ownership.

The plan covers, not only businesses, but all spaces: that is, everything about the coming and going of Americans, again irrespective of individual rights.

The plan also encompasses all gatherings wherever they may occur, thus violating “the right of the people peaceably to assemble,” as enshrined in the First Amendment.

The plan entails “stay-at-home restrictions,” meaning the power to imprison at will Americans in their own homes, violating the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, according to which neither the federal government nor any state is allowed to “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”

So, yes, the plan is very immense, both in its scope and impact.

Is the power “minute”? Yes, the plan expressly distinguishes itself for promising much more “specific” guidance. That is what the “dial” metaphor is all about. Rather than a lockdown “light switch” to turn society off and on, the plan promises to use the CDC as a social distancing “dial” to scientifically fine-tune social proximity on a community-by-community basis.

Not only that, but within each community, it reserves the discretion to open or close certain businesses and spaces. We have already seen such discretion in action throughout the period of lockdowns, as certain political protests and celebrations have been allowed and even encouraged by officials even as they shutter nearby businesses and prohibit private gatherings, including funerals, marriages, parties, concerts, games, festivals, and religious services.

de Tocqueville famously observed that the strength of America rested in its vibrant civil society, consisting of a rich proliferation of non-governmental associations and institutions. That, and not merely “voting,” is what he meant by American democracy. He wrote:

“The political associations that exist in the United States form only a detail in the midst of the immense picture that the sum of associations presents there.

Americans of all ages, all conditions, all minds constantly unite. Not only do they have commercial and industrial associations in which all take part, but they also have a thousand other kinds: religious, moral, grave, futile, very general and very particular, immense and very small; Americans use associations to give fêtes, to found seminaries, to build inns, to raise churches, to distribute books, to send missionaries to the antipodes…”

What we seem to be seeing in the lockdowns is the state using its “minute” and “discretionary” power to cripple all physical manifestations of civil society other than its own.

Is the power “tutelary,” as in denoting the relationship between guardian and dependant?

Incredibly so, although it only accelerates something that has been long underway. The public has been so spooked by the government and media’s alarmist and distorted claims about the disease, that they have offered up a childlike deference to officialdom, abjectly following its lead, even after its “guidance” has often proved to be vacillating and wrong.

As de Tocqueville warned, the state has taken upon itself sole responsibility for our “fate.” And the public has eagerly acquiesced to this government tutelage, abdicating the responsibilities of free adults and letting our “guardians” keep us in “perpetual childhood.”

de Tocqueville wasn’t the only European to warn America of an all-encompassing, kindly despotism “for our own good.” Ludwig von Mises warned of central planners who, in the name of giving us everything we want, would take away everything we have—even everything we are.

As Mises wrote:

“Planning other people’s actions means to prevent them from planning for themselves, means to deprive them of their essentially human quality, means enslaving them.

The great crisis of our civilization is the outcome of this enthusiasm for all-round planning. There have always been people prepared to restrict their fellow citizens’ right and power to choose their own conduct. (…) What is new and characterizes our age is that the advocates of uniformity and conformity are raising their claims on behalf of science.”

Indeed, in its plan to beat COVID-19,” the Biden-Harris team boasts that their administration will “listen to science” and that the CDC’s “dialing” up and down of lockdowns throughout the country will be “evidence-based.”

This deference to “science” is meant to sound humble, but it is used to justify the extreme arrogance of the social engineer. As Mises wrote:

“It is customary nowadays to speak of “social engineering.” Like planning, this term is a synonym for dictatorship and totalitarian tyranny. The idea is to treat human beings in the same way in which the engineer treats the stuff out of which he builds his bridges, roads, and machines. The social engineer’s will is to be substituted for the will of the various people he plans to use for the construction of his Utopia. Mankind is to be divided into two classes: the almighty dictator, on the one hand, and the underlings who are to be reduced to the status of mere pawns in his plans and cogs in his machinery, on the other. If this were feasible, then of course the social engineer would not have to bother about understanding other people’s actions. He would be free to deal with them as technology deals with lumber and iron.”

However, such a grandiose undertaking is not feasible. As Mises and F.A. Hayek demonstrated, society is far too complex to be centrally planned.

Central planners, no matter how informed they are by “the science,” cannot access or process anywhere near the amount of knowledge that would be required to balance all the myriad trade-offs that are relevant to any decision impacting millions upon millions of unique individuals.

This inescapable fact makes no exception for central planners charged with “public health.” To shut down a business, to lock down a community, to isolate a human being, etc., has manifold unintended consequences that ripple like waves in a pond. Central planners cannot anticipate such ramifications, especially because so many of them involve human valuation and choice.

The Biden-Harris “dial” is pitched as an improvement on the “light switch” approach to lockdowns. But it doesn’t matter how many switches, dials, buttons, meters, and gauges that central planners cram onto their “control panel.” It’s all hubris and folly, because human beings are not and can never be cogs in a machine. And the more we let them treat us so, the more human lives will get crushed and torn asunder in the social engineer’s infernal contraptions.

As Mises and Hayek explained, the only way that human beings can navigate the sea of complexity that is life in society, including such multifaceted concerns as public health and pandemics, is through free cooperation among planning individuals (including individual scientific experts who earn the voluntary trust of others). Mises made an important distinction:

“The alternative is not plan or no plan. The question is: whose planning? Should each member of society plan for himself or should the paternal government alone plan for all? The issue is not automatism versus conscious action; it is spontaneous action of each individual versus the exclusive action of the government. It is freedom versus government omnipotence.”

To save our freedom, livelihoods, and long-term health from omnipotent government, we must defy the central planners and social engineers, scoff at their “scientific” switches and dials, and reclaim our responsibilities as a free and courageous people.

Dan Sanchez is the Director of Content at the Foundation for Economic Education (FEE) and the editor-in chief of FEE.org.

This column  from Foundation for Economic Freedom  (FEE) is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved. The opinions expressed may not necessarily reflect the views of The Prickly Pear or of the sponsors.

Lockdowns Haven’t Brought down Covid Mortality. But They Have Killed Millions of Jobs.

During the early onset of covid-19 in the spring, government officials across the political spectrum widely agreed that government intervention and forced closure of many businesses was necessary to protect public health. This approach has clearly failed in the United States as it led to widespread economic devastation, including millions of jobs lost, bankruptcies, and extremely severe losses in profitability. Nor have states with strict lockdowns succeeded in bringing about fewer covid deaths per million than states that were less strict.

Consequently, a few months into the pandemic, some governors weighed the competing economic costs with covid-19 containment and slowly reopened their economies. Of course, these governors did not mandate businesses reopen; however, they provided businesses the option to reopen.

Hysteria ensued as many viewed easing restrictions as akin to mass murder. The Atlantic famously dubbed  Georgia Governor Brian Kemp’s easing of restrictions as “human sacrifice” and referred to Georgians as being in a “case study in pandemic exceptionalism.” Instead, we should view the lockdowns as a case study in the failure of heavy-handed approaches in containing a highly infectious virus.

Now that we are nine months into this pandemic, there is a clearer picture of how state government approaches varied widely. It is clear that “reopened” economies are faring much better overall than less “reopened” economies. “Fueled by broader, faster economic reopenings following the initial coronavirus rash, conservative-leaning red states are by and large far outpacing liberal-leaning blue states in terms of putting people back to work,” writes Carrie Sheffield. This follows logically especially when considering that human beings learn to adapt very quickly. Now, we have learned much more about treating this virus and about who is most at risk from infection.

Not Everyone Can #StayHome

Even so, many proponents of lockdowns still contend that every covid infection is a failure of public policy. But this position is largely a luxury of white-collar workers who can afford to work from home. Lockdowns have been described as “the worst assault on the working class in half a century.” Martin Kulldorff, a biostatistician, says, “the blue-collar class is ‘out there working, including high-risk people in their 60s.” Kulldorff’s colleague Jay Bhattacharya notes that one reason “minority populations have had higher mortality in the U.S. from the epidemic is because they don’t often have the option…to stay at home.” In effect, top-down lockdown policies are “regressive” and reflect a “monomania,” says Dr. Bhattacharya. With this in mind, it is easy to see why more affluent Americans tend to view restrictive measures as the appropriate response.

For many Americans, prolonged periods of time without gainful employment, income, or social interaction are not only impossible but potentially deadly. Martin Kulldorff notes that covid-19 restrictions do not consider broader public health issues and create collateral damage; among the collateral damage is a “worsening incidence of cardiovascular disease and cancer and an alarming decline in immunization.” Dr. Bhattacharya correctly notes that society will be “counting the health harms from these lockdowns for a very long time.”

Mixed Messages

Bhattacharya emphasized the politicization of these restrictions: “When Black Lives Matter protests broke out in the spring, ‘1,300 epidemiologists signed a letter saying that the gatherings were consistent with good public health practice,’” while those same epidemiologists argued that “we should essentially quarantine in place.” Such a contradiction defies logic and undercuts arguments about the lethality of this virus. If this novel virus truly were as devastating to the broader public as advertised, then political leaders supporting mass protests and riots during a pandemic seem to be ill founded. This contradiction has been cited in countless lawsuits challenging the validity and constitutionality of covid-19 restrictions.

Separately, these often heavy-handed restrictions have targeted constitutionally protected rights like the freedom of religion. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito criticized the Nevada governor’s restrictions saying, “that Nevada would discriminate in favor of the powerful gaming industry and its employees may not come as a surprise…We have a duty to defend the Constitution, and even a public health emergency does not absolve us of that responsibility.” This scathing criticism, however, did not gain the support of the Supreme Court as a 5–4 majority deferred to the governor’s “responsibility to protect the public in a pandemic.”

The Worst State and Local Offenders

Such deference may be politically beneficial for the Supreme Court, but it presents a much more significant problem for basic freedoms. For one, many of these covid restrictions have been issued by state governors or administrative agencies rather than through democratic means. Michigan governor Gretchen Whitmer has been targeted for her continued sidestepping of democratic channels and for her top-down approach.

These covid restrictions are somewhat meaningless without ample enforcement and resources, so many major American cities have created task forces for enforcing these covid restrictions. For example, Los Angeles mayor Eric Garcetti has threatened to shut off public utilities for those who host massive house parties. Garcetti wants to treat private gatherings similarly to the bars and nightclubs he has forced closed. Not only is this ridiculous, but it is also authoritarian; there have been few checks on his ability to weaponize public utilities this way. The New York City Sheriff’s Office recently “busted a party of more than 200 people who were flouting coronavirus restrictions.” Their crime? Deputies found around two hundred maskless individuals “dancing, drinking and smoking hookah inside.” In typical government fashion, the owner of the venue was “slapped with five summonses…for violation of emergency orders, unlicensed sale of alcohol and unlicensed warehousing of alcohol.” What would we do without the government?

California governor Gavin Newsom has long been a part of this effort to restrict freedoms under the guise of public health. Governor Newsom and the California Department of Public Health released new “safety” guidelines for all private gatherings during the Thanksgiving holiday. According to Newsweek, “all gatherings must include no more than three households, including hosts and guests, and must be held outdoors, lasting for two hours or less.” Given Newsom’s interventionist tendencies, it is likely that these restrictions will be enforced. How will the government determine how many households are at a Thanksgiving meal and who will enforce the two-hour window? These are questions that journalists should ask.

Meanwhile, the varying levels of economic recovery between red states and blue states demonstrate how top-down policy can be a failure. Strict lockdowns have devastated millions of families’ incomes while failing to bring success in suppressing covid mortality. This failed experiment must be brought to an end.

Mitchell Nemeth is a Risk Management and Compliance professional in Atlanta, Georgia. He holds a Master in the Study of Law from the University of Georgia Law School, and he has a BBA in Finance from the University of Georgia. His work has been featured at the Foundation for Economic Education, RealClearMarkets, Merion West, and Medium.

This column, published 11/12/20, from Mises Wire (at Mises Institute) is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved. The opinions expressed may not necessarily reflect the views of The Prickly Pear or of the sponsors.

VIDEO: Justice Alito Warns LGBT Movement Stifles Speech


CatholicVote posted the following video on YouTube.

©CatholicVote. All rights reserved.
Samuel A. Alito, Jr., Associate Justice
Was born in Trenton, New Jersey, April 1, 1950. He married Martha-Ann Bomgardner in 1985, and has two children – Philip and Laura. He served as a law clerk for Leonard I. Garth of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit from 1976–1977. He was Assistant U.S. Attorney, District of New Jersey, 1977–1981, Assistant to the Solicitor General, U.S. Department of Justice, 1981–1985, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice, 1985–1987, and U.S. Attorney, District of New Jersey, 1987–1990. He was appointed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in 1990. President George W. Bush nominated him as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, and he took his seat January 31, 2006.
ABOUT CATHOLIC VOTE
To inspire every Catholic in America to live out the truths of our faith in public life. We are CatholicVote.

Equal Justice Under Law? Not if You’re Conservative


How far does the Left want to go to cancel opposing viewpoints? Far enough to deprive citizens of their constitutional right to legal representation, apparently. Recently, a $500,000 negative ad campaign has been launched against law firms that are representing President Trump in his claims of voting irregularities and possible fraud in the various swing states.
Dr. John Eastman, Henry Salvatori Professor of Law & Community Service at Chapman University’s Fowler School of Law and Senior Fellow and Director of the Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence at Claremont Institute, joined “Washington Watch” to discuss the Left’s growing intolerance and marginalization of anyone who does not accept the latest, constantly evolving progressive worldview, particularly in the area of legal representation.
“This is not new,” Dr. Eastman said. “The Left has been trying to cancel legal representation for positions they disagree with for near[ly] 20 years.” He pointed to just a few examples of this disturbing trend: “I remember when I tried to file a brief in support of the Boy Scouts way back in 1999 at a fairly conservative-leaning law firm, I was told ‘we’re not allowed to do that.’ And yet there were hundreds of briefs coming in from major law firms on the other side. The same thing went on in the David Daleiden exposé of Planned Parenthood selling baby parts. No major law firm would allow their lawyers to work on his behalf, so he’s got a small little non-profit helping him with scores of lawyers on the other side with some of the most prominent law firms in the country. This is an attempt to deprive people of valid representation.”
What’s truly alarming about trend is that it strikes at the very heart of the rule of law in our free republic by denying people access to justice. “You cannot have a legal system that succumbs to that kind of extortionist tactic,” Dr. Eastman observed. “Because then one side in the fight is not going to get adequate representation, and the results of the litigation are not going to be in pursuit of justice and truth, as we expect the adversarial system to lead to. When you’ve got 100 lawyers at the top firms with all of their resources against two or three lawyers on the other side with little or no resources, it’s just not a fair fight, and yet that’s the playing field they’re trying to establish.”
So how do we push back against this cancel culture that now wants to deny people due process in court? Dr. Eastman suggested that one strategy is to be very selective about the products we buy and the companies we support, because corporations have a huge sway over the legal system due to their financial stake in the top law firms they hire. “If Coca-Cola is pushing this, then we need to go to Pepsi,” he said. “We need to use our power in the market if they are going to use their power in the market to counteract it.”
COLUMN BY

Dan Hart

Managing Editor

Dan Hart is the Managing Editor for Publications at Family Research Council. His writing has appeared in such outlets as National ReviewThe FederalistFirst ThingsThe StreamThe Christian Post, the National Catholic Register, and others. Before joining FRC, he served with the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, where he worked to promote vocations to the clergy and religious life. His previous endeavors included serving as Associate Editor of iPhone Life Magazine and also in conference implementation at the Food and Drug Law Institute. Dan received a B.A. in English from Franciscan University of Steubenville. He enjoys spending time with his wife and two sons, freelance writing about music and culture, reading, golf, and playing guitar.
EDITORS NOTE: This FRC-Action column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Radical ’Heroes Act’ Is a Leftist Wish-List


By FRC’s Ruth Moreno
On November 12, Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) held a joint press conference calling for the passage of the Heroes Act. The Senate, House, and White House have been dealing with this far-left bill for months, but Schumer claims that the results from the 2020 election prove the necessity of passing the Heroes Act as a “starting point” on a new round of coronavirus relief legislation. Yesterday on “Washington Watch,” FRC President Tony Perkins spoke with House minority whip Steve Scalise (R-La.) to discuss the Heroes Act and the Democrats’ latest attempt to push it through Congress.
Though formally titled the “Health and Economic Recovery Omnibus Emergency Solutions Act,” the $2-$3 trillion Heroes Act is much more than a relief package. It bails out mismanaged Democrat-led cities and states on the taxpayer’s dime, making Americans pay for the incompetence and overreach of Democratic leadership.
Worse, the Heroes Act applies “nondiscrimination” provisions which redefine the term “sex” to include “sexual orientation, gender identity, pregnancy, childbirth, and related medical conditions.” In service of the Left’s radical social agenda, this redefinition undermines both pro-life values and broader pro-family values. It also precludes the exemption of religious organizations and private schools from qualifying for the relief the bill provides.
This, as Whip Scalise pointed out, comes in the midst of a time when many public schools are refusing to even teach students in the classroom.
“If somebody is going to take your money but not educate your child safely in person when other school systems are willing to, then parents ought to be able to go to those places that will safely educate their child while taking the money,” Scalise said.
As he observed, the Heroes Act would also release “untold thousands” of criminals from prison. The number of criminals that would be released is truly unknown, because the bill does not explain exactly to whom it would apply.
Also woven into the Heroes Act is the full text of the Safe Banking Act, which grants the marijuana industry direct access to banking services. Under the Controlled Substances Act, this is currently prohibited.
One must wonder, as Tony asked Whip Scalise, what any of this has to do with the coronavirus.
“There are bills that would get huge bipartisan votes that would just renew paycheck protection program loans for small businesses,” Scalise said, adding that “There are millions of families that don’t want to be unemployed and their businesses are about to go under. You could save those jobs. That’s where our focus ought to be.”
Instead, Democrats are pushing partisan legislation under the guise that it’s what the American people want. Despite what Sen. Schumer and Speaker Pelosi may say, the still-disputed 2020 elections were not a “mandate” for the passage of the Heroes Act.
According to exit polls reported by the New York Times, 35 percent of American voters said their top political priority was the economy. Twenty percent of voters said it was racial inequality, followed by the coronavirus pandemic at 17 percent.
Seventeen percent is not a mandate. Americans want coronavirus legislation and relief, but it should not come at the expense of other important issues. And though the presidential race and certain Senate races are still lacking a clear winner, Republicans’ 10-seat gain in the House of Representatives proves that Americans are certainly not onboard with the Democrat’s radical agenda being pushed by Pelosi. Democrats spent enormous sums of money trying to flip House seats blue, but in states like Florida and Texas, the electorate came out in defense of common sense and traditional American values. Adding to this, Republicans will most likely hold on to the Senate, and even picked up gains in state legislatures around the country. When races are examined around the country, at all levels, the voters actually delivered a mandate for a conservative agenda — not the Heroes Act!
The 1,800-page long Heroes Act stands against just about every traditional American value imaginable. In addition to legislating bailouts, freed criminals, marijuana banking, and a complete redefinition of the family, the Heroes Act also includes Planned Parenthood loans, taxpayer-funded abortion, cash for illegal immigrants, and even election-altering provisions (the Heroes Act guts voter ID laws and other state measures which protect the integrity of elections). The bill also includes anti-free speech “hate crimes” provisions.
Indeed, after the 2020 elections, Sen. Schumer and Speaker Pelosi should know better than to force upon Americans something as radical as the Heroes Act.
 EDITORS NOTE: This FRC-Action column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

AUDIT THE ELECTIONS! Joe Biden is not ‘president-elect’ [Video]



Changing vote counts after Election Day raises significant legal and constitutional concerns, and President Trump should use every legal and constitutional remedy to ensure that the American people can trust the results.
Meanwhile, the media, including social media platforms like Twitter and Facebook, are inaccurately labeling Biden as president-elect. No official sources have called the election. Federal law and the Constitution limit official sources to state officials, the Electoral College, and, ultimately, Congress. Thankfully, the Constitution does not give the media the ability to declare the winner of a presidential election.
We have long warned of the chaos and increased risk of fraud from recklessly mailing 100 million ballots and ballot applications. Our most recent research, in September, revealed that 353 U.S. counties had 1.8 million more registered voters than eligible voting-age citizens. In other words, the registration rates of those counties exceeded 100% of eligible voters. The study collected the most recent registration data posted online by the states themselves. This data was then compared to the Census Bureau’s most recent five-year population estimates, gathered by the American Community Survey (ACS) from 2014 through 2018. ACS surveys are sent to 3.5 million addresses each month, and its five-year estimates are considered to be the most reliable estimates outside of the decennial census.
It is not normal for multiple states to be counting presidential votes for days after Election Day. And it raises significant concerns about the validity of post-election counts. Federal law seems clear that the presidential contest is supposed to be decided by Election Day. For example, 3 U.S. Code § 1 states:
The electors of President and Vice President shall be appointed, in each State, on the Tuesday next after the first Monday in November, in every fourth year succeeding every election of a President and Vice President
On Election Day, President Trump had the votes to win the presidency. These vote totals were changed because of unprecedented and extraordinary counting after Election Day.
The state legislatures of Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Arizona have independent constitutional authority to resolve presidential election disputes. And Congress has the ultimate authority to accept or reject electors.
As you know, we are a national leader for cleaner elections.
In 2018 the Supreme Court upheld a voter-roll cleanup program that resulted from our settlement of a federal lawsuit with Ohio. California settled a federal lawsuit with us and last year began the process of removing up to 1.6 million inactive names from Los Angeles County’s voter rolls. Kentucky also began a cleanup of hundreds of thousands of old registrations last year after it entered into a consent decree to end another of our lawsuits.
And in 2020, we sued North CarolinaPennsylvania, and Colorado for failing to clean their voter rolls, and sue Illinois for refusing to disclose voter roll data in violation of federal law.
You can learn more about our election efforts here.
I provide additional details in my latest bookA Republic Under Assault: The Left’s Ongoing Attack on American Freedom.
EDITORS NOTE: This Judicial Watch video is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

‘Never bet against me’: President Trump makes first post-election comments.


Trust Trump.

‘Never bet against me’: Trump makes first post-election comments, lays out path to victory

“It’s probably two weeks, three weeks” to know outcome, President says
By Joseph Cur, Just the News, November 13, 2020 – 12:30pm
That’s what President Trump told Washington Examiner reporter Byron York on Thursday, in his first post-election comments on the state of the 2020 presidential race.
Trump was optimistic, laying out a scenario in which he pulls out wins in key battleground states and gets to the magic number of 270 votes in the Electoral College.
“We’re going to win Wisconsin,” the president said in the exclusive phone interview. “Arizona – it’ll be down to 8,000 votes, and if we can do an audit of the millions of votes, we’ll find 8,000 votes easy. If we can do an audit, we’ll be in good shape there.”
“Georgia, we’re going to win, because now, we’re down to about 10,000, 11,000 votes, and we have hand-counting,” he said, referring to a call by Georgia’s secretary of state do perform a full audit on the election. “Hand-counting is the best. To do a spin of the machine doesn’t mean anything. You pick up 10 votes. But when you hand-count – I think we’re going to win Georgia.”
Trump also presented a rosy view on North Carolina, where he leads by more than 70,000 votes. He predicts a win there unless, he said jokingly, “they happen to find a lot of votes. I said, ‘When are they going to put in the new votes in North Carolina? When are they going to find a batch from Charlotte?’ ”
That leaves Pennsylvania (where Trump trails 60,000 votes) and Michigan (where he’s behind by more than 145,000 votes).
The two big states,” Trump said, adding, “They’re all sort of big.”
Trump then complained about the process in Pennsylvania.
“They wouldn’t let our poll watchers and observers watch or observe,” he said. “That’s a big thing. They should throw those votes out that went through during those periods of time when [Trump observers] weren’t there. We went to court, and the judge ordered [the observers] back, but that was after two days, and millions of votes could have gone through. Millions. And we’re down 50,000,” he said.
The president told York he has contemplated losing. “I’m a guy who realizes – five days ago, I thought, ‘Maybe,’” he said. “But, now I see evidence, and we have hundreds of affidavits,” referring to the testimony included in lawsuits by his campaign.
“When I asked him how quickly he might turn things around,” York wrote, “he said, ‘I don’t know. It’s probably two weeks, three weeks.’”
“He knows the situation. He has heard many people tell him it’s over and time to concede. But at the very least, it is important for his most devoted supporters to see him fighting to stay in office. And he closed with a good-natured warning for everyone who has told him there is no hope: ‘Never bet against me,’” York wrote.

RELATED VIDEO: Will Trump Still Win the Presidency?

RELATED ARTICLES:
Election Data Team to Call 1.25 Million Voters Over Anomalies in 6 Contested States
Georgia DEMOCRAT Senate Candidate Jon Ossoff Quietly Discloses Financial Ties to Pro-Communist Chinese Party Hong Kong Media Company
MORE FRAUD: Dominion Voting Systems Have Functionality to “OVERRIDE” and Process Blank Ballot
Dominion Voting Systems Officer of Strategy and SECURITY Eric Coomer Admitted in 2016 Vendors and Election Officials Have Access to Manipulate the Vote
At the flip of a switch, results can be change on an industrial scale. Why would anyone with such control at his fingertips ever relinquish power?
Pro-Biden “Glitch” Also Suspected in Georgia’s Vote-Counting Software
VILE Antisemite CNN’s Amanpour Likens Trump Era to Kristallnacht
Arizona: Trump Pushes For ‘Audit’ After Another Outlet Calls Race For Biden
More Recent Articles
EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

US Army seizes Dominion servers in Germany, Trump lawyer vows, ‘I’m going to release the Kraken’


The evidence for massive voter fraud continues to pile up, and these two new developments could break the whole thing wide open. The Dominion servers may reveal just how extensive the fraud was — they could be the gamechanger. And Trump lawyer Sidney Powell says it’s “irrefutable” that Trump won in a landslide. The media’s desperate attempts to discredit all claims of fraud, dismissing them with hasty and shoddy rationalizations, and to shut down all discussion of the matter shows how close the Trump team is to exposing the entire massive enterprise. Freedom, and the future of the nation itself, hang in the balance.


“‘I’m Going to Release the Kraken.’ Trump Attorney Declares War on Voter Fraud,” Todd Starnes, November 13, 2020:

This is a must-watch interview between Lou Dobbs and Sidney Powell, a member of the Trump legal team.
The allegations of voter fraud in the presidential election are staggering, folks.
“President Trump won this election in a landslide,” Powell said. “It’s irrefutable.”
There needs to be a massive criminal investigation and it’s going to affect millions of voters, she said.
“I’m going to release the Kraken,” she declared. “It is indeed a very foul mess. It is farther and wider and deeper than we ever thought. But we are going to after it and I am going to expose every one of them.”…

RELATED TWEET:


RELATED ARTICLES:
Trump Supporters Unleash Massive “Call to Action” Against GA Governor, Accuse Him of Running a “Fake Audit”
Detroit contracted poll workers from firm owned by key figure in imprisoned ex-mayor’s corruption case
Georgia DEMOCRAT Senate Candidate Jon Ossoff Quietly Discloses Financial Ties to Pro-Communist Chinese Party Hong Kong Media Company
MORE FRAUD: Dominion Voting Systems Have Functionality to “OVERRIDE” and Process Blank Ballot
Dominion Voting Systems Officer of Strategy and SECURITY Eric Coomer Admitted in 2016 Vendors and Election Officials Have Access to Manipulate the Vote
EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report column is republished with permission. All rights reserved.

Calls for ‘Unity’ Really Calls for Capitulation


Political unity is an ugly, authoritarian idea. No free place has domestic political unity, nor should it aspire to it.
What “unity” really means, of course, is capitulation. America is once again being subjected to the inane brand of pseudo-patriotic sloganeering we saw during President Barack Obama’s tenure.
Now, as then, the media will pretend that the moral fabric of the nation must be mended after Republican rule. It’s pretty transparent. When Democrats win the presidency, we are treated to solemn calls for national restoration and political harmony, and to the expectation that, for the good of the nation, the opposition will embrace decorum and pass legislation they oppose.
When Republicans win elections, grown women put on knitted hats depicting their reproductive organs and stomp around Washington protesting, all to a hero’s welcome.


The left is actively working to undermine the integrity of our elections. Read the plan to stop them now. Learn more now >>


Time magazine, the same publication that helped erode trust in our electoral system with conspiratorial covers of the White House morphing into the Kremlin, now offers a commemorative cover featuring Joe Biden and Kamala Harris with the words, “A time to heal.”
Unlike some of our progressive friends, I don’t believe in enemies lists or censorship, so my healing process is simple: It involves playing whatever small part I can in extinguishing the political fortunes of those who want to weaken the Constitution.
I’m not at all interested in finding accord with those who want to overturn the Hyde Amendment, thereby making late-term abortion a state-funded practice, or with anyone who wants to “reengage” without any genuine preconditions with Holocaust-denying terror regimes such as Iran, or with anyone who wants to further socialize our health care system by adding a “public option.” Like many others, I find disunity quite therapeutic.
I suspect that, in a few weeks, “political polarization” will once again become an existential crisis of American governance. My favorite postelection headline came from the social scientists at Pew Research Center, who informed us that the “2020 election reveals two broad voting coalitions fundamentally at odds.” Two broad coalitions, you say? Fundamentally at odds? What are the chances?
Michelle Obama says we can overcome our divisions, but that Democrats must first remember “that tens of millions of people voted for the status quo, even when it meant supporting lies, hate, chaos, and division.” She suggests that there is “a lot of work to do to reach out to these folks in the years ahead and connect with them on what unites us.”
It’s somewhat difficult to process this level of obnoxious sanctimony. Here is a list of demands you divisive Republicans must embrace for the country to “unite.” Get on with it.
Anyhow, I reject this false choice in the name of patriotic disunity. Not one of those 72 million agents of chaos lied to millions of Americans to strip us of our health care insurance plans. Not one of those voters has attempted to force nuns to buy contraception—or sued them when they refused.
One day, I hope Michelle Obama will stop defending the lies, hate, and division that her husband inflicted on this great nation. Until then, though, we’ll have to agree to disagree.
We do that sort of thing in Washington. The liberal pivot from “resistance” to “unity” is as swift as it is dishonest. After four years of treating every unexceptional conservative policy victory as one of the Seven Seals of the Apocalypse, Washington Post columnists are already dusting off their columns about “obstructionism” and “minority rule.” After years of blanket opposition to Trump, we are being told that Biden has a national “mandate.”
He does not. God willing, Washington is headed for more “gridlock”—a completely healthy, organic reflection of the geographical, ideological, and theological differences of real people in contemporary America.
Congress makes laws, and right now that institution is narrowly divided and unlikely to be able to come together on any of the big-ticket items Biden promised. This is why federalism exists.
Unity is found in comity with your neighbors, in your churches, and schools, in your everyday interactions with your community. Politics is not a place for unity. It is a place for airing grievances. And we’ve got plenty.
COPYRIGHT 2020 CREATORS.COM
COMMENTARY BY

David Harsanyi is a senior writer at National Review and the author of “First Freedom: A Ride through America’s Enduring History With the Gun, From the Revolution to Today.” Twitter: .

RELATED ARTICLES:
No Longer the Democratic Party of JFK
Here’s Who Progressives Want to See in Biden’s Cabinet
Media Didn’t Earn a Vote of Confidence With 2020 Coverage


A Note for our Readers:

Election fraud is already a problem. Soon it could be a crisis. But election fraud is not the only threat to the integrity of our election system.

Progressives are pushing for nine “reforms” that could increase the opportunity for fraud and dissolve the integrity of constitutional elections. To counter these dangerous measures, our friends at The Heritage Foundation are proposing seven measures to protect your right to vote and ensure fair, constitutional elections.
They are offering it to readers of The Daily Signal for free today.
Get the details now when you download your free copy of, “Mandate for Leadership: Ensuring the Integrity of Our Election System.

GET YOUR FREE COPY NOW »


EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Now We Know Why the New York Times Said the Media Declared the Election Winner


If anything has come clear in this strange year, it is that the Left is not stupid, it’s evil. And so, when the New York Times tweeted that it was the media’s job to declare the winner of the presidential election, people laughed at the ignorance of the miseducated millennials who run the propaganda leader’s Facebook page. But instead of laughing, they should have been asking themselves what the Times’ agenda was in publishing such a patently false statement. Now the answer is clear: the Times, along with the rest of the establishment media, is doing everything it can to establish the inevitability of a Biden/Harris presidency before the president’s court challenges reach the Supreme Court, so as to make the Court as hesitant to buck the prevailing winds as it was when it approved of Obamacare.
The Times tweeted on Election Day: “The role of declaring the winner of a presidential election in the U.S. falls to the news media. The broadcast networks and cable news outlets have vowed to be prudent. Here’s how it will work.” After a tidal wave of ridicule from those who couldn’t find the constitutional provision for journalists deciding who won the election, the Times deleted its tweet and posted a weaselly correction: “We’ve deleted an earlier tweet that referred imprecisely to the role of the news media in the U.S. presidential election.”
“Imprecisely.” Yeah, that’s it.
In reality, the Times’ initial tweet was quite precise in revealing still more of the Democrats’ game plan. Millions of people saw it before it was deleted, including the Times’ core constituency—the miseducated and propagandized hard Left that knows no better and was thus primed to accept the media’s verdict on the election. The first tweet was yet another example of how the Left has been oddly transparent about their strategy throughout this election season. One notable example was Nancy Pelosi declaring that Trump would lead at the end of election night but would not win. Another was when articles began appearing that discussed what would happen if the president-elect died before Inauguration Day.
It is clear to any alert observer now that the Times anointed the media with the role of declaring the winner of the presidential election because it knew how this was going work. Biden would win amid strong evidence of massive voter fraud. Trump would challenge the results in court, but that would take a while. In the meantime, the Times and the rest of the establishment media could try to stampede the courts by anointing Biden as “president-elect” and declaring the election over, thereby making Trump’s legal challenges appear like the desperate Hail-Mary pass of an arrogant yet pathetic man who refused to accept when he was defeated, and giving the whole scam enough legitimacy as to bring on even more, by inducing world leaders to offer their congratulations to this spurious “president-elect.” After all, AP and the New York Times and CNN wouldn’t lie to the entire world, would they?
Sure they would. But now the Times has moved on to the next stage of the plan, which is to appear to discredit specific allegations of voter fraud and make any challenge to the vote totals out to be right-wing conspiracy-mongering that must be quashed before it leads to violence by those “right-wing extremists” that the media keeps warning us about while antifa and Black Lives Matter burn down cities.
By the time all this gets to the Supreme Court, everyone, including the nine (for now) justices, will (the Times hopes) be so used to the idea of “president-elect Biden” that it will look like the worst sort of judicial activism (that thing Trump and his supporters are supposed to be against!) to overturn the victory of the candidate that the media insists has won. And if the Supreme Court goes ahead anyway and finds that there was significant voter fraud and that Trump actually did win the election, antifa and Black Lives Matter are poised to burn down more cities, while the Times and its colleagues insist that the Republicans have stolen the election in the courts.
It’s a diabolically clever plan. Yet one principal obstacle that the Times and the rest of the establishment media face today in trying to get away with it is that the 2020 election has been the red pill of all red pills. Millions of Americans are now onto them. They won’t find it so easy to fool the public as it has been for them in the past.
RELATED ARTICLES:
A Biden Presidency and the American Gulag
Muslims in US want Biden to change refugee limits to allow more migrants into the country
Europol’s European Counter Terrorism Centre raids 97 locations in nine countries, detaining people for ‘hate speech’
Sweden: Muslim migrant circumcises nine boys with a soldering gun, gets probation, community service, $6,380 fine
Leftist privilege: Ilhan Omar has paid husband’s political consulting firm nearly $2,800,000
EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

VIDEO: Massive Pro-Trump Convoy headed to Washington, D.C.


MAGA March for Trump will be happening on Saturday, November 14, 2020. There are already convoys of trucks headed to the nations capitol [see video below] to support President Donald J. Trump. Here’s the details:

EVENT DETAILS

WASHINGTON, D.C. | November 14 @ 12:00pm
Democrats are scheming to disenfranchise and nullify Republican votes. It’s up to the American people to stop it.
Along with President Trump, we will NOT back down to ensure the integrity of this election for the good of the nation. This is a coalition/team effort. We need boots on the ground to protect the integrity of the vote.

Their presence is to insure that an audit of every vote is taken before the Electoral College meets in December. The goal is for a free and fair election where only legal votes are counted.
WATCH:


PLEASE CLICK HERE TO SUPPORT PRESIDENT TRUMP AND THE COUNT THE VOTES MOVEMENT!


©All rights reserved.
RELATED TWEET:

VIDEO: Another Pennsylvania USPS Insider Steps Forward with Story of Political Bias


Project Veritas released a new video today of another Brave USPS Insider who says that pro-Trump and pro-Republican mail is being ordered to be discarded while pro-Biden mail is “to be treated as first-class.”
Here are some of the highlights from today’s video:

  • Elkins Park, Pa., USPS whistleblower: “The only political mail that will be delivered from now on will be that of the ‘winner,’ in this case, Joe Biden. Other political mail from other sources and senders would be put into the undeliverable bulk business mail bin.”
  • Elkins Park, Pa., USPS whistleblower: “All political mail for Biden was to be continued to be treated as first-class and delivered the day it was received.”
  • Elkins Park, Pa., USPS whistleblower: “I think that we’re a delivery service and that [playing politics] is not really our place.”
  • Elkins Park, Pa., USPS whistleblower: “The only thing that’s going to prevent a fraudulent election is people having the courage to come forward. I wouldn’t want to say that I had the opportunity to do that and didn’t do it.”
  • Whistleblower says Elkins Park, Pa., USPS Supervisor of Customer Services Walter Lee gave the order to 30 postal workers

You can watch the full video here:

What is going on with the USPS? Since when do they decide what political mail goes out or gets discarded?
This is the third Pennsylvania USPS Insider to blow the whistle on election malfeasance in the last week. There is something going on with USPS and we must get to the bottom of it immediately.
The truth must and will prevail.
RELATED VIDEO: Newsmax video on Georgia recount.

EDITORS NOTE: This Project Veritas investigative report is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Trump Campaign Attorney Points to Dominion Fraud: ‘Communist China Materially Interfered with Our Election’


It all falls into place now.

Trump Campaign Attorney Points to Dominion Fraud: “Communist China Materially Interfered with Our Election – TRUTH”

By Jim Hoft, November 12, 2020:
Prominent Attorney L. Lin Wood, who successfully represented teen Nicholas Sandmann in defamation suits against The Washington Post and CNN, joined the president’s efforts to win back the 2020 election late last week. L. Lin Wood grew concerned after Trump’s apparent historic landslide was nullified by criminal actions the days following the election.
L. Lin Wood has always been outspoken.
On Monday and Tuesday The Gateway Pundit was first to report on election software “glitches” that resulted in votes stolen from President Trump and extra votes given to Joe Biden in numerous swing states.
On Wednesday and Thursday President Trump teased in a tweet that the Dominion systems were used to steal the election.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1326740844427304960?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1326740844427304960%7Ctwgr%5E&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fgellerreport.com%2F2020%2F11%2Ftrump-campaign-attorney-points-to-dominion-fraud-communist-china-materially-interfered-with-our-election.html%2F

Attorney Lin Wood followed up on President Trump’s tweets on Thursday morning pointing to Chinese theft of the US elections using Dominion voting systems.
Lin Wood 1: LOCK THEM UP. Biden, Obama, & Hillary & Bill Clinton, et al.
There will be no more corruption in The White House.

https://twitter.com/LLinWood/status/1326612958072500224?s=20

They have been caught.
Lin Wood 2Soon, no objective, fair-minded person will be able to deny massive fraud perpetrated in planned, coordinated scheme to steal our Presidency.

https://twitter.com/LLinWood/status/1326616350597537802?s=20

CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox News, NY Times, Washington Post, Atlantic, Mother Jones, etc. are co-conspirators.
Lin Wood 3: Goal of groups & individuals who tried to steal our election is to overthrow our Constitution. They think we are Venezuela. They are wrong.

https://twitter.com/LLinWood/status/1326665335555158024?s=20

BE VERY WARY of online disinformation campaign, i.e., videos of staged attacks aimed at inciting Patriots.

Lin Wood 4: The American Dream will NEVER be destroyed by the Chinese Communist Party.

https://twitter.com/LLinWood/status/1326879527260315648?s=20

Our country is at war with Communist China. They attacked us with COVID & DOMINION.
Lin Wood 5:  Stay strong, Patriots. Help is on the way. Communist China will never take our freedoms for us.

https://twitter.com/LLinWood/status/1326888382883123200?s=20

Lin Wood 6: China attacked us with Covid – a biological weapon.

https://twitter.com/LLinWood/status/1326893420921675778?s=20

Covid was excuse to control our lifestyles.
Dominion was Communist voting system used to control our election.
Lin Wood 7: In 2020, Communist China materially interfered with our election. When investigated, that statement will be found to be the TRUTH.

https://twitter.com/LLinWood/status/1326899038445326337?s=20
#FightBack for TRUTH
RELATED ARTICLES:
Listen: Federal Agents Try to Intimidate, Coerce USPS Whistleblower Into Recanting Election Fraud Claim
Look At What These Secretaries of States In Charge of Recounts Are Saying About “Neo Nazi” Trump Supporters
HUGE: Judge Orders Pennsylvania Segregated Ballots Should *NOT* Be Counted
SHOCKING: Nevada Whistleblower Describes Biden Van Vote Factory in Signed Affidavit
Maricopa County Republican Party Chair Resigns after Failing to Attend Pre-Election Voting Ballot Tabulation Machines.
Black Lives Matter Pens Demands Letter To Joe Biden And Kamala Harris: ‘We Want Something For Our Vote’
VIDEO: Michigan Voter Fraud Witness Barry Doherty Describes Wi-Fi Networks, Boxes of Empty Ballots, Networked Voting Machines

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

When ‘Unity’ Means ‘Shut the Hell Up’


On Saturday evening, presidential front-runner Joe Biden—who doesn’t actually become president-elect until vote counts are certified—gave a preliminary victory address.
In that address, he spoke of his mandate to govern: a mandate, he said, that extended to marshalling the “forces of decency … fairness … science … hope.” Which is a pretty vague mandate, as it turns out.
But there was another overarching mandate Biden expressed: a mandate to come together, to unify as Americans. “To make progress, we must stop treating our opponents as our enemy,” Biden said. “We are not enemies. We are Americans.”
All of that is nice. Who wouldn’t like a country in which we could enjoy cultural events together without being lectured about the alleged evils of the country, in which we could attend family events without being castigated as bigots, in which we could disagree and still enjoy one another?


The left is actively working to undermine the integrity of our elections. Read the plan to stop them now. Learn more now >>


Who wouldn’t like an America in which our neighbors no longer see us as cancel-culture targets, in which we no longer have to fear our compatriots rioting and looting over supposed systemic injustices, in which our social interactions are not limited by our voter registration?
But.
Americans are right to have some rather serious trust issues with calls for unity in our polarized time. After all, former President Barack Obama pledged American reunification right up until he began treating tea partyers as unspeakable threats and political opponents as crypto-racists. Everything was hopey and changey right up until the time … it wasn’t.
So, in order to earn our trust, Biden would have to call his own side out for raising the temperature. And he has steadfastly refused to do so.
He hasn’t called out Black Lives Matter for the suggestion that America is systemically racist; he has cheered it on. He hasn’t condemned Antifa; he has deemed it a philosophy rather than a dangerous movement. And he certainly hasn’t said a word about the continuing attacks on Trump supporters.
We will wait in vain for Biden to chide former first lady Michelle Obama for declaring that 70 million Americans “voted for the status quo, even when it meant supporting lies, hate, chaos, and division.” Our bones will likely bleach before Biden tells Hillary Clinton that Trump supporters aren’t deplorables.
No, “unity” in the Biden formulation isn’t a recognition of what we have in common; it’s a demand that we silence ourselves in order to mirror Biden’s priorities.
Unity, you see, can be achieved one of two ways: through recognition of the other, through a determination to understand those who think differently than we do; or through ideological domination. It’s rather obvious which pathway Democrats will choose. After all, social ostracization is one of their most powerful tools. Why disarm now?
Americans can only come together when we share a common philosophy, history, and culture. Democrats have spent years attempting to tear away those commonalities in favor of coalitional interest-group politics.
They’ve declared American philosophy racist from inception; they’ve declared American history a litany of brutalities; they’ve declared American culture bigotry embodied. Now they want unity—the unity of absolute victory.
Ironically, it’s that very desire—the desire for monolithic control—that will be their undoing.
Unless Biden is serious about unity—unless he’s willing to cross the aisle and recognize the humanity of those with whom he disagrees, and to call out those on his own side who won’t—Biden’s term is likely to be contentious, polarizing, and ultimately unsuccessful.
COPYRIGHT 2020 CREATORS.COM
COMMENTARY BY

Ben Shapiro

Ben Shapiro is host of “The Ben Shapiro Show” and editor-in-chief of DailyWire.com. He is The New York Times best-selling author of “Bullies.” He is a graduate of UCLA and Harvard Law School, and lives with his wife and two children in Los Angeles. Twitter: .

RELATED ARTICLE: Media Should Not Have ‘Called’ This Election


A Note for our Readers:

Election fraud is already a problem. Soon it could be a crisis. But election fraud is not the only threat to the integrity of our election system.

Progressives are pushing for nine “reforms” that could increase the opportunity for fraud and dissolve the integrity of constitutional elections. To counter these dangerous measures, our friends at The Heritage Foundation are proposing seven measures to protect your right to vote and ensure fair, constitutional elections.
They are offering it to readers of The Daily Signal for free today.
Get the details now when you download your free copy of, “Mandate for Leadership: Ensuring the Integrity of Our Election System.

GET YOUR FREE COPY NOW »


EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

David Wood Video: YouTube Sides With Jihadis In Free Speech Controversy


YouTube took down two of David Wood’s videos recently because he said that the Quran contains hateful verses. As far as YouTube is concerned, that is “hate speech.”
So here is a new video from David, which he kindly gave me to post at the Jihad Watch channel, explaining the controversy and its implications.
Watch it soon; it might not be up long.

RELATED ARTICLES:
Muslim Brotherhood gleeful at the prospect of a Biden presidency
Spain: Jihad murderer taunts non-Muslims, ‘Allah has chosen us to make you cry some blood’
Germany: Muslim YouTuber with 998,000 subscribers leads ‘Macron the dog’ on leash as crowd screams ‘Allahu akbar’
Germany: 11-year-old Muslim threatens teacher with beheading
London Mayor Sadiq Khan: ‘Being a Muslim ain’t easy. It’s never been harder to be a Muslim than the last four years’
Germany: Muslim migrant tells job center that he would rather fight for jihadis
EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.