Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions


Reported by JOEL B. POLLAK |

Read more at https://www.breitbart.com/2020-election/2020/11/19/9-key-points-from-trump-campaign-press-conference-on-challenges-to-election-results/

Rudy Giuliani (Jacquelyn Martin / Associated Press)

Rudy Giuliani and other lawyers representing President Donald Trump’s campaign outlined their case Thursday that the Nov. 3 presidential election was so deeply flawed in several key states that the results should be overturned in the president’s favor.

Giuliani said there was a pattern to the alleged irregularities in key states that suggested, he said, a “plan from a centralized place” to commit voter fraud in cities controlled by Democrats.

He said widespread adoption of vote-by-mail had allowed Democrats to take big-city corruption practices nationwide. “They picked the places where they could get away with it.”

Here are the key allegations the lawyers presented:

1. Observers were allegedly prevented from watching mail-in ballots being opened. Giuliani said that many mail-in ballots were opened without observers being able to check that they were properly signed, a key protection against fraud. Those votes, he said, were “null and void,” especially where the envelopes had been discarded, making recounts useless.

2. Allegedly unequal application of the law in Democratic counties. In Pennsylvania, whose state supreme court created new, relaxed voting rules before the election, Giuliani alleged that absentee voters in Democratic counties were allowed to “cure” defects in their ballots, while voters in Republican counties, which obeyed the state law as written, were not.

3. Voters allegedly arrived at the polls to discover other people had voted for them. Giuliani said that many provisional ballots cast in Pittsburgh were submitted by people who showed up to vote in person, only to be told that they had voted already. He alleged that Democrats had filled out absentee ballots for other people, hoping they would not show up.

4. Election officials were allegedly told not to look for defects in ballots, and to backdate ballots. Giuliani cited an affidavit from an official who swore she was told not to exclude absentee ballots for defects, and to backdate ballots so they would not appear to have been received after Election Day, to avoid a Supreme Court order to sequester those ballots.

5. Ballots casting votes for Joe Biden and no other candidates were allegedly run several times through machines. Giuliani said that there were 60 witnesses in Michigan who would attest to ballots being “produced” quickly and counted twice or thrice. He said that a minimum of 60,000 ballots, and a maximum of 100,000 ballots, were allegedly affected.

6. Absentee ballots were accepted in Wisconsin without being applied for first. Giuliani noted that Wisconsin state law was stricter regarding absentee ballots than most other states are, yet alleged that 60,000 absentee ballots were counted in the Milwaukee area, and 40,000 in the Madison area, without having been applied for properly by the voters who cast them.

7. There were allegedly “overvotes,” with some precincts allegedly recording more voters than residents, among other problems. Giuliani said there was an unusually large number of overvotes in precincts in Michigan and in Wisconsin, which he alleged was the reason that Republicans on the Wayne County Board of Canvassers had refused to certify the results there this week. He also alleged that there were some out-of-state voters in Georgia, and people who had cast votes twice there.

8. Voting machines and software are allegedly owned by companies with ties to the Venezuelan regime and to left-wing donor George Soros. Sidney Powell argued that U.S. votes were being counted overseas, and that Dominion voting machines and Smartmatic software were controlled by foreign interests, manipulating algorithms to change the results. Powell noted specifically that Smartmatic’s owners included two Venezuelan nationals, whom she alleged had ties to the regime of Hugo Chavez and Nicolas Maduro. The legal team alleged that there were statistical anomalies, such as huge batches of votes for Biden, that could not be explained except as manipulation — which, they alleged, happened in the wee hours of the morning as vote-counting had stalled. (The companies have disputed these allegations vigorously.)

9. The Constitution provides a process for electing a president if the vote is corrupted. Jenna Ellis argued that the media, had usurped the power to declare the winner of the election. She made the point, citing Federalist No. 68, that the constitutional process of selecting a president had procedural safeguards against corruption and foreign influence.
Giuliani said that the campaign believed that enough votes were flawed — more than double the margins between Biden and Trump in key states — that the president had a path to victory.

Giuliani presented evidence in the form of sworn affidavits, citing two and noting that the campaign had many more from private individuals.

He noted that several lawsuits that had been dismissed had been filed by private individuals, not the campaign directly. He said lawsuits might be filed in Arizona, and that the campaign was also examining irregularities in New Mexico and Virginia, though he said he did not think there were enough disputed votes in the latter.

Giuliani also took on the media, arguing that they had provided misleading information and condoned threats against Trump’s legal team.

Joel B. Pollak is Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News and the host of Breitbart News Sunday on Sirius XM Patriot on Sunday evenings from 7 p.m. to 10 p.m. ET (4 p.m. to 7 p.m. PT). His newest e-book is The Trumpian Virtues: The Lessons and Legacy of Donald Trump’s Presidency. His recent book, RED NOVEMBER, tells the story of the 2020 Democratic presidential primary from a conservative perspective. He is a winner of the 2018 Robert Novak Journalism Alumni Fellowship. Follow him on Twitter at @joelpollak.


Reported By  Tim Pearce |  | DailyWire.com

Strap in. You mind is about to be explored. (RichVintage via Getty Images)

A Democratic Party official in California wants to “deprogram” tens of millions of Americans who watch Fox News and get information from other right-wing sources.

David Atkins, a regional director for California Democrats, posted a tweet on Tuesday asking how to “deprogram 75 million people” who watch Fox News and, presumably, voted for President Trump in the 2020 election. He compared the task to what was done in “post-WWII Germany or Japan.”

“No seriously…how *do* you deprogram 75 million people? Where do you start? Fox? Facebook?” Atkins asked. “We have to start thinking in terms of post-WWII Germany or Japan. Or the failures of Reconstruction in the South.”

“This is not your standard partisan policy disagreement. This is a conspiracy theory fueled belligerent death cult against reality & basic decency,” he continued. “The only actual policy debates of note are happening within the [D]em coalition between left and center left.”

As his tweet gained traction on Twitter in the following days, he posted follow-ups attempting to clarify his position.

“I know conservatives are upset by some of the responses here. And yeah, many are out of line,” Atkins said. “But what do you expect people to do in self-preservation? The Right has been running 4 years on ‘f*** your feelings, my conspiracy theories are valid opinions, and we have more guns.’”

“You can’t run on a civil war footing hopped up on conspiracy theories hating everyone who lives in cities, mainlining Fox/Breitbart/QAnon, threatening to kidnap governors and shoot protesters, without people trying to figure out how to reverse the brainwashing,” he continued. “[I] mean, for chrissakes, conservatives are literally giving themselves COVID just to own the libs. They’re dying in COVID wards insisting they don’t have COVID because it must be a liberal plot. People are gonna try to figure out how to defend themselves.”

On Thursday, he posted the latest update to his thread, saying that he was not calling for “re-education camps.” He asserted that right-wing news is “propaganda” that acted as “cult programming.”

“And no, of course I’m not advocating ‘re-education camps’ or anything like that. The point is that conservative infotainment is disinformation propaganda indistinguishable [sic] from cult programming, and social media algorithms enable it,” Atkins said. “And yes, it might be healthy to break the spell of the cult programming by showing COVID wards, the kids in cages and other victims and consequences of the conservative infotainment cult on the local news, the newspapers, social media, etc, so that people see what they have done.”

On Monday, a South Dakota nurse criticized conservative patients who were hospitalized with coronavirus.

As The Daily Wire reports:

CNN hosted a nurse from South Dakota on Monday morning who ripped her conservative patients of the novel coronavirus for allegedly being filled with “anger and hatred” and denying the virus’ existence until their last dying breath.

“They come in, they’re horribly ill, they’re gasping for breath, and, yet, they don’t believe they have COVID?” CNN “New Day” host Alisyn Camerota teed-up registered nurse Jodi Doering.

“They don’t want to believe that COVID is real,” said Doering, claiming that this isn’t coming from “one particular patient, it’s just a culmination of so many people.”


Reported By  Amanda Prestigiacomo |   DailyWire.com

Brad Raffensperger, Georgia Secretary of State speaks onstage during 2020 Martin Luther King, Jr. Commemorative Service at Ebenezer Baptist Church on January 20, 2020 in Atlanta, Georgia. / Paras Griffin/Getty Images

Republican Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger said on Thursday that he believes there is “no doubt” Democrat Joe Biden won the state of Georgia, despite numerous head-turning findings of Trump-breaking ballots in the Peach State post-Election Day.

“Developing next live at 5 on [WSB TV] – [Georgia Secretory of State] tells me the statewide audit results are in and there’s ‘not a thimble full of difference’ between the hand & manual recount,” said investigative reporter Justin Gray on Friday. “He says he has no doubt Joe Biden has won Georgia.”

Asked if there is “any doubt” in his mind that Biden won the state, Raffensperger responded, “No, there’s no doubt. The numbers support that; so does the audit.”

The Trump campaign and leading Republican officials in the state have pushed back on the Georgia audit, questioning why signatures are not being examined, likening the audit to a recount and unhelpful in uncovering apparent fraud.

The Georgia secretary of state said he has not seen any evidence of “major fraud.”

Following the interview, it was reported that Trump Team attorney Lin Wood had his emergency motion denied to delay vote certification in the state.

“A federal judge in Atlanta has denied Trump ally [Lin Wood]’s emergency motion to stop Georgia’s election certification,” reported Gray.

It appears Raffensperger intends to move forward with the certification, which is set for Friday at 5 p.m. In an interview published Wednesday at The Hill, Raffensperger said talks of voter fraud in his state are a play on people’s emotions.

“There’s just people who are really angry and they’re being spun up,” he said. “It’s really the spinners that should be ashamed for playing with people’s emotions. Politicians of both sides should never play with people’s emotions. It’s one thing to motivate people, I get that, but to spin people up and play with their emotions, it’s emotional abuse and they ought to grow up and start acting with integrity.”

“I’m a Republican, I’m a conservative one, and I don’t like the idea that President Trump is not going to win,” Raffensperger continued, responding to criticism from the president that the secretary of state is a “Republican in Name Only,” or a “RINO.” “But at the end of the day, I want every voter to know we’re going to do our job and make sure every legal vote is counted.”

And it’s not just Trump who’s frustrated with Raffensperger; GA GOP Sens. David Perdue and Kelly Loeffler have called for the secretary of state’s resignation.

“The management of Georgia elections has become an embarrassment for our state. Georgians are outraged, and rightly so. We have been clear from the beginning: every legal vote cast should be counted. Any illegal vote must not. And there must be transparency and uniformity in the counting process. This isn’t hard. This isn’t partisan. This is American,” the pair said in a joint-statement.

“While blame certainly lies elsewhere as well, the buck ultimately stops with the Secretary of State. The mismanagement and lack of transparency from the Secretary of State is unacceptable. Honest elections are paramount to the foundations of our democracy,” the senators continued. “The Secretary of State has failed to deliver honest and transparent elections. He has failed the people of Georgia, and he should step down immediately.”


A.F. Branco Cartoon Extended – Payback

The left-wing radicals helped get Joe Biden elected and now they want payback as in administration positions.

Radical left-wing PaybackPolitical cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2020.

A.F. Branco Cartoon – Free Speech Ass-sassin

Democrats are willing to use leftist big tech to kill the free speech of conservative news organizations.

Big Tech Anti-Free SpeechPolitical cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2020.
Donations/Tips accepted and appreciated – $1.00 –  $5.00 –  $25.00 – $50.00 – $100 –  it all helps to fund this website and keep the cartoons coming. Also Venmo @AFBranco – THANK YOU!

A.F. Branco has taken his two greatest passions, (art and politics) and translated them into the cartoons that have been popular all over the country, in various news outlets including “Fox News”, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, and “The Washington Post.” He has been recognized by such personalities as Dinesh D’Souza, James Woods, Sarah Palin, Larry Elder, Lars Larson, Rush Limbaugh, and shared by President Donald Trump.


Reported by MARY MARGARET OLOHAN, SOCIAL ISSUES REPORTER | November 19, 20201:24 PM ET

Read more at https://dailycaller.com/2020/11/19/california-democrat-wwii-japan-deprogram-conservatives-trump-supporters/

A California Democrats regional director suggested Wednesday that President Donald Trump’s supporters should be deprogrammed through post World War II reconstruction tactics.

“No seriously…how *do* you deprogram 75 million people,” California Democrats regional director and Democratic National Convention member David Atkins tweeted Wednesday. “Where do you start? Fox? Facebook? We have to start thinking in terms of post-WWII Germany or Japan. Or the failures of Reconstruction in the South.”

“This is not your standard partisan policy disagreement,” he continued. “This is a conspiracy theory fueled belligerent death cult against reality & basic decency. The only actual policy debates of note are happening within the dem coalition between left and center left.”

The California Democrat director noted that he saw that some conservatives were “upset by some of the responses here.” (RELATED: ‘We Have A List’: Pundits And Democrats Plan To Hold Trump Supporters Accountable)

 

“And yeah, many are out of line,” he tweeted. “But what do you expect people to do in self-preservation? The Right has been running 4 years on ‘f__k your feelings, my conspiracy theories are valid opinions, and we have more guns.’”

Atkins said that conservatives are giving themselves the coronavirus “just to own the libs” and “dying in COVID wards insisting they don’t have COVID because it must be a liberal plot.”

“You can’t run on a civil war footing hopped up on conspiracy theories hating everyone who lives in cities, mainlining Fox/Breitbart/QAnon, threatening to kidnap governors and shoot protesters, without people trying to figure out how to reverse the brainwashing,” he added.

Atkins did not immediately respond to a request for comment from the Daily Caller News Foundation. (RELATED: Liberal Media Suggests Biden Should Take Aggressive Approach To Censoring Conservative Media)

His comments come as media figures and Democrats call for lists to be made of Trump’s supporters, suggesting that these lists will be used in the future to hold the president’s supporters accountable. Liberal media figures are also pushing President-elect Biden to take aggressive approaches to censoring conservative media, particularly Fox News.

“There is no question that Democrats are gearing up to use their new power to apply far more pressure than ever on Facebook, Google, Twitter, etc. to censor any views they deem ‘threatening,’” journalist Glenn Greenwald tweeted Monday, referencing comments made by former President Barack Obama about controlling the internet with “a combination of government regulations and corporate practices.”

“Please look at what is going here,” Greenwald continued. “Democrats are defining whoever opposes them not as adversaries but as national security threats, fascist terrorists, etc. — all to justify blocking them from the internet using their influence with Silicon Valley.”


Commentary by Ann Coulter Ann Coulter | Posted: Nov 18, 2020 4:00 PM

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Townhall.com.
Gee, Why Can't Trump Accept Defeat Like the Democrats?

Source: AP Photo/Harvey Georges

Trending

In 1980, Democratic President Jimmy Carter lost in a landslide to Ronald Reagan, 489-49 in the Electoral College. So naturally, Democrats concluded that Reagan had committed treason in order to steal the election, to wit: His campaign had conspired with Iranian ayatollahs to prevent 52 American hostages from being released until after the election.

And who can blame them? Carter’s economic policies had produced a 21% interest rate, a 17% mortgage rate and a 15% inflation rate in the coveted “hat trick” of presidential incompetence. His brilliant strategic ploy of abandoning the Shah of Iran had led to a 154% spike in oil prices and Islamic lunatics seizing our embassy and holding Americans hostage in Tehran, where they remained for 444 days, until Carter was safely removed from office.

With all that going for them — plus that old Mondale magic –Democrats were dumbstruck that they lost the 1980 election. What other than a dirty trick could explain it?

The Democrats’ theory was that a month before the election, members of Reagan’s campaign had clandestinely met with representatives of the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini in Paris and offered to sell him weapons in exchange for a promise not to release the hostages, thus denying Carter a huge election eve triumph.

In other words, liberals believed the Islamo-fascist cutthroats who had been toying with Carter like a cat with a ball of yarn wanted Carter replaced by someone stronger, like Reagan. How else to explain the fact that, minutes after Reagan’s inauguration, the hostages were released?

A more plausible theory was given in a Jeff MacNelly cartoon showing Khomeini reading a telegram aloud: “It’s from Ronald Reagan. It must be about one of the Americans in the Den of Spies, but I don’t recognize the name. It says ‘Remember Hiroshima.'”

The lunatics behind the “October Surprise” conspiracy theory might have spent their days in obscurity, talking to super-computers of the future — as one theorist claimed she did — except that, after a decade of periodic eruptions in disreputable publications like The New York Times (Flora Lewis, August 1987), The Nation (Christopher Hitchens, July 1987), and Playboy magazine (September 1988), the Times began flogging the story in 1991, beginning with a lengthy op-ed by Columbia University professor Gary Sick.

Sick had been President Carter’s principal aide on Iran during the hostage crisis, which would be like being FDR’s chief adviser on “sneak attacks” in December 1941. Columbia hired Sick as a professor, apparently unable to find Carter’s aide in charge of gas prices.

Soon, other news outlets such as PBS’s “Frontline” and ABC’s “Nightline” began treating crazies howling at the moon as if they were serious intel sources. Carter himself called for a “blue-ribbon” commission to investigate, saying, “it’s almost nauseating to think that this could be true.” (Which is ironic because that was my reaction, word for word, upon learning that Carter had been elected president.)

The theory that Reagan had arranged to keep our hostages in captivity until after the election was originally hatched by Lyndon LaRouche, the second-most ridiculous person named “Lyndon” to ever run for president.

One of the key American “witnesses” to the conspiracy — and Hitchens’ main source — was paranormal expert Barbara Honegger, who said she heard voices from the future and that satellites were directed to part the clouds during Reagan’s inauguration so that the sun would shine only on him. Years later, Honegger promoted the theory that clocks stopped at the Pentagon at 9:32 a.m. on 9/11, proving that the plane could not have hit at 9:37.

So she was a credible source.

Another major player was fake CIA agent Richard Brenneke, who was about to be fired from his lucrative job with a left-wing think tank for failing to substantiate a different conspiracy theory: that Vice President Bush was running an Israeli-backed drugs-for-arms operation in Central America. To stave off his firing, Brenneke suddenly remembered that not only had he heard of the October Surprise, he had been there! A LaRouchite confirmed that he had seen Brenneke at the meeting — something Brenneke himself had not remembered until that very moment.

One by one, each of the Reagan campaign aides allegedly at the imaginary Paris meeting had their precise locations proved for nearly every minute of the crucial dates of Oct. 17-19, when the sources claimed the secret meeting had taken place.

Then it turned out Brenneke wasn’t at the nonexistent meeting, either. Signed credit card receipts proved he was at a Star Trek convention in Seattle on Oct. 17-19. Just kidding! It was a martial-arts tournament.

These were among the nuts behind the “October surprise” fable pushed by the major media and the Democratic Party for more than a decade after Reagan’s trouncing of Carter in 1980. Democratic-led congressional committees spent millions of dollars investigating the nutzo conspiracy theory, eventually concluding there was nothing to it, which I could have told them for say, $300,000.

At the conclusion of the House’s investigation, Rep. Lee Hamilton, the House Democrat who had chaired the October Surprise Task Force, wrote an op-ed in The New York Times, saying: “The task force report concluded there was virtually no credible evidence to support the accusations.”

On the same day, the Times published a rebuttal op-ed by Gary Sick.

And that, kids, is how you concede a presidential election with grace and dignity.


A.F. Branco Cartoon – Resist We Much

We all thought the Democrats meant time to heal when they really meant time it’s time for you to heel.

Democrat’s Enemies ListPolitical cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2020.

Science As God: Tech Hearing And COVID Show Us Exactly Where Censorship Is Headed

In all the back and forth of Tuesday’s Big Tech hearing, Democratic Sen. Chris Coons’ exchange with Twitter’s Jack Dorsey stood out most starkly, offering a window into the next step of the left’s long-championed Big Tech censorship of scientific dissent from liberal orthodoxy.

“You do, Mr. Dorsey, have policies against deep fakes or manipulated media, against Covid-19 misinformation, against things that violate civic integrity,” the Delaware senator began, “but you don’t have a standalone climate change misinformation policy. Why not?”

Our policies are living documents,”Dorsey replied. “They will evolve, we will add to them, but we thought it important we focus our energies and prioritize the work as much as we could.” And then:

Well, Mr. Dorsey… I cannot think of a greater harm than climate change, which is transforming literally our planet and causing harm to our entire world. I think we’re experiencing significant harm as we speak. I recognize the pandemic and misinformation about Covid-19 manipulated media also cause harm but I’d urge you to reconsider that because helping to disseminate climate denialism in my view further facilitates and accelerates one of the greatest existential threats to our world.

This has been ongoing for years in corporate media. In 2019, Chuck Todd pompously announced his show would no longer “give time to climate deniers.” Two years before that, when The New York Times’ Bret Stephens used his debut column to call out “The Climate of Complete Certainty” that seeks to shut down completely reasonable dissent, the paper faced vicious backlash labeling Stephens a “climate denier.” For more than a decade before this, more of the same — often trickling up, from activists to the reporters who sympathize to the powers that can truly silence voices.

Four years ago, reporters demanded then-President Barack censor fake news, pushing Press Secretary Josh Earnest into the awkward position of having to remind apparent journalists of the First Amendment four times. The targets that day were the Bat Boy-like farces they blamed for Her 2016 loss, but it was already obvious the definition of “fake news” would rapidly expand. Once President Donald Trump assumed office, corporate media and allied politicians bypassed the White House and turned to Silicon Valley, which fell in line quickly enough.

COVID-19 provided the first preview of the new alliance, where even doctors and scientists were censored for carefully — we once said “scientifically” — questioning the alarmists’ narrative of the day. At the same time, Democrats, corporate media, and even corrupt, foreign bodies like the World Health Organization have been permitted to push whatever information supports that day’s goal post.

Completely rational appeals are met with absurdities like “the science is decided,” as if constantly evolving experimentation in search of knowledge can be bottled into some oracle-like decree to support the mob’s latest demand. Rather than decided science, these decrees are mere hypotheses susceptible to support and opposition, but through the alliance of Democrats, corporate media, and Silicon Valley, they become unquestionable edicts ranging from No Business to Eternal Mask-Wearing to No Family For Thanksgiving.

Coons’s comments are a good reminder that what is COVID today is climate tomorrow. Indeed, COVID policy has offered Americans a perfect preview of what will happen if climate alarmists get their way: Science not as method, but as god. And not the strong and mysterious God of the Jewish and Christian faiths, but a shifting one, whose every dictum and desire is whispered to the kings and enforced at their whims.

Do you have a problem with that? You can take it up with The Science. And The Science is decided.

Christopher Bedford is a senior editor at The Federalist, the vice chairman of Young Americans for Freedom, a board member at the National Journalism Center, and the author of The Art of the Donald. Follow him on Twitter.

Reported by Willis L. Krumholz  18, 2020

Americans Voted To End War In Syria, But This Unelected Bureaucrat Lied To Overrule Them

Defense One, a subsidiary of The Atlantic, came out with a story last week about a man named Jim Jeffrey. If you haven’t heard of him, don’t feel bad, but he’s pretty important in Washington, D.C. Under his fancy title, he’s been appointed to oversee the U.S. fight against ISIS and what are supposed to be the limited operations of the American troops who still remain in Syria.

Jeffrey is now also a hero in D.C., because in the interview with Defense One he bragged about how he misled President Donald Trump and other top White House officials about the real number of U.S. troops in Syria. “We were always playing shell games to not make clear to our leadership how many troops we had there,” Jeffrey told the Defense One reporter.

The Establishment Wants War in Syria

To say that the D.C. foreign policy establishment wants a U.S. ground presence in Syria is an understatement. During the Obama administration, partisan former Central Intelligence Agency Director John Brennan spent $1 billion from taxpayers per year trying to arm “moderate” rebels in Syria. What Brennan got was loads of American weapons in the hands of jihadists, including ISIS affiliates. In one example, a particular program trained 15,000 rebels in Jordan and returned them to Syria. Only “four or five” recruits out of the 15,000 turned up to fight. The rest either joined jihadist forces, including ISIS, or sold their American weapons to these forces.

The futility of regime change efforts didn’t deter official Washington, however. Western media raved about “the white helmets.” They also glossed over the fact that there were few moderate rebels and that many of America’s preferred rebels to take on the dictatorship of Bashar al-Assad were guilty of unspeakable brutalities.

Meanwhile, a civil war pitting Muslim Sunnis against Shias — which was partly fueled by American money and weapons and certainly fueled by weapons and money from Gulf Sunni states, including Saudi Arabia — caused a humanitarian crisis. Millions of refugees flooded Europe. Into this chaos and power vacuum stepped ISIS, which at its pinnacle had amassed a huge amount of territory in Iraq and Syria.

On the campaign trail in 2016, Trump repeatedly promised to destroy ISIS and then get U.S. troops out of Syria. This was a large difference between Trump and his Republican primary opponents and then later Hillary Clinton, who argued that U.S. involvement in Syria should not be limited to destroying the Islamic State and that the United States should topple Assad.

Trump’s view was that if Assad was toppled, the power vacuum would be greater, and the jihadist problem would worsen. He also argued that such a move was not in America’s interest, had no clear exit strategy, and would cause an even greater humanitarian disaster, including thousands of dead American troops.

As president, Trump routinely called Syria a place of “sand and death.” Multiple times he attempted to pull the United States out of Syria, only to be met with Assad allegedly striking civilians and official Washington clamoring for a response. Finally, in December 2018, Trump gave a withdrawal order. This led to the resignation (or firing) of Defense Secretary Jim Mattis, along with Brett McGurk, the former special envoy for Syria. Trump repeated that order in October 2019.

Jeffrey called Trump’s decision to fulfill his campaign promise and remove U.S. troops from Syria “the most controversial thing in my fifty years in government.” Each time Trump gave the withdrawal order, according to Jeffrey, Trump was “convinced to leave a residual force in Syria and the fight continued.” In reality, officials kept troops behind far above the “residual force,” unbeknownst to the president.

“What Syria withdrawal? There was never a Syria withdrawal,” Jeffrey bragged. “When the situation in northeast Syria had been fairly stable after we defeated ISIS, [Trump] was inclined to pull out. In each case, we then decided to come up with five better arguments for why we needed to stay. And we succeeded both times. That’s the story.”

Officially, America has 200 to 400 troops on the ground in northeast Syria, ostensibly to guard the oil fields in that area held by U.S. Kurdish allies. Anonymous officials say the number is more like 900 today, however, and Jeffrey told Defense One that the number of troops in Syria is “a lot more than” the roughly 200 troops that Trump agreed to leave behind there in October 2019.

Defense One concluded its story by noting that Jeffrey didn’t support Trump but agrees with Trump’s “realpolitik” Middle East foreign policy and efforts to make North Atlantic Treaty Organization members pay more for defense. Jeffrey also said he views Joe Biden favorably. In fact, after signing a letter in 2016 that said Trump was unfit for the presidency, it appears as if Jeffrey still opposes Trump: “I know what I did in 2016, I do not disagree with that,” Jeffrey said.

While Defense One quoted colleagues who said Jeffrey is a “consummate apolitical public servant,” many others were upset by Jeffrey’s admissions. Republican Rep. Jim Banks of Indiana, a member of the House Armed Services Committee, is furious and called for Jeffrey to be “punished.”

Who Has the Power in America?

People in Middle America should be enraged by Jeffrey’s interview. Washington, D.C., should be terrified that the American people might realize people like Jeffrey are only the tip of the iceberg. Jeffrey might be completely right about his view of the world and probably thinks he was doing the right thing, but that doesn’t matter. It doesn’t make Jeffrey’s behavior any less abhorrent.

People didn’t elect Jeffrey to anything. They elected Trump in 2016, and one factor in a bunch of working-class Americans opting for Trump was his promise not to start a new war in the Middle East. A large majority of Americans don’t want U.S. ground troops in Syria. Even a large chunk of Democrats who abhor Trump technically agree with his Syria policy. Labeling Jeffrey a “public servant” is a sick joke. Jeffrey is serving himself, or at least serving his ideology — and he does have an ideology.

Yes, it was Trump’s fault he hired people like John Bolton, a neoconservative ideologue who thought it was his job to stop Trump from following through with his campaign promises. Yet Trump isn’t ideological, and he often filled positions based on the recommendations of those around him, many of whom were card-carrying members of the Republican establishment.

Either way, Trump took a lot of heat for his order to pull troops out of Syria. Mattis resigned, and Democrats, media outlets, and Republicans such as Liz Cheney attacked Trump. Detractors hurled constant accusations that Trump wanting to get U.S. troops out of Syria was yet further proof he was a stooge of Russian President Vladimir Putin. Trump’s differences on foreign policy compared to the D.C. establishment, including over Syria policy, was even a significant factor in the FBI’s decision to legitimize baseless conspiracy theories that Trump was an agent of Russia.

Let’s step back for a second. Millions of working-class Americans, who also voted for Barack Obama, voted for Trump in 2016 because they wanted a change to policy. Now assume Trump is gone, and, truthfully, not much has changed on a fundamental level for many of these working-class citizens. What will happen when a large chunk of the American people realize their votes don’t affect policy?

Trump was considered norm-breaking and obnoxious to these D.C. insiders. Have these insiders not considered that the same people who sent Trump to the White House to shake things up might eventually opt for someone even more norm-breaking than Trump?

Willis L. Krumholz holds a JD and MBA degree from the University of St. Thomas. The views expressed are those of the author only. You can follow Willis on Twitter @WillKrumholz.

Reported by John Daniel Davidson  18, 2020

In Nevada, A Corrupt Cash-For-Votes Scheme Is Hiding In Plain Sight

It should surprise no one that Nevada has problems with election security and voter fraud, especially after the state mailed an absentee ballot to every registered voter this year whether he requested one or not, then received back more than eight times as many mail-in ballots as they did in 2016. That’s part of the reason Republicans in Nevada filed another lawsuit on Tuesday alleging widespread voter fraud and irregularities.

The mass mailing of unsolicited ballots is of course a recipe for fraud, even more so in a state where the voter rolls contain tens of thousands of people who haven’t voted or updated their records in more than a decade. This is how you get dead people voting, as we reported here at The Federalist and as Tucker Carlson noted last week.

But there’s another, less sensational but perhaps more consequential election scandal in Nevada that hasn’t yet made headlines, even though it’s been hiding in plain sight for weeks now. Under the guise of supposedly nonprofit, nonpartisan get-out-the-vote campaigns, Native American voter advocacy groups in Nevada handed out gift cards, electronics, clothing, and other items to voters in tribal areas, in many cases documenting the exchange of ballots for prizes on their own Facebook pages, sometimes even while wearing official Joe Biden campaign gear.

Simply put, this is illegal. Offering voters anything of value in exchange for their vote is a violation of federal election law, and in some cases punishable by up to two years in prison and as much as $10,000 in fines. That includes raffles, free food, free T-shirts, and so on.

The GOTV Effort In Nevada Was Blatantly Criminal

Yet the Nevada Native Vote Project’s Facebook page contains post after post of voters receiving something of value in exchange for proof they cast a vote or handed over an absentee ballot. In one post, two men display $25 Visa gift cards they received after dropping off absentee ballots, presumably to someone who works for the Nevada Native Vote Project.

In another Facebook post, a spokeswoman for the Reno-Sparks Indian Colony, Bethany Sam, appears on video inside a polling place offering T-shirts, stickers, jewelry, and thousands of dollars in gift cards to voters. Some of these items appear to be part of a raffle, which Sam says voters can enter in person or by emailing or texting a picture of their absentee ballot, while other items are offered to anyone who shows up in person and votes.

Sam appears in another video wearing a Biden-Harris campaign mask with the Biden campaign bus behind her, talking about how important Native votes are to “swing” Washoe County (Biden won the county, which includes Reno, by less than 12,000 votes). In another video, she tells viewers about “Biden swag” available at a GOTV event, along with free Biden cookies. All these videos appear on the official Facebook page of the Reno-Sparks Indian Colony. (I called Sam to ask about this, and about the illegal raffles, but she never called me back.)

Raffling off gift cards—the equivalent of a cash giveaway—appears to have been widespread among Native American communities in Nevada. The Nevada Native Vote Project’s Facebook page lists dozens of gift card winners by name, all of them rewarded simply for their vote, as well as advertisements for the raffles and information on how to enter.

In addition to the Reno-Sparks Indian Colony, other Native groups throughout Nevada—Elko Indian ColonyWalker River Paiute TribePyramid Lake Paiute TribeMoapa Band of Paiute—hosted voter raffles of some sort, all of them sponsored by the Nevada Native Vote Project.

Others, like the Las Vegas Tribal Community, simply gave away “free stuff” to voters.

Following The (Taxpayer) Money

All of this raises some fairly obvious questions. Where did all these gift cards and prizes come from? Who paid for them? How much “free stuff” was given away? Who’s really behind this so-called GOTV effort?

The Nevada Native Vote Project is a nonprofit group, and its voter advocacy is supposed to be nonpartisan and politically unbiased. Yet the group’s Facebook page includes a post from a group called Native Organizers Alliance about the importance of voting, “because we live in places of political upheaval where the rightwing operates quite openly.” The post includes a political map of Nevada and Wisconsin, with arrows pointing to blue, Democrat-voting areas that say, “Natives live here.”

Funding for the Nevada Native Vote Projects appears to come from an umbrella group called Native Vote that’s an initiative of the National Congress of American Indians, or NCAI. The connections between such groups are not always obvious, but the logos on the T-shirts the Nevada Native Vote Project was handing out at polling places is the same logo on the Native Vote website (see screenshots below).

So where does NCAI get its funding? From a lot of places, including Native tribal groups, charitable foundations, and major corporations. It also gets millions in funding from the federal government. More than a half-dozen government “partners” are listed on NCAI’s supporters page, including the Department of the Interior, Department of Agriculture, the Small Business Administration, and the Environmental Protection Agency, among others. In 2018, these federal agencies provided a total of more than $3 million to NCAI, according to the group’s own disclosures.

It’s unclear whether taxpayer dollars went directly into Native Vote’s GOTV efforts or to purchase gift cards and other “prizes” for Native American voters, but the NCAI logo does appear on Facebook posts advertising illegal Election Day cash raffles in Nevada.

What’s clear, however, is that the GOTV efforts of Native Vote aren’t nonpartisan. Native Vote and NCAI have partnered in the past with a Native advocacy group called Four Directions, jointly producing a voter guide in 2012 and last year partnering with Four Directions to co-host a presidential forum focused on Native American issues.

This year, back in January, Four Directions co-hosted a presidential forum in Las Vegas with Nevada Tribal Nations. The “donate” page for that forum, and indeed for Four Directions’ own website, goes through ActBlue, an online giving platform that funneled nearly $1.6 billion to Democratic candidates in the 2018 midterms and has since become a powerful fundraising tool for Democratic campaigns and progressive organizations like Black Lives Matter.

This Is Widespread, And Corporate Media Won’t Report It

There are about 60,000 eligible Native American voters in Nevada who make up about 3 percent of the state’s total voting population. That’s almost twice the current margin of Biden’s current lead over President Trump in Nevada. So the Native American vote really does matter, it could even be decisive. It therefore matters how many Native American votes were influenced by an illegal cash-for-votes scheme, especially if funding for it came from American taxpayers via the NCAI.

It also matters because this didn’t just happen in Nevada. Organizers there might have been more obvious about what they were doing, but there’s evidence that similar efforts, including gift card and electronics giveaways, were undertaken in Native communities in South DakotaArizonaWisconsinWashingtonMichiganIdahoMinnesota, and Texas.

All of this coordinated illegal activity, clearly designed to churn out votes for Biden and Democrats in tribal areas all across the country, is completely out in the open. You don’t need special access or some secret source to find out about it. You just have be curious, look around, and report it.

Unfortunately, mainstream media outlets are not curious and refuse to report on any of this stuff. What’s described above is an egregious and totally transparent vote-buying scheme in Nevada that was likely undertaken on a similar scale across nearly a dozen other states, but you won’t read about it in The New York Times, or hear about it on CNN.

That’s not because the story is unimportant, but because, for the media establishment, it’s inconvenient. No wonder these groups didn’t try to hide what they were doing.

John is the Political Editor at The Federalist. Follow him on Twitter.
Photo Facebook

The secretary of the Army and President Donald Trump declared Tuesday that the annual Wreaths Across America event at Arlington National Cemetery will go on as scheduled next month, following backlash after the cemetery’s leadership cancelled the 2020 ceremony over COVID-19 concerns.

On Monday, Arlington National Cemetery announced that resting place for many of America’s honored fallen would not participate in the nationwide Wreaths Across America event slated on Dec. 19, voicing concerns over the coronavirus pandemic while citing the high volume of volunteers and visitors that descend upon the grounds. The notice was met overwhelmingly with disappointment and anger on social media, and several GOP lawmakers called for the decision to be reversed.

Former Navy SEAL officer Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-Texas) tweeted, “This decision to cancel #wreathsacrossamerica must be reversed immediately. Critical thinking must win out over emotion. Large areas, outside and well spaced, with masks on, is perfectly safe. Our fallen deserve to be remembered.”

Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), a former Army officer, wrote, “I encourage Army leaders to reconsider this decision. Thousands of people have marched in DC streets the past couple weekends for Joe Biden and Donald Trump. Surely volunteers can responsibly place wreaths on the graves of our fallen heroes at Arlington.”

On Tuesday afternoon, Secretary of the Army Ryan McCarthy announced, “I have directed Arlington National Cemetery to safely host Wreaths Across America. We appreciate the families and visitors who take time to honor and remember those who are laid to rest at our nation’s most hallowed ground.”

President Trump said the order came directly from him, declaring on Twitter, “I have reversed the ridiculous decision to cancel Wreaths Across America at Arlington National Cemetery. It will now go on!”

What is Wreaths Across America?

As The Blaze previously reported:

Wreaths Across America is a nationwide event held at cemeteries across the country, involving the laying of wreaths at the graves of America’s fallen heroes each December. Its stated mission is to “remember our fallen U.S. veterans, honor those who serve,” and “teach your children the value of freedom.”

The Wreaths Across America organization expressed its disappointment in Arlington’s decision, issuing a statement saying, “As an organization, we are shocked by this unexpected turn of events. To say we are devastated, would be an understatement.” The group noted that the event will still move forward at more than 2,400 other participating cemeteries across the U.S.


Acting Secretary of Defense Christopher Miller confirmed Tuesday that the Pentagon will further reduce the number of U.S. service members in Iraq and Afghanistan at the direction of President Donald Trump, with a deadline that lands just days before Inauguration Day.

Fox News reported that, according to Miller, “U.S. forces will be cut by roughly half in Afghanistan to 2,500, and by 500 troops in Iraq to 2,500” by Jan. 15, 2021.

While the presidential race remains contested through several lawsuits filed by the Trump campaign, mainstream media outlets have roundly called the election for former Vice President Joe Biden. Regardless of who ultimately wins the White House, Inauguration Day is slated for Jan 20.

“This decision by the president is based on continuous engagement with his national security cabinet over the past several months, including ongoing discussions with me and my colleagues across the United States government,” Miller said during a briefing from the Pentagon.

“I have also spoken with our military commanders and we all will execute this repositioning in a way that protects our fighting men and women, our partners in the intelligence community and diplomatic corps, and our superb allies that are critical to rebuilding Afghan and Iraqi security capabilities and civil society for a lasting peace in troubled lands,” Miller said.

The announcement comes just days after Trump fired Miller’s predecessor, former Department of Defense Secretary Mark Esper. According to the Washington Post, Esper sent a classified letter to the White House prior to his termination, warning that “conditions on the ground were not yet right” for a full withdrawal from Afghanistan, “citing the ongoing violence, possible dangers to the remaining troops in the event of a rapid pullout, potential damage to alliances and apprehension about undercutting the negotiations.”

Trump vowed to bring troops home

President Trump has vowed to bring American troops home from Afghanistan and Iraq since he first took office. Yet, NBC News noted that “the move still stops short of Trump’s pledge to end America’s longest war. Just last month, the president tweeted that he wanted to pull out all remaining troops in Afghanistan by Christmas.”

The timing of Trump’s additional drawdown has been met with mixed reactions on Capitol Hill, even from the president’s own party.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) warned Monday about a “premature American exit” from Afghanistan amid rumors of plans for a reduction of troops, while Kentucky’s junior Sen. Rand Paul tweeted, “What brings Big Government Republicans and Democrats together? Support for Endless War. After 19 years in Afghanistan, it’s high time to bring our troops home!”


A.F. Branco Cartoon – Democracy Dies in Darkness

Accounts of Dominion voter anomalies and fraud that benefit Joe Biden coming in around the country.

Dominion Voter FraudPolitical cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2020.
Donations/Tips accepted and appreciated – $1.00 –  $5.00 –  $25.00 – $50.00 – $100 –  it all helps to fund this website and keep the cartoons coming. Also Venmo @AFBranco – THANK YOU!

A.F. Branco has taken his two greatest passions, (art and politics) and translated them into the cartoons that have been popular all over the country, in various news outlets including “Fox News”, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, and “The Washington Post.” He has been recognized by such personalities as Dinesh D’Souza, James Woods, Sarah Palin, Larry Elder, Lars Larson, Rush Limbaugh, and shared by President Donald Trump.


Reported by JOSHUA CAPLAN | 

Read more at https://www.breitbart.com/2020-election/2020/11/17/california-2-charged-with-voter-fraud-allegedly-submitted-thousands-of-applications-on-behalf-of-homeless/

Encampment of homeless (Apu Gomes / AFP / Getty)

NBC 4 reports:

Carlos Antonio De Bourbon Montenegro, 53, and Marcos Raul Arevalo, 34, were charged in a 41-count criminal complaint filed last week. The pair faces one count of conspiracy to commit voter fraud, eight counts of voter fraud, four counts of procuring and offering a false or forged instrument and four misdemeanor counts of interference with a prompt transfer of a completed affidavit, according to the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office. Montenegro is also facing an additional 10 counts of voter fraud, seven counts of procuring and offering a false or forged instrument, two counts of perjury and five misdemeanor counts of interference with a prompt transfer of a completed affidavit.

Montenegro submitted over 8,000 fraudulent voter registration applications between July and October of this year, according to the district attorney’s office. Additionally, Montenegro allegedly falsified, “names, addresses and signatures on nomination papers under penalty of perjury to run for mayor in the city of Hawthorne.”

Montenegro faces a maximum sentence of 15 years in prison, while Arevalo faces up to seven years.

The matter remains under investigation, reports NBC 4.

Read the full criminal complaint here.


Reported by JOEL B. POLLAK | 

Read more at https://www.breitbart.com/the-media/2020/11/17/biden-appoints-anti-free-speech-richard-stengel-to-transition-team-media-post/

Richard Stengel (Jemal Countess / Getty for TIME)

The New York Post reported last week:

Richard Stengel is the Biden transition “Team Lead” for the US Agency for Global Media, the US government media empire that includes Voice of America, the Middle East Broadcasting Networks and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty.

Stengel, an Obama administration alumnus, wrote last year in a Washington Post op-ed that US freedom of speech was too unfettered and that changes must be considered.

In the Post op-ed, “Why America needs a hate speech law,” Stengel argued:

[A]s a government official traveling around the world championing the virtues of free speech, I came to see how our First Amendment standard is an outlier.

All speech is not equal. And where truth cannot drive out lies, we must add new guardrails. I’m all for protecting “thought that we hate,” but not speech that incites hate.

As Breitbart News noted in May, Stengel, an MSNBC analyst, also defended restrictions on speech about the coronavirus:

The First Amendment doesn’t protect false speech about a virus or false speech that endangers the health of your users. And by the way, Facebook and Twitter have been taking things down, but they need to be even more vigilant about it, and Google needs to be even more vigilant about what they prioritize in their search results.

Constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley warned about Stengel’s appointment in a column Tuesday: “[I]t would be difficult to select a more anti-free speech figure to address government media policy, one has to assume that Biden will continue the onslaught against this core freedom as president.”

He noted that Biden himself had publicly advocated restrictions on speech during the campaign: “Biden called for greater speech controls on the Internet and denounced Twitter for allowing others to speak freely.”

Joel B. Pollak is Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News and the host of Breitbart News Sunday on Sirius XM Patriot on Sunday evenings from 7 p.m. to 10 p.m. ET (4 p.m. to 7 p.m. PT). His newest e-book is The Trumpian Virtues: The Lessons and Legacy of Donald Trump’s Presidency. His recent book, RED NOVEMBER, tells the story of the 2020 Democratic presidential primary from a conservative perspective. He is a winner of the 2018 Robert Novak Journalism Alumni Fellowship. Follow him on Twitter at @joelpollak.


Reported by  

A former project manager for Dominion has been revealed as the Mayor of Lathrup Village, Mich., a small town right on the outskirts of Detroit.

Mayor Mykale “Kelly” Garrett is a veteran Democrat operative in the state of Michigan. New York Young Republican Club President Gavin Wax made the discovery in a Twitter post, noting that she has been earmarked by the Michigan Democratic State Central Committee:

 

Garrett also attempted to get onto the county commission in Oakland County. She lost her Democrat primary race but her comments in a pre-election interview show how deep her ties in the Michigan Democrat Party truly are.

“I also want to learn more about Oakland County government,” Garrett said during an interview with the Oakland County Times – talking up the “inclusion and diversity” she has brought to her small town.

“If anyone knows me knows that I put Lathrup where it’s at right now,” she arrogantly boasted.

The interview started to get interesting when Garrett started talking up her “professional experience.” She could not help but flaunt her credentials.

“I was the deputy director for voter protection for the Michigan Democratic Party,” she explained.

From her words, it seems like she supports policies like the ones that turned the absentee voter counting board in Detroit into a third-world style free-for-all.

“I’m very passionate about everyone that can vote, who wants to vote, should be able to cast a ballot and that ballot count and that is something that I still, um, fight for,” she said.

Garrett also leads Mothering Justice, a nonprofit organization that agitates for socialism and wealth redistribution. She continued to brag in the interview about her deep ties in the Democrat Party of Michigan.

“I was the vice chair of the Oakland County Democratic Party, and I just recently stopped being the chair of the Southfield-Lathrup Democratic Party,” she said.

“Because of some of the volunteer positions that I have, I actually know people across the state. I have a very good relationship with our governor, with our secretary of state,” Garrett added.

She failed to mention her ties to Dominion in the interview. Wax noted that she helped broker a $25 million contract between Dominion and the state of Michigan while still serving as a vice chair for the Oakland County Democrat Party.

 


Reported By Samuel Smith, U.S. Editor

Christians in Nigeria take part in funerals in April 2019. | Intersociety

The rise of violent extremist groups throughout Africa, as well as the constant attacks against Christian communities in the continent’s most populated country, has religious leaders fearful that “the next jihad” is underway as world leaders seem to be rushing to address the problem.

“I know one thing has never really changed: No one gives a damn about Africa except for their natural resources or if there is going to be a big party because there is a peace treaty being signed,” said Rabbi Abraham Cooper, director of the global social action agenda of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, a leading Jewish human rights organization with over 400,000 family members.

“That’s just the truth and it’s a terrible truth. It might be one of the vestiges, frankly, of colonialism.”

W Publishing Group

Cooper teamed up with Rev. Johnnie Moore, a commissioner on the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom and president of the Congress of Christian Leaders, to author the new book The Next Jihad: Stop the Christian Genocide in Africa.

The book was written after the unlikely duo traveled together to Nigeria earlier this year to meet with dozens of Christian victims of terrorism from five different regions.

In recent years, Nigeria, the continent’s richest country, has dealt with the rise of Islamic terrorist groups in the northeast (Boko Haram and the Islamic State West Africa Province) and an increase of deadly attacks on farming communities carried out by militarized radicals from the Fulani herding community.

In the past few years, it’s been estimated that thousands of Christians have been killed while millions of Nigerians have been displaced from their communities. Some human rights groups have warned that attacks against Christian communities in Nigeria have reached the standard for genocide.

“[We want] to help people really feel the problem and understand it enough to do something about it,” Moore, an evangelical human rights advocate, told The Christian Post about the purpose of the book. “It was Rabbi Cooper who initiated the trip and encouraged me and us to go together to shine a light on what was happening there. It felt like deja vu to me because back in 2014, the Weisenthal Center was the first organization of any kind that recognized what ISIS was doing to Christians and Yazidis in Iraq was genocide.”

“Where my mind was when we were writing the book right after our trip, 10 days before the world started shutting down because of COVID, I thought this could be the next jihad,” Moore continued. “I since come to realize that it is the next jihad right now. It is not just Nigeria. It is the countries around Nigeria. It is a quickly escalating problem.”

Outside of Nigeria, the growing presence of Islamic extremist groups and increasing attacks have plagued other regions of Africa and caused mass displacement.

Those regions include the Sahel, where hundreds of thousands have been displaced amid escalating terror attacks in the last two years in Burkina Faso, as well as East Africa, where al-Shabab terrorists are attacking citizens in Somalia and Kenya. In southern Africa, over 300,000 people have been displaced in Mozambique amid a stark increase in radical Islamic extremist attacks in the northern part of the country in recent years.

While acknowledging that the spread of terrorism and violence in Africa after the fall of ISIS in Syria and Iraq is a continent-wide problem, much of the book’s focus is on Nigeria as both leaders see the country as being a continental leader when it comes to its size and influence.

USCIRF Commissioner Johnnie Moore (M) speaks during a meeting with Sudan Prime Minister Abdalla Hamdok in Washington, D.C. on Dec. 5, 2019. He is flanked by USCIRF Vice Chair Gayle Manchin (R) and USCIRF’s director of international law and policy Elizabeth Cassidy (L). USCIRF

“It has the 10th largest oil reserves in the world, it is the most populated country in Africa,” Moore explained. “It has the largest economy in Africa. It is surrounded by countries with terrorist insurgencies. If anything goes the wrong way, the Syrian crisis will feel like a distant memory compared to the catastrophe that the failure of West Africa could actually happen because of neglecting the situation in Nigeria.”

But in Nigeria and even among some U.S. diplomats, the debate on violence in Nigeria is complicated, especially when it comes to the rise of Fulani extremist attacks on predominantly Christian farming villages in the country’s Middle Belt.

On a regular basis, reports emerge of overnight attacks carried out on farming villages in which people are slaughtered, homes are burned and farmlands are confiscated.

“One of the important things to understand that it is not just Boko Haram and ISIS in West Africa now,” Moore said.

“But because the government now has neglected dealing with these people, you have militarized Fulani tribesman. We are very careful to make it clear that Fulani are the largest tribe in Africa — almost 20 million. Not every Fulani is a terrorist. But because the government hasn’t dealt with the terrorism in the northeast, you have terrorists among the Fulani who are now killing more people than Boko Haram ever had in the center part of the country, which happens to be where the Christians and the oil is.”

The Anambra-based International Society for Civil Liberties and Rule of Law estimates that at least 812 Christians were killed by Fulani radicals in the first half of 2020 by radical herdsmen.

While human rights advocates have accused the Nigerian government of not doing enough to protect its citizens from Fulani attacks, talk about how the international community should respond to the crisis has been “deflected” by a debate about what role religion is playing in the Fulani attacks, the authors explained.

While the Nigerian government has maintained that the conflict is less about religion and is just a continuation of a decades-old resource conflict between herders and farmers, Christian victims and advocates contend that there are strong religious overtones at play in the violence that should not be ignored, especially when attackers are screaming “Allahu Akbar” as they slaughter villagers and burn down houses.

In the book, Moore and Cooper recalled a meeting they had in February with U.S. Ambassador to Nigeria Mary Beth Leonard in which they discussed the religious aspects of the violence throughout the country.

“She denied that it was at all about religion and described the conflict as ‘fundamentally a resource issue,’” the book states. “Religion was, according to Ambassador Leonard, only relevant as it served as a potential accelerant to conflict. She left us with the impression that people like us, by speaking up for victims of religious persecution, were part of the problem. We found this to be hugely alarming.”

Cooper pointed out that while the Nigerian military has the capacity to stop the violence, the military has not been or willing or able to do so. The authors believe that the U.S. and United Kingdom governments should do more in their power to pressure the Nigerian government to protect its citizens.

Rabbi Abraham Cooper is the associate dean and director of the global social action agenda at the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles, California. Simon Wiesenthal Center

”The goal is to get these two governments to sort of get past the reflective and deflective discussions about whether it is just tribal and religion,” Cooper stated. “We don’t want to demonize Nigeria as a failed or lost state, it is not there yet. It is too big and too important to fail. We need American diplomats, U.K. diplomats and others to stop putting blinders on because they just don’t want to go there when it comes to religion. That is a huge mistake. You can’t treat cancer unless you can fully identify the nature and scope of that cancer.”

The book was released just weeks ahead of the U.S. presidential election last month.

“We believe that whoever is sitting in the Oval Office in January and whatever the number counts are in the House and Senate, the issue of Nigeria — and specifically the genocide that is underway there against Christians — will have to be an issue that is dealt with by the United States,” Cooper contended, “not only because of religious freedom and all the rest but also because of the terrorist players that are operating in the neighborhood and expanding their operations.”


Reported By Jim Hoft | Published November 17, 2020 at 8:56am

Smartmatic has been stealing elections in Venezuela since at least 2004. In Ausust 2017 Smartmatic Director Antonio Mugica admitted that the Smartmatic machines and software created at least one million phantom votes in the national elections in Venezuela. Mugica added that the fact election observers were not in the room helped Smartmatic machines steal the election.

This statement by Mugica was in August 2017.

The related Dominion equipment is used in North Carolina, Nevada, Georgia, Michigan, Arizona and Pennsylvania – key battleground states this year.

According to Townhall, the Department of Homeland Security’s Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) issued a statement last week defending the integrity of the 2020 election. The problem, however, is two of the main election software companies that have been called into question – Dominion Voting Systems and Smartmatic – sit on CISA.

Via Tracy Connors.

Antonio Mugica made these statements only three years ago.


President Donald Trump closed the gap on Democrat Joe Biden’s lead in Georgia on Monday by nearly 800 votes after edging out Biden by a nearly 2-1 ratio in a batch of 2,600 ballots that were discovered in Floyd County.

Gabriel Sterling, who oversaw the implementation of the new statewide election system for the state, said that the unofficial breakdown of ballots was 1,643 for Trump, 865 for Biden and 16 for Libertarian Jo Jorgensen. The mistake happened because election officials reportedly missed uploading a memory card containing the votes to a ballot counting machine.

 

“The Georgia Secretary of State is asking for the executive director of the Floyd County Board of Elections, Robert Brady, to step down after 2,600 ballots were left uncounted prior to the county’s initial certification,” Fox 5 Atlanta reported. “The error was discovered on Sunday during the third day of the state’s audit.”

Officials were quick to caution that the additional votes for Trump were not enough to change the outcome of the presidential election in the state.

The Daily Wire reported on the development earlier in the day:

The recovered votes may also help out GOP Sen. David Perdue, who is roughly 14,000 votes away from securing 50% of the vote in his bid for reelection and avoiding a runoff against Democratic candidate Jon Ossoff.

“It’s very concerning,” Martin said. “But this doesn’t appear to be a widespread issue. I’m glad the audit revealed it, and it’s important that all votes are counted.”

Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger’s office said the votes were missed because election workers failed to upload a memory card containing the votes into a ballot counting machine. The Floyd County discrepancy does not appear to be a widespread issue, the office of the secretary of state said.

Floyd County has had other problems tallying votes this election cycle. About half of a batch of 5,000 ballots were not initially recorded after being missed by scanner.


Reported By Cristina Laila | Published November 16, 2020 at 6:47pm

BREAKING TONIGHT:

Project Veritas has insiders in the Georgia recount that are catching votes wrongly attributed to Joe Biden.

“The second person was supposed to be checking it right, three times in three minutes she called out Biden,” the RNC monitor told Project Veritas. “The second auditor caught it and she said, “No, this is Trump.”

He continued, “Now, that’s just while I’m standing there. So, does the second checker catch it every time? But this lady in three times in three minutes from 2:09 to 2:12 she got three wrong.”

The RNC monitor told Project Veritas that the ballot counter became hostile toward him after he reported her to the elections officials.

WATCH:

 

Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger ordered an audit and recount of all Georgia ballots, however officials are not checking signatures. The statewide recount is still ongoing in several counties, the deadline for completion is 11:59 p.m. Wednesday.

On Monday it was revealed in Floyd County, Georgia over 2,600 votes were not counted due to a server error, allegedly by a Dominion tabulating machine. The found votes reportedly favor President Trump almost two-to-one, cutting Joe Biden’s approximate 14,000 vote lead by about 800 votes.

Brad Raffensperger on Monday evening immediately called for the elections director to step down. David Shafer, Chairman of the Georgia Republican Party said GOP observers are limited to one credentialed monitor for each ten counting tables.

“Congressman Doug Collins and I asked for a one to one ratio yesterday but our request was refused,” David Shafer said.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

AUTHOR: DR. JAMES DOBSON | November 17, 2020

Commentary written several days after the November 3rd election:

Dear Friends,

There is a heaviness within my spirit today on behalf of our beloved nation. I’m sure I share that sentiment with many of you. In a sense, Shirley and I are also grieving over the potential passing of an era, during which I believe God gave America a spiritual reprieve. President Donald Trump was partially responsible for this crucial change of trajectory.
 

He isn’t a perfect man, and his relationship with the Lord is a very private matter. But he attempted during the first four years of his presidency to get acquainted with, to honor, and to learn from Christian leaders. He is very close to Rev. Franklin Graham, Dr. Robert Jeffress, Rev. Paula White, Dr. Jack Graham, former Governor Mike Huckabee, and at least 30 others, including myself. He once said while greeting us at a formal dinner, “This is your house. Welcome to it.” He then led us on a tour upstairs in the private residence.

Donald Trump is the first president to celebrate the National Day of Prayer (NDP) in the Rose Garden, which he did all four years of his presidency. President George W. Bush also took the NDP very seriously and held formal services in the East Room of the White House during his eight years in office. Shirley served as chairperson of NDP, and spoke at each event. Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush also celebrated the National Day of Prayer during their terms in office. Neither Bill Clinton nor Barack Obama held NDP ceremonies at the White House. 

Back to Donald Trump, he is the most pro-life president in American history. He is the only Chief Executive to have spoken at the March for Life, which is an annual remembrance of the millions of babies aborted since Roe v. Wade in 1973. One of Trump’s most significant decisions has been the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett to be an associate justice on the U.S. Supreme Court. She never wavered on her pro-life beliefs even during her contentious confirmation hearings.

People who know the President best tell us he is one of the most hard-working and dedicated men ever to serve in the Oval Office. We saw that indefatigable nature during his final campaign, when he once held nine rallies in two days. He is also remarkably resilient. The media and his political opponents hammered him every day for four years. There was never a respite. President Trump arose every morning knowing he would be unfairly ridiculed and attacked from morning to night. This criticism began before he was elected and continued throughout his presidency. Nevertheless, he stood like a rock and his list of accomplishments could fill a book. 
 
Yes, I admire Donald Trump. He is sometimes brash and aggressive. But as a New York entrepreneur and as a president under siege, he has had to be tough to deal with his challenges. But there is no doubt that he loves America and its people. Speaking personally, I will miss his presence on the national stage when he is no longer our President.

But by the way, we’re told that 81 percent of evangelicals voted for Donald Trump this year, while only 14 percent voted for the Biden ticket. I think I know why. 

I won’t speculate on the voting controversy. If, however, American citizens have handed over the reins of power to the Biden/Harris ticket, it is important that we examine the platform on which they ran. Elections have consequences, as we know. The promises made in writing and on the campaign trail should disturb every conservative Christian. Let’s look first at the sanctity of human life. 

Mr. Biden has told us emphatically that he will bring an open season on the unborn child. This is what LifeNews wrote about him.

– he will force Americans to fund abortions during his first week in office

– he will implement abortion on demand nationwide without any limits

– he will force Americans to fund Planned Parenthood, the biggest abortion provider1

– he will force Christians such as the Little Sisters of the Poor to fund abortions in [their] health insurance plans2

– and he will stack the courts with pro-abortion judges who would keep abortions legal for decades to come3

That should break the heart of every lover of God’s children. We, as American citizens, will be complicit in the deaths of millions. How can Joe Biden say he wants to be president of ALL the American people? What does he have to say to the half of us who vigorously oppose abortion on demand, paid for by taxpayers through nine months of pregnancy and perhaps beyond, in America and, by inference, in nations around the world? If Donald Trump has been the pro-life President, Joe Biden will be the radical abortion president from his inauguration forward. If Biden does become president, I will do what I can to oppose his pro-death policies every day he is in office.

Biden’s regime will also usher in other forms of moral depravity. For example, he recently suggested that kids as young as eight or ten years old should be able to undergo irreversible transsexual transformation. That’s what the man said! Kamala Harris, who may be our next vice president, said she wants this country to legalize all prostitution.4 What other moral outrage will come from this godless administration? Heaven only knows! 
 
Joe Biden and the Democrats also support open borders. So much for the wall! That means that people around the world will be invited to enter this country legally and take up permanent residence within it. From the day of their arrival, they will be entitled to free welfare, free legal services, free medical care, free education, and who knows what else. Millions of people must be out there thinking, “How can I get to that promised land?”

We have also been told to expect trillions of dollars to be spent for the foolishness of the Green New Deal, with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez at the helm. That could bankrupt the nation. And can you imagine how Joe Biden and Kamala Harris will deal with hostile governments, including those in China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea? That is an international nightmare in the making.

The institution of the family will find no friends in the White House or in the halls of Congress. Taxes are likely to skyrocket for middle-class parents and others. We can also expect unprecedented assaults on religious liberty and churches could be stripped of Constitutional protection. Also at risk are our Bill of Rights, the Second Amendment, and other provisions within the U.S. Constitution. Democrats are talking about defunding the police and even the military. Radical change is about to descend on the nation. America is about to be over-run by the most leftist regime in history.

If that sounds discouraging and hopeless, we have to remember Who is in charge here. I believe the Almighty has had His hand of protection on this land since the days of its founding fathers. Our ancestors cried out to Him at Valley Forge, Gettysburg, Midway, and Normandy. I don’t believe He has forsaken us now. So how do we explain the predicament that confronts us? I don’t know. Millions of people have been praying about the outcome of this election because we knew it would have such profound moral and spiritual implications. But who can discern the mind of God? 

I grappled with such matters in my book, When God Doesn’t Make Sense. I wrote one morning after pacing back and forth in my study, “We must never forget that He is God. He is majestic and holy and sovereign. He is accountable to no one. He is not an errand boy who chases the assignments we dole out. He is not a genie who pops out of the bottle to satisfy our whims. He is not our servant—we are His. And our reason for existence is to glorify and honor Him . . . even when nothing makes sense. I then heard Him say, ‘Trust Me.'”

And trust we shall. Still, we ask, “Why did this election come tantalizingly close to a victory for life and morality, only to end tragically?” Could it be because America has abandoned its moral convictions? I wrote in my general letter several months ago that our popular culture has become utterly wicked. If that is accurate, how could a nation murder 62 million babies, fresh from the hand of the Creator, without expecting judgment to fall upon them? Clearly, we stand guilty before Him.

If this explains the disaster that has now befallen this great nation, there is only one biblical response. It is repentance. It is for us to kneel humbly before our righteous and all-seeing God and beg for forgiveness, both corporately and individually. That alone will save us.

We may have lost this election battle when it comes to the policies that matter most to us. Yet, the culture war rages on, and the gospel message of Jesus Christ is our banner and greatest hope. This is why we do what we do at the Dobson Family Institute. Faith and family remain the mission, and our conviction has never been more ardent. We are ambassadors for Christ, and we still have work to do. Are you with us?

Let us pray: 

Lord, this is my prayer for my nation. Forgive us for our profound sinfulness, our arrogance, our pride, and our hands that have shed innocent blood. Restore our marriages and our churches. Bring a spirit of renewal and revival across this land. And Lord, in Thy wrath, remember mercy.

Amen and Amen. 

Signature

P.S. To help remind us of the eternal hope that only comes from our Savior God, I want to share the text of a sermon aired nationally a few days before the election. It was delivered by my friend, Dr. Jack Graham. He is pastor of Prestonwood Baptist Church in Plano, Texas. He explains that America, like Israel, has forgotten God, and our only chance for survival is to cry out to the Lord. I couldn’t agree more, and I hope you will read the enclosed message carefully. Dr. Graham based it on Psalm 80, which was written after northern Israel had been defeated horribly by the Assyrians. We will find solace and direction therein.

 

https://www.lifenews.com/2020/11/09/joe-biden-says-he-would-sign-executive-order-week-1-forcing-americans-to-fund-planned-parenthood/
https://www.lifenews.com/2020/07/09/joe-biden-promises-to-force-little-sisters-of-the-poor-to-fund-abortions/
https://www.lifenews.com/2020/10/16/joe-biden-im-open-to-packing-supreme-court-with-abortion-activists-if-barrett-confirmed/
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/2020-democrat-kamala-harris-endorses-decriminalizing-prostitution-after-outcry-from-sex-work-activists


This letter may be reproduced without change and in its entirety for non-commercial and non-political purposes without prior permission from Family Talk. Copyright, 2020 Family Talk. All Rights Reserved. International Copyright Secured. Printed in the U.S. Dr. James Dobson’s Family Talk is not affiliated with Focus on the Family.


A.F. Branco Cartoon – Burned

Now that the Democrats have burned the nation down to get their way they now call for healing and unity.

04 Burned DT 1080Political cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2020.
Donations/Tips accepted and appreciated – $1.00 –  $5.00 –  $25.00 – $50.00 – $100 –  it all helps to fund this website and keep the cartoons coming. Also Venmo @AFBranco – THANK YOU!

A.F. Branco has taken his two greatest passions, (art and politics) and translated them into the cartoons that have been popular all over the country, in various news outlets including “Fox News”, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, and “The Washington Post.” He has been recognized by such personalities as Dinesh D’Souza, James Woods, Sarah Palin, Larry Elder, Lars Larson, Rush Limbaugh, and shared by President Donald Trump.



Reported by John Daniel Davidson NOVEMBER 16, 2020

To read reports in the mainstream press about the throngs of President Trump’s supporters who rallied in Washington, D.C., over the weekend, you’d think the crowd was made up of a bunch of conspiracy theory-addled rubes and delusional far-right extremists all of them hoodwinked into thinking the election was stolen. To read David Frum’s Twitter take, you’d think they were all Nazis.

The march came on the heels of a poll last week that found a staggering 70 percent of Republicans now say they don’t believe the presidential election was free and fair. That news, like news of the self-described Million MAGA March, was met with a mix of contempt, hysteria, and condescension from Democrats and the media.

Their rough consensus is that GOP voters who still support the president are either treasonous or stupid, reinforced constantly by a brittle insistence that there was “no fraud” in the presidential election. A totemic front-page declaration by the New York Times, “ELECTION OFFICIALS NATIONWIDE FIND NO FRAUD,” has been repeated everywhere, mantra-like. Any claims of voter fraud or ballot-counting irregularities, whether from President Trump or the tens of thousands who marched over the weekend, are “baseless,” “unfounded,” and have “no evidence” behind them.

There’s a palpable nervousness about the media’s insistence that the election was as pure as the driven snow. Maybe they seem so nervous because they know what everyone in America knows: there was nothing pure or secure or even ordinary about the election.

How could there be? Under the pretext of ensuring “voter access” during the pandemic, Democrats, leftist nonprofits, and activist judges across the country unleashed a flood of changes to election rules in the months leading up to the vote, including an unprecedented expansion of mail-in voting, an inherently fraught method of casting ballots that removes almost all oversight from the process.

No matter. States pushed ahead, mailing ballots to outdated voter rolls en masse and recklessly loosening oversight for how those ballots could be collected and counted. Chain-of-custody for absentee ballots went out the window, along with whatever meager safeguards usually apply to absentee voting. Ballot harvesting, long a tradition of corrupt Democratic political machines in places like Detroit and Philadelphia, was introduced in some places for the first time. Taken together, all these pandemic-inspired reforms presented an ideal opportunity for Democrats to flood absentee ballot-counting centers in major cities and run up the vote-count long after the polls closed on Election Day.

No wonder scores of Republican poll challengers in Michigan filed sworn affidavits claiming tens of thousands of fraudulent ballots were counted for Biden in Detroit. No wonder that in Philadelphia, poll watchers reported how they were forcibly kept from observing the counting of absentee ballots, as required under state law.

Not all the reports of ballot-counting skullduggery amount to old-fashioned voter fraud, but as my colleague Margot Cleveland has noted, they’re just as important because they undermine the integrity of an election just as much as, say, thousands of dead people voting.

Even more egregious than voter fraud (and harder to redress) are cases where election bureaucrats or activist judges simply ignored restrictions that GOP legislatures had passed into law. In Pennsylvania, the state supreme court brushed off rules set by lawmakers and extended a deadline for when absentee ballots could be received. Extending deadlines for absentee ballots is of course an invitation to break election laws—especially in Philadelphia, a city with a long history of ballot-stuffing and bribing election judges.

In other states, the corruption of election integrity was voluntary. In Georgia, the state government settled a lawsuit in March with a cadre of Democratic Party groups that changed the rules for accepting mail-in ballots. Instead of the signature on the ballot having to match the signature on the voter rolls, it only had to match the signature on the mail-in ballot application. You don’t need to be a sophisticated election thief to figure out how to get a fraudulent ballot counted under such rules.

On and on it goes. A dozen states temporarily expanded mail-in voting just for the 2020 election. Others mailed ballots to everyone on the voter rolls. Many others extended the mail-in ballot deadline, set up ballot drop boxes, and allowed mail-in ballot harvesting on a mass scale.

Any reasonable person can look at these changes and conclude they create conditions ripe for fraud and abuse. Only the most naïve, pollyannaish observer would survey all of the above and conclude, as our mainstream media has, that there was “no fraud” in the election. Of course there was, and everyone knows it.

Whether it was enough to change the outcome of the election, we’ll probably never know, partly because the kind of abuses and criminal activity engendered by mass mail-in voting are hard to detect and even harder to prove in court. But pointing all of this out, and having a problem with it, even to the point of saying you don’t have much confidence that the election was free and fair, doesn’t make you a rube or a conspiracy theorist.

By contrast, pretending that none of this had any effect on the election, and demonizing anyone who says it did, as the media is doing now, is a reaction born of self-doubt and desperation—like labeling anyone who disagrees with you a traitor or a Nazi. There’s an exhausted nervousness about it, a contempt rooted in insecurity. It’s the kind of thing you do when you’ve written off your countrymen, and given up on the idea of a republic.

John is the Political Editor at The Federalist. Follow him on Twitter.
Photo YouTube

Reported by Debra Heine | The Tennessee Star | November 16, 2020

A Biden Campaign operative in Texas is attempting to rig the 2020 election with the help of others in a massive ballot harvesting scheme, according to two private investigators who testified under oath that they have “video evidence, documentation and witnesses” to prove it. With the help of mass mail-in ballots, the illegal ballot harvesting operation could harvest 700,000 ballots, one Harris County Democrat operative allegedly bragged.

The investigators—a former FBI agent and former police officer—claim that Biden’s Texas Political Director Dallas Jones and his cohorts have been “hoarding mail-in and absentee ballots” and ordering operatives to them fill out for people in Harris County illegally, “including dead people, homeless people, and nursing home residents in the 2020 presidential election,” Patrick Howley of the National File reported.

While law enforcement agencies are reportedly investigating these potential crimes, nothing will be done about it until “well after the November 3, 2020 election” the former FBI agent said.

Dallas Jones was appointed the Biden campaign’s Texas Political Director in late August.

Congratulations to Dallas Jones, President and CEO of Elite Change, Inc., for being selected to serve as the Texas Political Director for the Biden Campaign! We look forward to helping Biden/Harris win Texas in November! #vote #BidenHarris2020 #BlueWave #TurnTexasBlue pic.twitter.com/Th8XIOaOiu

— Elite Change, Inc. (@EliteChange) August 28, 2020

Mark A. Aguirre and Charles F. Marler provided sworn affidavits as part of a class-action lawsuit in the Texas Supreme Court, Steven Hotze, M.D. et al., against Harris County and the state of Texas. The National File obtained the private investigators’ affidavits. In his testimony, Aguirre stated that he is a retired captain with the Houston Police Department and now a private investigator.

“I am currently involved in an investigation related to a wide-ranging and fraudulent ballot harvesting scheme in Harris County intended to rig the elections in the Houston/Harris County area. This scheme involves voter fraud on a massive scale,” he stated.

Based on interviews, review of documents, and other information, Aguirre identified three individuals, including a state senator and the Harris County Commissioner, who are working with Jones on the ballot harvesting operation: “District 13 Texas State Senator Borris Miles, who is the handler of Mr. Jones, political consultant Gerald Womack, and Precinct 1 Harris County Commissioner Rodney Ellis.” Aguire added: “One of the companies these individuals are using as a front for this operation is AB Canvassing, although there are others that have been identified that we are investigating.”

Aguirre noted that the ballot harvesters have been exploiting the elderly with the complicity of nursing home staff.

I have in my possession video-taped interviews of witnesses attesting to the aforementioned people having groups of people completing thousands of absentee and mail-in ballots, including completing ballots for deceased individuals; illegally going into nursing homes, with the complicity of the nursing home staff, and filling out and forging the signatures of nursing home residents; signing up homeless individuals to vote using the ballot harvester’s address then completing the ballot and forging the homeless individual’s signature. 

This entire operation is being run by the elite politicians of the Democrat Party in Houston/Hams County. FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NOT.

Private investigator Charles F. Marler stated in his testimony that he formerly worked for the FBI where he was an Investigative Specialist “conducting undercover operations on espionage and terrorist targets.” Marler stated that former Harris County Clerk Diane Troutman was so concerned about being implicated in the fraud, she resigned earlier this year, citing “personal health reasons.”

Biden’s Texas Political Director Implicated in Massive Mail-In Ballot Harvesting Scheme in Harris County
September 30, 2020 Admin

Find what drives you at Beaman Auto!
by Debra Heine

A Biden Campaign operative in Texas is attempting to rig the 2020 election with the help of others in a massive ballot harvesting scheme, according to two private investigators who testified under oath that they have “video evidence, documentation and witnesses” to prove it. With the help of mass mail-in ballots, the illegal ballot harvesting operation could harvest 700,000 ballots, one Harris County Democrat operative allegedly bragged.

The investigators—a former FBI agent and former police officer—claim that Biden’s Texas Political Director Dallas Jones and his cohorts have been “hoarding mail-in and absentee ballots” and ordering operatives to them fill out for people in Harris County illegally, “including dead people, homeless people, and nursing home residents in the 2020 presidential election,” Patrick Howley of the National File reported.

While law enforcement agencies are reportedly investigating these potential crimes, nothing will be done about it until “well after the November 3, 2020 election” the former FBI agent said.

Dallas Jones was appointed the Biden campaign’s Texas Political Director in late August.

Congratulations to Dallas Jones, President and CEO of Elite Change, Inc., for being selected to serve as the Texas Political Director for the Biden Campaign! We look forward to helping Biden/Harris win Texas in November! #vote #BidenHarris2020 #BlueWave #TurnTexasBlue pic.twitter.com/Th8XIOaOiu

— Elite Change, Inc. (@EliteChange) August 28, 2020

Mark A. Aguirre and Charles F. Marler provided sworn affidavits as part of a class-action lawsuit in the Texas Supreme Court, Steven Hotze, M.D. et al., against Harris County and the state of Texas.

The National File obtained the private investigators’ affidavits.

In his testimony, Aguirre stated that he is a retired captain with the Houston Police Department and now a private investigator.

“I am currently involved in an investigation related to a wide-ranging and fraudulent ballot harvesting scheme in Harris County intended to rig the elections in the Houston/Harris County area. This scheme involves voter fraud on a massive scale,” he stated.

Based on interviews, review of documents, and other information, Aguirre identified three individuals, including a state senator and the Harris County Commissioner, who are working with Jones on the ballot harvesting operation: “District 13 Texas State Senator Borris Miles, who is the handler of Mr. Jones, political consultant Gerald Womack, and Precinct 1 Harris County Commissioner Rodney Ellis.” Aguire added: “One of the companies these individuals are using as a front for this operation is AB Canvassing, although there are others that have been identified that we are investigating.”

Aguirre noted that the ballot harvesters have been exploiting the elderly with the complicity of nursing home staff.

I have in my possession video-taped interviews of witnesses attesting to the aforementioned people having groups of people completing thousands of absentee and mail-in ballots, including completing ballots for deceased individuals; illegally going into nursing homes, with the complicity of the nursing home staff, and filling out and forging the signatures of nursing home residents; signing up homeless individuals to vote using the ballot harvester’s address then completing the ballot and forging the homeless individual’s signature.

This entire operation is being run by the elite politicians of the Democrat Party in Houston/Hams County. FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NOT.

Private investigator Charles F. Marler stated in his testimony that he formerly worked for the FBI where he was an Investigative Specialist “conducting undercover operations on espionage and terrorist targets.”

Marler stated that former Harris County Clerk Diane Troutman was so concerned about being implicated in the fraud, she resigned earlier this year, citing “personal health reasons.”

Marler stated that the harris County Commissioner “was not deterred and continued to move forward with the plan to mass mail ballots and expand the illegal ballot harvesting scam.”

“In December of 2019, I was approached by two individuals who witnessed activity from an illegal ballot harvesting operation in Harris County. Since that date, I have been investigating the illegal ballot harvesting operation,” he testified.

During my investigation, a core group of names continued to surface regarding the organization and operation of the voter fraud scheme. Witnesses have stated to me that Precinct 1 Harris County Commissioner Rodney Ellis and District 13 Texas State Senator Borris Miles are leading the illegal ballot harvesting operation in Harris County, Texas. Their chief lieutenants are Houston businessman Gerald Womack and political consultant Dallas Jones who work directly under them in executing the ballot harvesting operation in Harris County, Texas.

Witnesses have shown me and described to me how the ballot harvesters take absentee ballots from the elderly in nursing homes, from the homeless, and from unsuspecting residences’ mailboxes. The ballot harvesters then complete the ballots for their preferred candidate and forge the signature of the “voter”. Two witnesses stated to me that there are two individuals employed at the Harris County Clerk’s Office who are aware of the illegal ballots and help facilitate and mask the processing of the ballots into the legal stream of ballots.

I have been made aware of a law enforcement investigation in the Spring of 2020 regarding illegal ballot harvesting. Several interviews of individuals were conducted. After the interviews became public, former Harris County Clerk Diane Troutman, resigned alleging health concerns due to COVID-19. However, witnesses have told me that Ms. Troutman was arguing with Commission Rodney Ellis about the legality of the mass purchasing and mailing of mail-in ballots and that Troutman was concerned she would be included in the eventual arrest pertaining to illegal ballot harvesting. Instead of coming forward and exposing the scheme, Ms. Troutman abruptly resigned. Witnesses have stated that Commissioner Ellis was not deterred and continued to move forward with the plan to mass mail ballots and expand the illegal ballot harvesting scam. Another witness stated to me that an employee of Commission Ellis, Tyler James, has bragged that he could guarantee that the illegal ballot harvesting operation, with the help of mass mail-in ballots, could harvest 700,000 illegal ballots.

It appears that law enforcement agencies are currently investigating these alleged crimes and I will provide them with the evidence that I have already collected and am continuing to collect. Sadly, these law enforcement agencies will be working to prosecute these crimes well after the November 3, 2020 election.

Citizen journalist Colleen Vera had previously discovered evidence of what appears to be a massive vote harvesting ring operating in the state of Texas involving mail-in voting and various Democrat political campaigns.

Vera’s evidence includes video of a Democrat campaign surrogate harvesting mail ballots from a nursing home during a 2018 primary race, and audio of a Democrat campaign worker admitting to harvesting ballots from a nursing home, and mail-in ballots from Harris County that all have the same handwriting and envelope process.

According to the National File, the ongoing private investigation is working with law enforcement.


Reported by SARAH OWERMOHLE | Politico | November 16, 2020

Roughly 20 million people could be vaccinated against the coronavirus in December, the head of the Trump administration’s vaccine and drug accelerator said Friday. Americans can expect that about 25 to 30 million people could be vaccinated each month afterward, said Moncef Slaoui, co-lead of Operation Warp Speed, during a Rose Garden event with President Donald Trump and other top health officials.

That timeline depends on the Food and Drug Administration authorizing the emergency use of one or more vaccines — which could happen in a matter of weeks, Slaoui noted.

Pfizer announced promising data this week suggesting its vaccine is more than 90 percent effective, and has said it will apply to FDA later this month. Moderna, which is working closely with the National Institutes of Health, is preparing to announce its own efficacy data in a matter of days. An emergency-use application could soon follow, Slaoui said.

Gen. Gustave Perna, Operation Warp Speed’s chief operating officer, said that the government would begin vaccination within 24 hours after a shot secures emergency authorization.

But while manufacturers have developed coronavirus vaccines in record speed, and dozens more are still in the pipeline, Slaoui’s projections mean it will likely take months just for first-priority groups such as health care workers and the elderly to get a shot.

Both the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines are given as two doses, effectively cutting in half the government’s initial order of 100 million doses from each of the those manufacturers.

But Slaoui added that there could be more authorized vaccines in the spring, boosting chances for more people to get vaccinated. Four vaccines, including the Pfizer and Moderna shots, are now in late-stage U.S. trials, and at least one other company plans to start such a study this month.

“We may be able to immunize a larger number of Americans on an ongoing basis, per month,” Slaoui said after name-checking other promising candidates from AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson.

The government has not yet released a comprehensive plan to distribute any coronavirus vaccines, including how it will handle logistics for shots that need to be shipped in below-freezing temperatures and outreach to skeptical communities.

Because of the real-world challenges of vaccine distribution and supply, federal health officials including CDC Director Robert Redfield project that broad access will not be a possibility until summer 2021.


Reported By Anugrah Kumar, Christian Post Contributor FOLLOW

Read more at https://www.christianpost.com/news/la-county-clears-john-macarthurs-church-of-covid-19-outbreak.html?uid=03bea79789

Pastor John MacArthur leads Grace Community Church in California in a video posted October 2020. | Screenshot: Grace Community Church

Public health officials in Los Angeles have lifted all outbreak-related requirements and restrictions on Grace Community Church, which were put in place last month after three cases connected to the California church were confirmed.

“We are glad to announce that we received a notice from the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health … saying that we have been cleared of COVID-19 outbreak,” the church says on its website.

L.A. County requires places of worship to report to the Public Health Department when there are at least three COVID-19 cases within a span of two weeks, after which the agency determines whether there is an outbreak.

“After a thorough investigation, Public Health officials have decided to rescind all outbreak-related requirements and restrictions on Grace Community Church,” the church, led by Pastor John MacArthur, said.

“Praise the Lord for His blessings and perfect provision. Thank you, Pastor John, for your example as you have walked this road,” a church member, Matt Mckinney, wrote on Grace Community’s Facebook page. “Your humble and unwavering strength, anchored in your trust of the Lord’s sovereignty to work this out to the counsel of His own will, for His own purposes and glory, are such an encouragement. Blessings my brother.”

Thousands of people have been attending the Sun Valley, California, church after it reopened in the summer despite restrictions on indoor worship services during the coronavirus pandemic. MacArthur and elders of the church said it was the church’s biblical duty to remain open and that they would not disobey “our Lord’s clear commands.”

The church has also argued that in the many months it’s been open, no one had been hospitalized with the disease.

In response to the three confirmed cases last month, Jenna Ellis, attorney for the church, said it was not an “outbreak,” given the more than 7,000 people who attend.

“It has never been the church’s position that it is only safe to hold services if no one ever tests positive, or for example, if no one ever gets the flu during flu season. Our position has been that LA County shutting down churches indefinitely amid a virus with a 99.98% survival rate, especially when state-preferred businesses are open and protests are held without restriction, is unconstitutional and harmful to the free exercise of religion,” she said.

Indoor worship services are currently banned in Los Angeles County, which has a Tier 1 status (when COVID-19 is “widespread“). Congregations are only allowed to meet outdoors with certain restrictions.

Grace Community Church and Pastor MacArthur have been in a legal battle with the county over the restrictions.

“They don’t want us to meet, that’s obvious,” MacArthur said after the county secured a stay of the trial court ruling in August that would have allowed the congregation to meet indoors with masks and social distancing.

“They’re not willing to work with us. They just want to shut us down. But we’re here to bring honor to the Lord.” 

MacArthur said he didn’t know “exactly what the city is trying to do with us and to us,” and clarified that the indoor service was not aimed at being “rebellious.” “We’re meeting because our Lord has commanded us to come together and worship Him.”

The church’s attorneys argued that the county’s demands to comply with COVID-19 restrictions were unreasonable. The church offered to have the congregation comply with mask-wearing and social distancing indoors until the matter could be fully heard.

At the start of the pandemic earlier this year, Grace Community Church initially moved to a livestream model and closed down in-person services. But within a few weeks, MacArthur said parishioners started showing up again. They decided to restart in-person worship services, with church leaders saying that the government did not have the authority to stop them from gathering.


Reported By Leonardo Blair, Christian Post Reporter 

Getty Images

While parents in general believe institutions serve their children well, many are worried the majority, like churches and schools, have been serving their daughters better than their sons under norms of gender equality, new research suggests. And the only institutions where at least white parents believe boys are served slightly better are sports and other clubs.

Data from the 2020 American Family Survey, released in September, show that a striking minority, just 36%, of parents believe churches are serving their sons well. This share is almost equal to the 33% who say the same about how the criminal justice system is serving their sons. A minority of parents also believe churches are serving their daughters well but that number is five percentage points higher at 41%.

Daughters were also shown as being better served by every other institution highlighted in the survey, including the education system and friend networks. The only exceptions were sports and other clubs, which some 42% of particularly white parents believe are serving their sons well compared to 37% who say the same about how they serve their daughters.

The latest American Family Survey, was conducted between July 3 and July 14 in a partnership between the Deseret News and Brigham Young University’s Center for the Study of Elections and Democracy. The study explored several areas of family life, including relationships, economics, politics, health and culture. Market research and data analytics firm YouGov interviewed 3,251 respondents who were then matched down to a sample of 3,000 to produce a final dataset reflective of a sampling frame based on gender, age, race and education.

Surprising results

American Family Survey

Jeremy C. Pope, co-director of the Center for the Study of Elections and Democracy and one of the lead investigators on the survey, told The Christian Post that he was particularly surprised by how poorly parents rated the church in serving their children, especially their sons.

“My first reaction to that institutions data was I was surprised churches didn’t do so well. I didn’t really think about this deeply ahead of time but I thought that churches would do a little bit better than they did,” he said.

“I was not surprised that the criminal justice system was low but to be honest, churches are kind of in there with the criminal justice system and that surprised me. In future years, we want to follow up on that because it suggests a bit of dissatisfaction in how churches in particular are serving sons.”

Pope, who is a father of three daughters, said he was also struck by the data showing almost all of the institutions underserving boys and he believes the push for gender equality could be “blinding us to problems with boys.”

“It’s striking to me that daughters tend to be served better by virtually all the institutions except for sports or other clubs and it is also striking to me that friend networks, which you wouldn’t necessarily think is fantastic, dramatically outperforming churches in terms of satisfaction with how it’s serving their kids,” he noted.

“I think within the norm of gender equality, that may be blinding us to problems with boys and problems facing boys that the public knows are out there but is sometimes reluctant to talk about because nobody wants to favor boys over girls.”

Pope further argued that what the data reveals is an increasing concern about the well-being of boys and he doesn’t believe the concern is misplaced.

“I have three daughters. I don’t worry a ton about them. They are great young women,” he said.

“The thing that I think this survey highlights this year about gender is that increasingly I see signs that society is concerned about boys. I have a feeling that that concern is not misplaced. I think we should be concerned about how our sons are doing, what their prospects are in life. And it probably means that parents and maybe more as a society [need to think] about what it is we need to do to make the environment for sons hospitable to them, helpful, what sort of skills do they need to acquire? What sort of expectations should we be setting for them because it does look to me that there is some sort of dissatisfaction out there with how our sons as a society are growing up.”

The largest disparity between how parents believe institutions serve their sons and daughters was reflected in the education system where 63% of parents said it served their daughters well but only 55% said the same about their sons.

A small experiment

Pope and his colleagues noted in their report on the survey that to gauge the overall concern about boys and girls among respondents, they conducted an experiment where some were questioned only about their worries over girls, while others were asked about boys. Another group of respondents were asked about both boys and girls.

Parents who were only asked to think about their worries about girls responded with concern only 30% of the time. The group asked about both girls and boys responded with concern almost equally — 35% for girls and 36% for boys.

When respondents were asked only about boys, however, the level of concern shot up to 45%.

“This experiment highlights something key about society and it is a topic we plan to follow up on in future years. When the public is simply asked about boys and girls they tend to follow an ethic of equality. They will claim to have similar levels of worry about both genders. However, when only asked about girls the percentage of the public with concerns shrinks a bit and when only asked about boys the percentage of the public with concerns grows substantially,” the report on the survey said.

“What is the best way to characterize these results? Are people concealing concerns when asked about boys or girls? We doubt it. Our assumption would be that each of the responses is genuine it’s just that people do harbor some latent concerns about boys that come out when asked the question in a slightly different way. There is, probably, more concern about boys and young men in our current society but it can be masked by norms of gender equality,” the report added.

‘Absolutely accurate’

Michael Gurian of the Gurian Institute talks about brain science. | Gurian Institute

Michael Gurian, a social philosopher, family therapist and corporate consultant, called the AFS findings “absolutely accurate” in an interview with CP.

Gurian co-founded the Gurian Institute, which trains professionals who deal with the developmental aspects of childhood. He is also the author of 32 books, including The Wonder of Boys: What Parents, Mentors and Educators Can Do to Shape Boys into Exceptional Men and The Purpose of Boys: Helping Our Sons Find Meaning, Significance, and Direction in Their Lives.

As a social philosopher, Gurian pioneered efforts to bring neurobiology and brain research into homes, schools, corporations and public policy. He has provided information on the educational needs of boys and girls to the White House and briefed members of the 114th Congress on the boy crisis in America.

“We’ve found this for more than 30 years. These findings are absolutely accurate and would corroborate what a number of us have been looking at for decades,” Gurian said.

He explained that systems in institutions like schools and churches reflect the overwhelming influence of women who populate them.

“These systems are set up more toward female brains in a number of ways. One is to a great extent they are populated by females. The women are great people but they think like women,” Gurian said, noting that training, which his institute has done successfully overtime, has helped address these disparities in both schools and churches.

“Without training, they (female teachers) walk into systems and their behavioral expectations for boys. When you add on boys of color, black and brown boys, then that’s a different data set; … the stats are even worse than for white boys. Even when you take race out of it and [look at] just boys, it’s kind of grim,” he explained.

“Not that they’re malicious, it’s just that they are women who think like women and teach to the behavioral academic and even spiritual expectations of females and so it’s kind of gradual, taking place over a period of decades. Of course, 100 years ago, churches and schools were much more male so we wouldn’t make this argument but in the last number of decades,” a transition has happened, he said.

While the AFS data reflect a frustration parents have with the way institutions have been underserving their sons, the Gurian Institute has successfully help hundreds of schools, churches and other institutions address the disparity with many success stories on their website.

“Since we began this program a year ago, Oak Hill School has seen positive improvements in academic achievement and school culture, and with increased teacher effectiveness and student engagement,” wrote Peter M. Schroeder, a principal at Oak Hill School in Missouri, 2019. “We believe that being designated a ‘Gurian Model School’ will help us maintain our competitive edge in the St. Louis marketplace as an independent, Catholic school. Our work with the Gurian Institute has helped us adapt our already powerful teaching model to provide excellence in our academic program-for both girls and boys.”

Gurian said, “For those people who say ‘well, we know there’s this problem but nothing is happening,’ what I always say is there are organizations that solve this problem. The schools that use the Gurian Institute’s research framework, they have solved this problem. They don’t have these issues anymore. So it’s really important to say to people that solutions exist. And if they are feeling paralyzed, they don’t have to feel paralyzed.”

David Murrow, who started Church for Men, an organization that helps congregations reconnect with men and boys, in 2005 around the same time he released his book, Why Men Hate Going to Church, believes the key to help churches better respond to the needs of boys and men could lie in the creation of more gender neutral churches.

“I hear stories all the time from churches that buy 10, 15 copies of the book for their elders and leaders and there are a lot of churches that are implementing more man-friendly programming, boy-friendly things for young men. I think one of the secrets to the growth of the megachurches has been their ability to gender neutralize their worship spaces and create an environment where men walk in and feel like this is something for them and not just something for their grandmother,” Murrow told CP.

“The typical church in America is about 80 to 90 people. It’s what I call a grandma church. There is a lot of older members and the ladies of the church decorate the sanctuary with quilts and flowers and ribbons and lace doilies and the Sunday school rooms look like something out of a kindergarten classroom,” he explained.

“They’ve got construction paper and yarn. It’s a very feminine space that they create and there’s a lot of talk of nurture and relationships. And then the ministry opportunities, the volunteer opportunities typically revolve around female roles — caring for the sick, preparing meals for potluck dinners.

“The whole enterprise is pitched towards a middle-aged or older woman with an empty nest who wants to spend time with kids. So men, particularly young men, come into those little family churches, they see the décor, they see the opportunities and they find nothing for themselves. One of the things the megachurches did is they intentionally focused on young men and particularly these would be men with young families,” Murrow said.

Two megachurches Murrow said that have done a great job in appealing to men are Rick Warren’s Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, California, and Willow Creek Community Church in South Barrington, Illinois, founded by Bill Hybels.

Warren reportedly designed his church based on his own door-to-door survey of 500 residents. He found that his target audience was “Saddleback Sam,” a prototypical yuppie who believes in God but has not attended church since childhood. The “Sams” told him they weren’t going to church because sermons were boring, people were aloof, childcare was a problem and pastors were too interested in money.

“They had a mythical parishioner named Saddleback Sam. I mean they went straight for this guy. He was a guy who represented all the values of Southern California — he’s overextended in time and credit. God is OK but he’s not interested in church or religion,” Murrow said.

Willow Creek’s target was a “mythical parishioner named Unchurched Harry,” Murrow noted.

“They were focusing on that guy because they realized something. When you attract the man of the family you tend to get the rest of the family on the deal. And so they made their churches not macho, they didn’t turn their church into a monster truck rally or anything like that. All they had to do was sort of take out the cues that were saying to men this is something for your wife and kids and really engage the men on a heart level,” he said. “And then growth took care of itself and that’s really been the secret of the megachurches. It’s their ability to attract and retain men and in the process retain the entire family.”

Of the estimated 344,894 churches in the United States, only about 1,750 of them are classified as megachurches with 2,000 or more members.

Murrow said about 15 years ago, his own church in Alaska got rid of the old model of Sunday School and rebranded it Adventure Land in an approach that involves more movement with male teachers leading boys and female teachers leading girls and they have seen a lot of success.

“This model has been very successful in reaching young men. The tragedy comes when we move into junior high and high school ministry,” he said, which involves a lot of singing to Jesus, which boys don’t like.

The power of fathers

Citing research such as The Demographic Characteristics of the Linguistic and Religious Groups in Switzerland, which reviewed the results of a 1994 survey of Swiss religious practice, Murrow also argued that the most effective way for parents to lead the spiritual life of their children is through their own personal witness. The study also highlighted the outsized influence of a father in the transference of faith to the next generation.

In that study, for families where neither parent attended church, only 4% of their children ended up attending church regularly. Some 15% went on to become irregular attendees while more than 80% did not attend at all.

When the mother attended church in families but the father did not, some 2% went on to attend church regularly, 37% attended irregularly and 61% not at all. When both parents attended church regularly, 33% of their children when on to do the same regularly, 41% irregularly and 26% did not attend at all.

In homes where the father was a regular church attendee and the mother’s attendance was irregular, the study found that 38% of the children went on to regularly attend church, 44% attended irregularly and 18% did not attend at all. The results showed that fathers who attend church more faithfully influences more faithful church attendance in their children.

“There is really nothing to compare with it. We can have all the youth groups, the retreats, … the praise and worship extravaganzas and all those things help,” Murrow said. ”But the one thing that towers above all other factors in a child’s decision to follow Christ as a young adult is whether his father was following Christ. And so that would be the most effective thing a church could do is to equip fathers to be witnesses to their children.”

He urged believers who are concerned about the way their church is serving their sons to try to engage their leaders under the guidance of the Holy Spirit as conversations about these issues can be delicate.

Making a cultural shift to help boys

Tim Wright, pastor of Community of Grace Lutheran Church in Peoria, Arizona, who authored Searching for Tom Sawyer and created a rite of passage for boys with Gurian called Following Jesus: Heroic Quest for Boys, said he was inspired to become an advocate for boys by Murrow’s book, Why Men Hate Going to Church.

“I read the book and I was so challenged by it that I invited David to Arizona to speak,” he told CP.

“He spoke for eight minutes and he was holding eggs in his hand. And his sermon was about boys and the disconnect of boys from the faith. And he kept dropping eggs and he said ‘now in the eight minutes I’ve been speaking, these eggs represent the number of boys who left the church.’ And so I did some quick research and found that the statistic is anywhere from 70 to 90% of all boys who leave the Christian church in their teens and 20s and most won’t come back and that really got my attention,” he said.

He eventually learned about Gurian and his use of brain science research to talk about boys and girls and how they learn.

“I hired him as a consultant and we became such good friends that we moved away from a consulting relationship and we became partners in creating different products for people,” he explained.

He argued that society needs to stop functioning as if girls are still behind educationally. While that may have been the case decades ago, Wright said, it is no longer true.

“Back in the 1960s we recognized educationally that our girls were behind our boys in part because of the feminist movement, in part because we were looking over all these different experiences with our daughters and seeing them fall behind. The whole country, metaphorically speaking, came together and said ‘we’ve gotta fight for our girls and get them caught up in school.’ The federal government at that time committed $100 million to helping our girls get caught up,” he explained.

“And here’s what happened. The great news — I raised a daughter, I’ve got two granddaughters; I’m all pro-girls and we want to make that clear and Michael had two daughters — in 1982, girls not only caught up to boys but they flew right by them. And now in 2020 our boys are behind and they are behind significantly our girls in every area of education from pre-school to graduate school,” except for perhaps STEM, Wright noted.

“The problem is that we still think culturally, we have so ingrained in us that our girls are behind … that when they caught up and passed boys we still live with the old story that our girls are behind, our boys are OK. And because of that, we tend not to see our boys. They become invisible,” he said.

“The challenge in terms of advocating for boys is we still sort of believe boys are doing OK when they are not. They are dramatically behind, not just in education but they are falling behind emotionally. They are falling behind economically. In almost every area of life, boys and men are doing worse,” Wright added.

Pointing to the disparities in how girls and boys are being served by institutions in the AFS research, Wright said he believes it’s this disconnect that, for example, is causing families to rank sports clubs as better institutions for boys over churches.

“We have gone far more to the female brain than the male brain in our churches, in our schools and that’s why sports are doing so well. And really, sports have become the new religion for men and for boys. I see that in my own family with my son and his kids. They are far more engaged with sports than they are with church because sports is movement, it’s teamwork oftentimes, but it’s also character building,” he said.

“It’s not always ‘aww, you’re just great because you’re great.’ It’s ‘hey, that was a great play, you missed that one; you let the team down’ and it starts to forge character,” he explained.

“We’re afraid of that for some reason. And what’s happening now is our boys tune out from things like school or church and if they don’t have good men or even good women who are both building up their character and calling them out when they’re not being boys of character, the boys sort of just check out or they make it up on their own.

“Most of our culture will never say this but increasingly in a world where feminine values have become the benchmark, boys and men are feeling left out. We can’t articulate our feelings the same way and if we want to articulate our feelings, they are not the right kinds of feelings.”

When asked what would happen if churches and schools were able to collectively make the cultural shift to better serve men and boys, Murrow said he believes it could be seismic.

“A lot of the dysfunction in our culture comes from poorly socialized men. There are more men in jails, men are more likely to commit suicide, more likely to commit crimes and this is not just the United States, this is the world over. And this goes back to thousands of years. The great question of every society is how do we socialize and harness the power of men to social good and not toward mayhem,” he told CP.

“My background is in anthropology so the first thing they teach you is the whole purpose of society is to socialize men. So if we had a church and we had schools that were more successful in engaging men, I think the result would be a kinder, more loving society. It would be a fairer society and it would be … a lot less family distress, way fewer men falling through the cracks,” he said, noting that women would also be able to find more suitable men to marry.

“Study after study shows that when men embrace religion in general, they tend to be more kind and considerate. They are less likely to gamble and drink to excess. A host of anti-social and negative behaviors fall away when they become engaged in the church and that’s the sociological reason for creating an environment where men and boys feel more welcome. And they feel like it’s something for them and not just something for women.”


Reported by  

Though the Million MAGA March was a major success, there were too many cases of Black Lives Matter and Antifa hordes antagonizing and assaulting Trump supporters.

Big League Politics has documented some of that footage here. It’s true that DC police can’t be everywhere at once and thus can’t prevent every single assault, but at least one clip from Saturday shows DC police unequivocally failing to protect a group of Trump supporters.

In a video captured by Jorge Ventura below, three Trump supporters ask to get through a manned blockade that appeared to be cordoning off a group of BLM counter-protesters. The police tell the Trump supporters that they’re not allowed through and proceed to reroute them. But the police rerouted them through the BLM group, which they had to have known would lead to violence.

Watch:

This seems to be the clearest-cut case of police failing to protect Trump supporters. There could very well have been similar cases elsewhere that weren’t documented on video.

Now the vast majority of individual cops are good cops, and we should defend them when they’re unjustly demonized for doing their jobs. Nevertheless, it does not logically follow that the police as an institution are the friend of Trump supporters and conservatives, especially in big cities and The Swamp. Police are the armed wing of the government, of the state. If the government orders them to back down and effectively allow BLM and Antifa to loot businesses and set cars on fire, the police will do so. If the government orders them to prioritize arrests only when one side hits back at the antagonizing side (which is virtually always Trump supporters hitting back at BLM and Antifa), the police will do so.

If the US—God forbid—became the kind of country that cracks down on “hate speech,” the police will be the ones knocking on your door telling you to cool it with your social media posts.

Hopefully the assaults in DC and even the chaos that happened over the summer remind us that we have to rely on ourselves for our own safety and security first. We cannot place it entirely in the hands of the police.


Reported By Jim Hoft | Published November 15, 2020 at 3:23pm

wikileaks

Joseph Stalin famously said: “Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything.” Stalin was right. And today we are seeing this play out in the United States of America.

Smartmatic, a UK based company, is a George Soros linked company that has provided voting technology in 16 states including battleground zones like Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Virginia. The company was formed in 2000 and a Chavez campaign adviser was placed on the board as well. The chairman of Smartmatic is Lord Mark Malloch-Brown, who sits in the British House of Lords and on the board of George Soros’s Open Society Foundations. He was formerly the vice-chairman of Soros’s Investment Funds and even the deputy secretary-general of the United Nations when he worked as chief of staff to Kofi Annan.

According to Wikileaks documents Smartmatic machines were used to rig the 2004 Venezuela elections in favor of Marxist candidate Hugo Chavez.

More from Wikileaks: Smartmatic is a riddle.

The company came out of nowhere to snatch a multli-million dollar contract in an electoral process that ultimately reaffirmed Chavez’ mandate and all-but destroyed his political opposition.

The Smartmatic owners, were denounced in June 2004 by the press for having received a US $200,000 equity investment from a Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela (BRV) joint venture fund called FONCREI which was a Chavez organization.  A Chavez campaign adviser was also placed on the board as well.

The Pan Am Post reported on the links between Smartmatic and Dominion this past week week.

Dominion is the name of the company involved in the recent U.S. elections.

Its name is associated with irregularities due to the failure of its electronic systems, whose technology was purchased from Smartmatic through its subsidiary Sequoia, revealed American Thinker.

Dominion denies its link, although, at one point, it allowed Smartmatic to market its same technology abroad in places where Dominion did not do business.

The Dominion Voting Systems are used in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania. All those states have seen razor-thin margins in returns from the presidential election, which is officially undecided. The Gateway Pundit has reported on impossible data ratios found in Dominion machines in Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin.

We have more reports coming on the unquestionably suspect and impossible ratios reported in these states by Dominion Voting Systems.


Reported By Jack Davis | Published November 16, 2020 at 8:19am

Read more at https://www.westernjournal.com/journalist-tests-nevada-voter-signature-verification-discovers-whopping-89-failure-rate/

Man Shows How Easy It Is To Rig a Dominion Voting Machine

A journalist who tested Nevada’s signature verification process for mail-in ballots found that the state is wide open for fraud. Columnist Victor Joecks of the Las Vegas Review-Journal conducted his experiment noting that the issue is deeper than any single contest.

“Leave aside the presidential race. Even small amounts of fraud can swing results,” he wrote, pointing to a race where a state senator won an election by 24 votes.

Joecks said in his piece Thursday that he proved a voter could vote many times.

Clark County election officials accepted my signature on eight ballot return envelopes during the general election. It’s more evidence that signature verification is a flawed security measure,” he wrote, saying the assurances from elections officials that the process was secure were so much puffery.

Joecks noted that among the “facts” assembled on a state website was this gem: “All mail ballots must be signed on the ballot return envelope. This signature is used to authenticate the voter and confirm that it was actually the voter and not another person who returned the mail ballot.”

Given the vast amount of reporting that has shown images of ballots dumped here, there and everywhere, the assertion intrigued Joecks.

“I wanted to test that claim by simulating what might happen if someone returned ballots that didn’t belong to him or her,” he wrote.

Joecks had nine co-conspirators. He wrote their names for them to then copy, trying to imitate his handwriting. The citizens had to sign the ballots to ensure there was no fraud perpetrated while conducting the test.

Clark County Registrar Joe Gloria told Joecks that if ballots signed by someone else “came through, we would still have the signature match to rely on for identity,” he said.

Queried about his confidence in his office’s ability to pluck a fake ballot out of a sea of the documents, he told Joecks, “I’m confident that the process has been working throughout this process.”

“He was wrong,” Joecks wrote. “Eight of the nine ballots went through. In other words, signature verification had an 89 percent failure rate in catching mismatched signatures.”

READ THE REST OF THE REPORT BY GOING HERE https://www.westernjournal.com/journalist-tests-nevada-voter-signature-verification-discovers-whopping-89-failure-rate/

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Joe Biden declared that he plans to vastly increase the number of annual refugees admitted into the United States. Under the Trump administration, the maximum number of refugees permitted in the U.S. per year is 15,000. Biden pledged that he will dramatically raise that number to 125,000. Biden made the declaration in a prerecorded video created for a virtual celebration of the 40th anniversary of Jesuit Refugee Service.

“The United States has long stood as a beacon of hope for the downtrodden and the oppressed, a leader of resettling refugees in our humanitarian response,” Biden said on Thursday, as reported by the Religion News Service. “I promise, as president, I will reclaim that proud legacy for our country.”

“The Biden-Harris administration will restore America’s historic role in protecting the vulnerable and defending the rights of refugees everywhere and raising our annual refugee admission target to 125,000,” Biden announced.

In June, Biden released a statement on World Refugee Day, in which he said, “Fear-mongering, xenophobia, and racism are the unabashed tenets of Trump’s refugee and immigration policy,”

“I also recognize that it is not enough to simply reverse or dismantle the heartless policies of the Trump Administration,” the former vice president stated. “We need to look for ways to do better.

“As President, I will increase the number of refugees we welcome into this country, setting an annual global refugee target of 125,000,” said Biden, who then hinted that he could raise that amount. “And will seek to further raise it over time commensurate with our responsibility, our values, and the unprecedented global need.”

Biden added, “I will repeal the Muslim ban — and other discriminatory bans based on ethnicity and nationality — and restore asylum laws, including ending the horrific practice of separating families at our border.”

In October, President Donald Trump released a memo that read, “The admission of up to 15,000 refugees to the United States during FY 2021 is justified by humanitarian concerns or is otherwise in the national interest.”

A study released earlier this year claimed that refugees cost American taxpayers as much as $133,000 over the course of their lives.


A.F. Branco Cartoon – Blue State Thanksgiving

Blue State Governors like Tim Walz have removed the turkey and put Civil Liberties on the chopping block.

Blue State ThanksgivingPolitical cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2020.

A.F. Branco Cartoon – A Patriot

Folks who attended a Trump rally in Washington DC were violently mobbed as they were leaving by Antifa and BLM.

Mobbed Leaving a Trump RallyPolitical cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2020.
Donations/Tips accepted and appreciated – $1.00 –  $5.00 –  $25.00 – $50.00 – $100 –  it all helps to fund this website and keep the cartoons coming. Also Venmo @AFBranco – THANK YOU!

A.F. Branco has taken his two greatest passions, (art and politics) and translated them into the cartoons that have been popular all over the country, in various news outlets including “Fox News”, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, and “The Washington Post.” He has been recognized by such personalities as Dinesh D’Souza, James Woods, Sarah Palin, Larry Elder, Lars Larson, Rush Limbaugh, and shared by President Donald Trump.


Reported by ROBERT KRAYCHIK | 1

Read more at https://www.breitbart.com/radio/2020/11/13/dershowitz-i-do-think-trump-win-pennsylvania-lawsuit-enough-votes-stake/

Election workers sort absentee ballot envelopes at the Lansing City Clerk’s office on November 02, 2020 in Lansing, Michigan. For the first time, Michigan law is allowing clerks in Michigan cities to expedite the vote-counting process by removing secrecy envelopes from outer mailing envelopes one day ahead of the election. …John Moore/Getty Images

Dershowitz predicted that the U.S. Supreme Court would take up the Trump campaign’s lawsuit if the number of votes being challenged are enough to change the outcome of the presidential election in Pennsylvania.

“I do think that Trump will win the Pennsylvania lawsuit,” said Dershowitz on SiriusXM’s Breitbart News Tonight with host Joel Pollak, “namely, the lawsuit that challenges ballots that were filed before the end of Election Day but not received until after Election Day.”

Dershowitz continued, “The [Pennsylvania] legislature had basically said no to that and the [Pennsylvania] Supreme Court said yes because of the pandemic. That may have been the right decision in some theoretical sense, but the Constitution doesn’t permit anybody in the state but the legislature to make decisions about elections.”

LISTEN:

“That was decided correctly in Bush versus Gore, and I think that four-to-four vote would become a five-to-four vote if the issue came before the Supreme Court and there were not disputed ballots to make a difference in the outcome of the election. That remains to be seen.”

Dershowitz remarked, “As I understand the facts of the case — although I think what the judiciary did may have been the right thing morally: if you get your ballot in on time, you shouldn’t be denied the vote just because the post office screwed up — I don’t think you can really make that argument under Article Two. I do think that the Republican argument is the stronger one.’

“The Supreme Court will take the case only if it would make a difference, only if the plaintiffs — the Republicans — can show that the number of disputed ballots that were subject to sequestration by Justice Alito’s decision exceeds the difference between the winning margin and the losing margin.”

Dershowitz concluded, “The Pennsylvania constitutional argument is a wholesale argument that clearly belongs in federal courts..”

The Supreme Court ordered Pennsylvania election boards on November 6 to separate the count of mail-in ballots that arrived after Election Day in the event that the Supreme Court revisits election lawsuits related to such votes.

Breitbart News Tonight broadcasts live Monday through Friday on SiriusXM’s Patriot channel 125 from 9:00 p.m. to midnight Eastern (6:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. Pacific).


Reported by J.B. Shurk NOVEMBER 13, 2020

If I told you an incumbent president had 52 percent approval on Election Day and ended up winning 10 million more votes than during his first election, would you predict victory? What if 56 percent of voters felt they were better off since the president had entered office? What if you knew that the incumbent had a nearly 30 percent enthusiasm edge over his opponent, or that when asked for whom they thought their neighbors were voting, nearly 10 percent more Americans expected the president to be re-elected than to lose?

With those numbers in mind, wouldn’t you feel pretty confident that the sitting president had, indeed, been re-elected? Alternatively, wouldn’t you consider it an amazing feat if, instead, the president’s challenger was victorious? The improbability of that result should be newsworthy all on its own.

Donald Trump has majority approval. Nearly six in 10 Americans feel better off today than when Barack Obama was in office, and 15 percent more voters pulled the lever for his re-election than in his 2016 victory. These are not the numbers of a losing candidate, yet we’re told Joe Biden managed to prevail.

The media and pollsters, of course, predicted a Biden landslide, not a very narrow squeaker in which Democrats lost in almost every other avenue of government. Considering the following five facts about the election, it’s no wonder Biden failed to achieve a landslide victory.

1. 10 Million More Votes

Not since President Grover Cleveland’s re-election campaign in 1888 has a sitting president won more votes the second time around and still lost, which is one reason he successfully ran again four years later. To put this in perspective, Obama lost 5 million votes between his 2008 and 2012 elections. He is the only president to have lost voters and still won re-election.

By comparison, Trump not only added about 10 million votes to his 2016 haul but also shattered the record for most votes received by a sitting president. Trump won a greater share of minority votes than any Republican presidential candidate since 1960 and brought more Democrats over to his side than in 2016. More than nine in 10 evangelical Christians voted to re-elect the president. For Trump to expand his coalition of voters so substantially and still lose is historic.

2. 56 Percent of Americans Better Off Than in 2016

This is a huge number. According to Gallup, only 32 percent of Americans say they aren’t better off since Trump was inaugurated. No sitting president has lost re-election when more than half of the country is doing better than before the incumbent entered office.

In fact, Obama, George W. Bush, and Ronald Reagan all won re-election, even though only about 45 percent of the country felt better off than when their presidencies had begun. For Biden to have won the election, despite nearly six in 10 Americans doing well under the current president, is noteworthy. It simply has never happened before.

Part of the reason for Americans’ strong sense of being better off under Trump surely stems from the unprecedented prosperity Americans were experiencing until this past spring when the Chinese coronavirus stopped the world’s economies. Under the president, minority unemployment had reached record lows, and minority wealth savings had reached record highs. At the same time, the stock market had risen to all-time record highs. In other words, the Trump economy was benefiting Americans at all economic levels.

After the pandemic caused an election-year recession, the economy has steadily rebounded since summer. Unemployment has already dropped back below 7 percent, much faster than many economists thought possible, and the stock market is back to its pre-pandemic highs.

In the past, the performance of the S&P 500 in the three months before Americans head to the polls has predicted 87 percent of elections since 1928 and 100 percent since 1984. If the S&P is in positive territory by the end of those three months, the incumbent party almost always wins. On the last trading day in July, the S&P 500 closed at 3,271, was up nearly 7 percent by mid-October, and closed at 3,310 on the Monday before the 2020 election. The market predicted a Trump victory.

3. Nearly 30 Percent Enthusiasm Gap Favoring Trump

In June, during the middle of the pandemic, pollster Scott Rasmussen was blown away by the enthusiasm gap between Trump and Biden voters. He wrote in amazement: “Wow! 76 percent of Trump voters are enthusiastic about their candidate compared to just 49 percent of Biden voters.”

This enthusiasm gap, measured consistently as somewhere between 15 and 30 percent, was picked up by many pollsters. Richard Baris, the director of Big Data Poll, told the New York Post in mid-October that enthusiasm for Trump “is historically high,” while “Biden’s enthusiasm level is historically low.”

Anyone who saw a Trump rally would not be surprised. At one of his last campaign stops before Election Day, about 60,000 Trump supporters showed up to see the president in Butler, Pennsylvania. Trump tractor paradesboat parades, and 30-mile-long highway caravans have been a common feature of the 2020 campaign.

Republican support for the president has been higher than for any president of either party since Dwight D. Eisenhower. Until Biden’s presumed victory, no incumbent president winning so handily in voter enthusiasm had lost re-election.

4. More People Thought Neighbors Were Voting for Trump

Just as in 2016, polling this election cycle proved decisively wrong. Republicans in the House, Senate, and state legislatures across the country all out-performed polling estimates. Pollsters consistently predicted a Biden blowout, but instead, the race is one of the closest in American history.

Pollsters have partially excused their efforts by pointing to a “shy Trump voter” error in the polls that failed to capture the president’s true support. To get around this problem, some pollsters asked respondents to name the candidate for whom they believed their neighbors would likely vote, hoping to elicit more candid voting intentions.

By a 7 percentage-point margin, Harvard/Harris polling found in late September that more Americans believed their neighbors would vote for Trump’s re-election than for Biden. In the week before the election, USC Dornsife published a poll asking a similar question: “Do you think your friends and neighbors are voting for Trump?” USC concluded that “it’s looking like an Electoral College loss for Biden.”

5. Trump Still Has 53 Percent Approval

Just 12 days before the election, Trump’s approval rating popped over 50 percent and has held steady since that time. As Gallup noted, “[A]ll incumbents with an approval rating of 50 percent or higher have won re-election, and presidents with approval ratings much lower than 50 percent have lost.” Rasmussen and Zogby both had Trump hitting that holy grail approval number tied to certain re-election.

On the day before the election, Rasmussen had Trump at 52 percent approval. At the same point in his presidency, and before his own re-election, Obama had 50 percent. As of Nov. 11, Rasmussen shows 53 percent of the country approves of Trump, compared to 46 percent who disapprove. No incumbent president has ever lost re-election with numbers such as these.

All of these numbers have historically contributed to a victory for an incumbent president. Considering them, it’s no surprise Biden didn’t win in a landslide, but that they did not produce a win for Trump in 2020 is almost unbelievable.

J.B. Shurk is a proud American from Daniel Boone country.

Reported by Margot Cleveland NOVEMBER 13, 2020

Fraud represents only one aspect of concern over the results from last week’s election. Of equal import when judging the legitimacy of the next president of the United States is whether states complied with the election rules established by their legislatures. These are not questions of mere “technical errors,” but raise significant constitutional concerns.

On Wednesday, Jim Geraghty of National Review tweeted his “Morning Jolt” summary of post-election lawsuits. “The Trump campaign,” Geraghty stressed, “conceded in oral arguments they were not contending fraud or improper influence, merely technical errors,” he wrote of a recent election case. Geraghty’s article, linked in his tweet, continued: “It is one thing to fume on Twitter that there is a sinister effort to steal an election; it is another thing to assert that sweeping claim in a court of law, before a judge, under penalty of perjury and/or disbarment.”

Not to pick on Geraghty, whom I respect immensely, but he is conflating two separate issues: fraud and violations of the election code. Those are two distinct problems, yet there has been little analysis of the latter, which over the next several weeks might prove more significant.

There are multiple allegations of fraud, such as the middle-of-the-night arrival of unsecured ballots in Detroit or the dead man voting in Nevada. Then there’s the even more devastating suggestion that votes for Donald Trump were swapped to Joe Biden via vulnerable computer systems. Frankly, this idea strikes me as unbelievable, but then again, so did the idea that the FBI would obtain illegal secret court warrants to spy on the Trump campaign, and we know how that turned out.

Election Code Violations Might as Well Be ‘Fraud’

Violations of the election code, however, are a different matter, and unfortunately, sometimes the public views election officials’ bending of the rules as a harmless ignoring of technicalities. As the attorney in the Montgomery County Board of Elections case noted after “conceding” he was not alleging fraud: “The election code is technical.”

That makes technical violations constitutionally significant because Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 grants state legislatures the ultimate authority to appoint the electors who choose the president: “Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress.”

In Bush v. Gore, former Supreme Court Justice William Rehnquist stressed the significance of this constitutional provision in a concurrence joined by Justice Clarence Thomas and former Justice Antonin Scalia. As Rehnquist wrote, that clause “convey[s] the broadest power of determination” and “leaves it to the legislature exclusively to define the method” of appointment of electors. Furthermore, “a significant departure from the legislative scheme for appointing Presidential electors presents a federal constitutional question.”

The three concurring justices in Bush v. Gore concluded that the Florida Supreme Court’s order directing election officials to count improperly marked ballots was a “significant departure from the legislative scheme,” and “in a Presidential election the clearly expressed intent of the legislature must prevail.” Accordingly, those justices would have declared the Florida recount unconstitutional under Article 2, Section 1, Clause 2.

While the concurrence in Bush v. Gore failed to garner support by a majority of the justices, the Supreme Court’s composition has changed dramatically since then, and the reasoning of this concurrence provides a strong basis to view deviations from the technicalities of the election code as unconstitutional. As Rehnquist stressed, “[I]n a Presidential election the clearly expressed intent of the legislature must prevail.”

So, if the legislative branch mandates voter signatures, or verification of signatures, or internal secrecy sleeves, or counting only in the presences of poll-watchers from each party, it is no answer to say it is a technicality and not fraud at issue. The state legislatures, through the election code, define the validity of votes, and allowing state officials or courts to read those provisions out of the law raises serious questions under Article 2 of the Constitution.

Ignoring the Election Code Denies Equal Protection

Allowing state officials to fudge on the mandates of the election code raises a second significant constitutional issue, this one under the Equal Protection Clause, which served as the basis for the majority opinion in Bush v. Gore. The majority in Bush v. Gore held that the varying standards violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution, reasoning: “The right to vote is protected in more than the initial allocation of the franchise. Equal protection applies as well to the manner of its exercise. Having once granted the right to vote on equal terms, the State may not, by later arbitrary and disparate treatment, value one person’s vote over that of another.”

When state officials ignore the technicalities of the election code, however, it virtually guarantees voters will be denied equal treatment. The proof is in Pennsylvania. There, for instance, even though the election code prohibited inspecting ballots before Election Day, some county officials — those in larger counties with access to mail-sorting machines that could weigh ballots — weighed the ballots to determine if the voter failed to include the required inner secrecy sleeve.

Then those officials, again contrary to the election code, provided information to representatives of the Democratic Party so they could identify the voters whose ballots would be canceled. Voters whose election officials abided by the technicalities of the election code, however, did not receive that notice nor the opportunity to “cure” their ballot.

Now thanks to the unprecedented push toward mail-in voting over the last year, we are seeing this same pattern repeat itself throughout the country. Some election officials bent (or broke) the rules the legislative branch had set, while others followed the letter of the law. As a result, voters in different counties in the same state were treated disparately and on an arbitrary basis. Unlike the situation in Bush v. Gore, however, it is not the state courts altering the plain language of the election code, but secretaries of state or local election officials.

The majority in Bush v. Gore recognized the rightful place of election officials to interpret and apply the rules established by the legislative branch. This difference provides some leeway to states, which through interpretative guidance tweak the technicalities of the election code. But as in other areas of the law, such interpretations must be reasonable and must not violate the clearly expressed intent of the legislature.

The Supreme Court will likely decide where that line will be drawn in the coming days.

Margot Cleveland is a senior contributor to The Federalist. Cleveland served nearly 25 years as a permanent law clerk to a federal appellate judge and is a former full-time faculty member and adjunct instructor at the college of business at the University of Notre Dame. The views expressed here are those of Cleveland in her private capacity.

Reported by Matt Beebe By  13, 2020

As arguments about voter fraud have escalated across the country, it’s time to recognize that despite what an unmitigated disaster widespread expansion of absentee balloting has been, concerns about its abuse aren’t the most important argument in the ongoing fight over the legitimacy of this election. Sure, the media and Big Tech’s widespread white-washing and censoring of very real voter fraud concerns are damaging to the social fabric in existential ways, just as ignoring norms (and in some cases laws) requiring transparency destroys public trust and confidence in the outcome.

The Pennsylvania lawsuit isn’t yet proof that election-altering fraud occurred, although it does present compelling evidence that if proved shatters the media narrative on election security. A closer look at the allegations of direct fraud weighed against the likelihood of proving that enough occurred to alter the outcome — on a shortened timeline — reveals a daunting task for the president’s legal team.

President Trump’s lawyers, however, aren’t making the same argument as your uncle on Facebook; they’re playing for keeps. Some Republicans have been content to publicly call for the “process to play out” while privately predicting losses or maybe a few favorable rulings on some esoteric technicalities. But the president is not tired of winning yet.

Shortly after the filing, Jenna Ellis, a senior legal adviser to the Trump campaign, put it succinctly: “Pennsylvania is irredeemably compromised.”

The thrust of their legal argument doesn’t hinge on the numbers of fraudulent ballots cast, but on the inconsistent and illegal application of Pennsylvania election law, which dilutes legally cast votes — so-called disparate treatment, from which the U.S. Constitution is supposed to protect us.

The other key legal argument is that those changes in the election law, which were implemented by an unelected appointee of Pennsylvania’s executive branch, namely Secretary of the Commonwealth Kathy Boockvar, were an impermissible usurpation of the legislature’s prerogative even if Pennsylvania’s judicial branch approved them.

Bush v. Gore Already Wrestled with These Concerns

Underlying the president’s legal argument is the recognition that the Pennsylvania legislature implemented an imperfect regime that rationally valued security of the election as more important than avoiding disenfranchising any voters. Even amid a pandemic, the Pennsylvania legislature understood that their expansion of ballot-by-mail increased risks to election security, and thus sought to mitigate that as best they could. It was partisan state courts that unilaterally overrode those determinations in the middle of a presidential campaign in an unconstitutional way.

The discussion about what types of fraud, and how much, is important because it goes to the very heart of election integrity, and our system cannot stand without trust in the outcome. That argument, however, won’t decide the Pennsylvania case from a legal standpoint. It will come down to whether a ministerial appointee of Pennsylvania’s executive branch can work with Pennsylvania’s judicial branch to subvert the expressed will of the legislature, and hastily put in place an election process wherein citizens who chose to vote differently had their votes disparately treated.

Recall that in 2000, the legal argument that eventually carried the day was equal-protection grounds; by implementing different methods for recounts and different scrutiny for different counties, voters were receiving unequal treatment. The Supreme Court held 7-2 that “Upon due consideration of the difficulties identified to this point, it is obvious that the recount cannot be conducted in compliance with the requirements of equal protection and due process without substantial additional work.”

Twenty years is a long time as far as the public attention span goes, and most have allowed the “selected not elected” mantra to pervade our consciousness. Contra the prevailing narrative, however, Justices William Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia, and Clarence Thomas framed their decision as one of judicial restraint that saw a key part of the court’s role was in protecting the Florida legislature from impermissible interference by the Florida courts:

In most cases, comity and respect for federalism compel us to defer to the decisions of state courts on issues of state law. That practice reflects our understanding that the decisions of state courts are definitive pronouncements of the will of the States as sovereigns. Of course, in ordinary cases, the distribution of powers among the branches of a State’s government raises no questions of federal constitutional law, subject to the requirement that the government be republican in character. But there are a few exceptional cases in which the Constitution imposes a duty or confers a power on a particular branch of a State’s government. This is one of them. … Thus, the text of the election law itself, and not just its interpretation by the courts of the States, takes on independent significance.

A significant departure from the legislative scheme for appointing Presidential electors presents a federal constitutional question.

If we are to respect the legislature’s Article II powers, therefore, we must ensure that postelection state-court actions do not frustrate the legislative desire to attain the ‘safe harbor’ provided by §5. (Rehnquist concurring, but writing separately; Citations and dicta omitted)

Admittedly, this “Article II view” was a more expansive view on why the ongoing Florida recount was suspect than the Supreme Court ultimately held, but clearly, at least three justices believed that the courts — even state courts, which usually receive great deference to interpreting state law — don’t have a right to tweak the express will of the state legislature about presidential electors.

To be sure, the equal-protection claims also present differently, so they aren’t a slam-dunk here, and the Rehnquist concurrence isn’t controlling precedent (two of the three justices who signed on to the opinion are no longer on the court), so it might not carry the day.

Three of the young lawyers on the Bush team advocating this view of the law in 2000 have received pretty notable promotions since that time, however, and three other guys likely to have a say have signaled their belief in exactly this interpretation, stating recently, “The provisions of the Federal Constitution conferring on state legislatures, not state courts, the authority to make rules governing federal elections would be meaningless if a state court could override the rules adopted by the legislature simply by claiming that a state constitutional provision gave the courts the authority to make whatever rules it thought appropriate for the conduct of a fair election.”

It’s anyone’s guess how the Supreme Court would rule if it gets to that point, but when three current justices (Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch) have signaled they’re sympathetic to the basic legal argument, and three other justices (John Roberts, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett) were part of the team that advanced very similar legal arguments in Bush v. Gore, the president and his team must like their chances.

The Changes Disproportionately Helped Biden

Pundits and some Trump supporters have engaged in navel-gazing and resigned themselves to the line of reasoning that “maybe Trump shouldn’t have down-talked absentee voting.” We know in addition to increased risk of fraud, however, voters who cast absentee ballots have historically had a significantly greater likelihood of being disenfranchised than in-person voters.

For Trump to push his supporters to vote in ways that were more likely to count isn’t irrational. It instead raises the question of why former Vice President Joe Biden wasn’t concerned with his voters being disenfranchised if they voted absentee, given the historical risks.

Both the potential for fraud and increased probability of disenfranchising voters sound intuitively like things we should fix, but the Pennsylvania legislature didn’t. They saw fit to keep the bar high to offset the risk of fraud and associated effects to public confidence in the election that unrestricted mail balloting would cause.

There’s a rational basis for that, and the entire saga has played out nationally. With the non-legislative changes, absentee voters were significantly less likely to be disenfranchised than before — indeed, Boockvar’s unilateral changes in Pennsylvania removed nearly every barrier the duly elected state legislature had put in place.

This created an environment where the constitutional guarantee of one person, one vote was tilted significantly in the direction of a voting modality (mail balloting versus in-person balloting). Not only was this ripe for greater abuse, but that tilting of the playing field disproportionately benefited the voters of one presidential candidate. Making this even more obvious are new revelations that show how the larger Democratic strongholds were equipped to quickly pre-sort potentially invalid ballots, and Democratic operatives were gearing up to capitalize on the eventual changes to the statutory pre-canvass period before Boockvar’s office even announced them.

What if the Supreme Court Invalidates a State’s Election

For conservatives, an intellectual challenge now presents itself: If you were OK with the Supreme Court stopping the Florida recount in 2000, you need to prepare yourself to be comfortable with the same court invalidating the Pennsylvania electors. Indeed, you should want them to, whether or not there was underlying direct fraud sufficient enough to affect the outcome. Alternatively, you should start working on your tortuous rationale for why, on constitutional grounds, what was legitimate in 2000 is not legitimate in 2020.

Whether you’re persuaded by the equal protection reasoning in the Bush v. Gore holding or in the minority’s separate concurrence emphasizing the plenary powers of the Pennsylvania legislature under Article II, Section 1, Clause 2, if the case makes it to the Supreme Court it won’t hinge on some threshold level of fraud that tipped the scales against Trump, nor will it be about the raw power of a conservative court to hand the election to Trump (which will certainly be the media narrative if it gets to that point). It will be, and always has been, about the rule of law.

Where the actual fraud becomes important — an actual measure of it, and whether it delivered an illegitimate win to Biden — is in how the Pennsylvania legislature, and potentially Congress, should react to the Court prohibiting the certification of the November election with respect to presidential electors. There is nothing wrong or abhorrent to our constitutional system if the elected representatives of the citizens of Pennsylvania are required to weigh in and clean this up on behalf of their voters. They need to be prepared to make their case to their voters if the predominant media narrative remains that the fraud wasn’t significant enough to affect the election outcome in Pennsylvania.

Regardless of how the Pennsylvania case gets resolved, it won’t change the overall outcome on its own. The 20 electoral votes wouldn’t be enough to swing the election to Trump if existing media projections for Arizona, Nevada, Georgia, Wisconsin, and Michigan stay in Biden’s column. If any of those changes, whether through ongoing canvassing efforts or other simultaneous legal challenges — such as the president’s filing Wednesday in Michigan making similar constitutional claims — well, Katy, bar the door.

Our way of government is strong enough to endure this. The only way through is through.

For nearly twenty years, Matt Beebe served as a countermeasures engineer in the Air Force and a contractor in the intelligence community before launching an IT and computer security firm in San Antonio, Texas. He is active in Texas politics and can be found on Twitter @theMattBeebe.

Reported by JOSH GERSTEIN | Politico | November 13, 2020

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito delivered an unusually inflammatory public speech Thursday night, starkly warning about the threats he contends religious believers face from advocates for gay and abortion rights, as well as public officials responding to the coronavirus pandemic. Speaking to a virtual conference of conservative lawyers, the George W. Bush appointee made no direct comment on the recent election, the political crisis relating to President Donald Trump’s refusal to acknowledge his defeat or litigation on the issue pending at the Supreme Court.

However, Alito didn’t hold back on other controversial subjects, even suggesting that the pressure Christians face surrounding their religious beliefs is akin to the strictures the U.S. placed on Germany and Japan after World War II.

“Is our country going to follow that course?” Alito asked. “For many today, religious liberty is not a cherished freedom. It’s often just an excuse for bigotry and can’t be tolerated, even when there is no evidence that anybody has been harmed. … The question we face is whether our society will be inclusive enough to tolerate people with unpopular religious beliefs.”

Alito argued that some recent Supreme Court decisions, including the landmark ruling upholding a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, fueled intolerance to those who believe marriage should be limited to unions between one man and one woman.

“Until very recently, that’s what the vast majority of Americans thought. Now, it’s considered bigotry,” he said.

Alito also seemed to minimize the significance of a refusal of a Colorado baker to produce a wedding cake for a same-sex couple. The justice noted that the couple involved “was given a free cake by another bakery” and that the high-profile standoff prompted “celebrity chefs” to come to their defense.

Justices often include pointed, even barbed, language in their opinions. Indeed, Alito regularly does so, and many of his remarks Thursday night echoed similar comments he’s made in caustic dissents. Still, it is uncommon for a justice to weigh in on hot-button topics like abortion or gay rights in speaking appearances open to the press or public.

During his half-hour-long speech, Alito warned that not only is freedom of belief increasingly under threat, but freedom of expression is as well.

“One of the great challenges for the Supreme Court going forward will be to protect freedom of speech. Although that freedom is falling out of favor in some circles, we need to do whatever we can to prevent it from becoming a second-tier constitutional right,” he said.

While the conservative justice insisted he was not opining on the legal questions related to coronavirus lockdown orders and similar restrictions, he painted those moves as oppressive.

“The pandemic has resulted in previously unimaginable restrictions on individual liberty,” Alito said, insisting that such an observation was transparently true. “The Covid crisis has served as a sort of constitutional stress test and in doing so it has highlighted disturbing trends that were already in evidence before the pandemic struck.”

Alito also used his address to trash a brief Democratic senators filed last year in a gun rights case, warning the court that lawmakers might move to restructure the court if it continued to produce what the senators asserted were politically motivated rulings.

“It was an affront to the Constitution and the rule of law,” Alito said, paraphrasing remarks he made in court. “It is … wrong for anyone, including members of Congress, to try to influence our decisions by anything other than legal argumentation. That sort of thing has often happened in countries governed by power, not law.”

Alito did not make reference to Trump’s numerous public affronts to federal judges. In 2018, those relentless attacks prompted Chief Justice John Roberts to issue an unusual statement coming to the defense of the independence of the judiciary.

Many lawyers took to Twitter on Thursday night to accuse Alito of hypocrisy for delivering a highly politically charged speech that was devoted in part to complaining about lawmakers casting the court as political.

“This speech is like I woke up from a vampire dream,” University of Baltimore law professor and former federal prosecutor Kim Wehle wrote. “Unscrupulously biased, political, and even angry. I can’t imagine why Alito did this publicly. Totally inappropriate and damaging to the Supreme Court.”

Alito also engaged in another regular lament from legal conservatives, complaining that law schools are hostile to those with right-of-center political views and others whose beliefs go against the majority viewpoint.

“Unfortunately, tolerance for opposing views is now in short supply in many law schools and in the broader academic community,” the justice said. “When I speak with recent law school graduates, what I hear over and over is that they face harassment and retaliation if they say anything that departs from the law school orthodoxy.”

Alito, who attended Princeton as an undergraduate and Yale for law school, used a century-old precedent related to a smallpox outbreak in Cambridge to take a not-particularly-veiled shot at a prominent Ivy League school he did not attend: Harvard.

“I am all in favor of preventing dangerous things from issuing out of Cambridge and infecting the rest of the country and the world. It would be good if what originates in Cambridge stays in Cambridge,” the justice joked.


Reported by Will Feuer | CNBC | November 13, 2020

Shutting down businesses and paying people for lost wages for four to six weeks could help keep the coronavirus pandemic in check and get the economy on track until a vaccine is approved and distributed, said Dr. Michael Osterholm, a coronavirus advisor to President-elect Joe Biden.

Osterholm, who serves as director of the Center of Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota, said earlier this week that the country is headed toward “Covid hell.” Cases are rising as more people grow tired of wearing masks and social distancing, suffering from so-called “pandemic fatigue,” he said Wednesday. Colder weather is also driving people indoors, where the virus can spread more easily. A nationwide lockdown would drive the number of new cases and hospitalizations down to manageable levels while the world awaits a vaccine, he told Yahoo Finance on Wednesday.

“We could pay for a package right now to cover all of the wages, lost wages for individual workers, for losses to small companies, to medium-sized companies or city, state, county governments. We could do all of that,” he said. “If we did that, then we could lock down for four to six weeks.”

In an interview with NBC News on Thursday, Osterholm clarified his comments, saying “it was not a recommendation. I have never made this recommendation to Biden’s group. We’ve never talked about it.”

“My only point was if we are going to keep making restrictions state-by-state, there is no compensation for the businesses that are being impacted,” he added. “What we’re doing right now is not working.”

A Biden transition official told NBC News that a shutdown “is not in line with the president-elect’s thinking.”

Osterholm was appointed to Biden’s 12-member Covid “advisory board” on Monday. The panel of advisors is co-chaired by former Surgeon General Vivek Murthy, former Food and Drug Administration Commissioner David Kessler and Dr. Marcella Nunez-Smith of Yale University. Other task force members include Dr. Atul Gawande, a professor of surgery and health policy at Harvard, and Dr. Rick Bright, the vaccine expert and whistleblower who resigned his post with the Trump administration last month.

A representative for Biden did not respond to CNBC’s request for comment.

Osterholm on Wednesday referenced an August op-ed he wrote with Minneapolis Federal Reserve President Neel Kashkari in which the two argued for more restrictive and uniform lockdowns across the nation.

“The problem with the March-to-May lockdown was that it was not uniformly stringent across the country. For example, Minnesota deemed 78 percent of its workers essential,” they wrote in The New York Times. “To be effective, the lockdown has to be as comprehensive and strict as possible.”

On Wednesday, Osterholm said such a lockdown would help the country bring the virus under control, “like they did in New Zealand and Australia.” Epidemiologists have repeatedly pointed to New Zealand, Australia and parts of Asia that have brought the number of daily new cases to under 10 as an example of how to contain the virus.

“We could really watch ourselves cruising into the vaccine availability in the first and second quarter of next year while bringing back the economy long before that,” he said Wednesday.

On the current trajectory, Osterholm said the U.S. is headed for dark days before a vaccine becomes available. He said health-care systems across the country are already overwhelmed in places such as El Paso, Texas, where local officials have already closed businesses and the federal government is sending resources to handle a surge in deaths caused by Covid-19.

Osterholm said the country needs leadership. The president-elect is up to the task of providing that leadership, Osterholm said, adding that it could also come from local and state officials or those in the medical community. He referenced the fireside chats broadcast over radio during former President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s terms, through which Roosevelt addressed the country on issues ranging from the Great Depression to World War II.

“People don’t want to hear that El Paso isn’t an isolated event. El Paso, in many instances, will become the norm,” he said. “I think that the message is: How do we get through this? We need FDR moments right now. We need fireside chats. We need somebody to tell America, ‘This is what in the hell is going to happen.’”


Reported By Jim Hoft | Published November 12, 2020 at 1:42pm

Crooked Kathy Boockvar

The Trump Campaign scored another win against the lawless Left on Thursday. A Pennsylvania judge ruled that crooked Secretary of State Kathy Boockvar lacked the statutory authority to override election law.

FOX News reported:

A Pennsylvania judge ruled in favor of the Trump campaign Thursday, ordering that the state may not count ballots where the voters needed to provide proof of identification and failed to do so by Nov. 9.

Advertisement – story continues below

State law said that voters have until six days after the election — this year that was Nov. 9 — to cure problems regarding a lack of proof of identification. After the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that mail-in ballots could be accepted three days after Election Day, Pennsylvania Secretary of State Kathy Boockvar submitted guidance that said proof of identification could be provided up until Nov. 12, which is six days from the ballot acceptance deadline. That guidance was issued two days before Election Day.

“[T]he Court concludes that Respondent Kathy Boockvar, in her official capacity as Secretary of the Commonwealth, lacked statutory authority to issue the November 1, 2020, guidance to Respondents County Boards of Elections insofar as that guidance purported to change the deadline … for certain electors to verify proof of identification,” Judge Mary Hannah Leavitt said in a court order.

READ THE COURT ORDER HERE


Reported by  

The late mentor of Raphael Warnock, pastor and one of Georgia’s Democratic candidates for US Senate, had advocated for the “destruction of everything white” and demonized white Christians as “satanic.”

James Hal Cone, who passed away in 2018, was a pastor, professor, and passionate defender of “black liberation theology,” which he outlined in his 1969 book Black Theology and Black Power. Warnock has praised Cone as a “poignant and powerful voice of high spiritual magnitude.

Cone has a Wikipedia page that describes his black liberation theology:

His message was that Black Power, defined as black people asserting the humanity that white supremacy denied, was the gospel in America. Jesus came to liberate the oppressed, advocating the same thing as Black Power. He argued that white American churches preached a gospel based on white supremacy, antithetical to the gospel of Jesus. Cone’s work was influential from the time of the book’s publication, and his work remains influential today. His work has been both used and critiqued inside and outside the African-American theological community.

The Washington Free Beacon dug up the following quotes from Black Theology and Black Power:

“The white God is an idol created by racists, and we blacks must perform the iconoclastic task of smashing false idols. White religionists are not capable of perceiving the blackness of God, because their satanic whiteness is a denial of the very essence of divinity.”

“There will be no peace in America until white people begin to hate their whiteness, asking from the depths of their being: ‘How can we become black?’”

“If there is one brutal fact that the centuries of white oppression have taught blacks, it is that whites are incapable of making any valid judgements about human existence. The goal of black theology is the destruction of everything white, so that blacks can be liberated from alien gods.”

“With the assurance that God is on our side, we can begin to make ready for the inevitable—the decisive encounter between white and black existence. White appeals to ‘wait and talk it over’ are irrelevant when children are dying and men and women are being tortured. We will not let whitey cool this one with his pious love ethic but will seek to enhance our hostility, bringing it to its full manifestation.”

“We have reached our limit of tolerance, and if it means death with dignity, or life with humiliation, we choose the former. And if that is the choice, we will take out some honkies with us.”

The Free Beacon also notes that Raphael Warnock cited Cone’s book over a dozen times in his 2013 book titled The Divided Mind of the Black Church.

Warnock is also being questioned for his relationship to Jeremiah Wright, who was Barack Obama’s former pastor in Chicago and a controversial figure for past comments and a 2008 speech titled “God Damn America.”

Despite being a first-time candidate for office, Warnock is heading for a January runoff against sitting senator Kelly Loeffler, as neither obtained 50 percent of the vote on November 3.


A Pennsylvania judge ruled in favor of the Trump campaign on Thursday, ordering that the state may not count ballots where voters did not provide proof of identification before Nov. 9. Existing Pennsylvania law states that voters have up to six days after the election to cure issues with a ballot, such as a lack of identification. Election Day was Nov. 3 this year, meaning that voters had until Nov. 9 to correct their ballots.

In September, Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court ruled that mail-in ballots could be accepted three days after Election Day. The issue went to the U.S. Supreme Court, and following a 4-4 tie, Pennsylvania was permitted to accept ballots three days after Election Day.

Two days before Election Day, Pennsylvania Secretary of State Kathy Boockvar (D), who oversees elections in the state, issued a guidance that proof of ID could be provided up until Nov. 12 to cure ballots. President Trump’s legal team argued that Boockvar had no power to change the date. The ballots received from Nov. 10 through Nov. 12 were segregated until there was a ruling to determine if they would be counted or not.

On Thursday, Pennsylvania Judge Mary Hannah Leavitt ruled that Boockvar “lacked statutory authority” to enable an extension period to cure ballots.

“[T]he Court concludes that Respondent Kathy Boockvar, in her official capacity as Secretary of the Commonwealth, lacked statutory authority to issue the November 1, 2020, guidance to Respondents County Boards of Elections insofar as that guidance purported to change the deadline … for certain electors to verify proof of identification,” Leavitt said in a court order.

“Accordingly, the court hereby orders the respondents County Board of Elections are enjoined from counting any ballots that have been segregated pursuant to Paragraph 1 of this court’s order dated November 5, 2020, granting a special injunction,” Leavitt wrote.

“None of the votes affected by the ruling had yet been included in the state’s official tally,” according to the Philadelphia Inquirer. No indication was given on how many ballots were affected by Judge Leavitt’s ruling.

Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden currently holds a 54,325-vote lead over President Trump in Pennsylvania.


A.F. Branco Cartoon – Slip Sliding Away

Fox News has been moving more left, soon they’ll be just like CNN, MSNBC, NPR, ABC, etc.

Fox on a slippery SlopePolitical cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2020

A.F. Branco Cartoon – Trump and Goliath

Trump is fighting against a Goliath giant made up of Big Tech, MS Media complex, Democrat machine, and the deep state.

Trump And The Leftist GoliathPolitical cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2020.
Donations/Tips accepted and appreciated $1.00 –  $5.00 –  $25.00 – $50.00 – $100 –  it all helps to fund this website and keep the cartoons coming. Also Venmo @AFBranco – THANK YOU!

A.F. Branco has taken his two greatest passions, (art and politics) and translated them into the cartoons that have been popular all over the country, in various news outlets including “Fox News”, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, and “The Washington Post.” He has been recognized by such personalities as Dinesh D’Souza, James Woods, Sarah Palin, Larry Elder, Lars Larson, Rush Limbaugh, and shared by President Donald Trump.


Reported by Jordan Davidson NOVEMBER 12, 2020

Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden promised unity in a speech Saturday night following the corporate media’s projections that he would win the presidential election.

“With the campaign over, it’s time to put the anger and the harsh rhetoric behind us and come together as a nation,” Biden said. “It’s time for Americans to unite. And to heal.”

While the former vice president mounted the stage on the East Coast to declare his victory and pledge to “work as hard for those who didn’t vote for me as those who did,” that same night, rioters on the opposite coast were parading around Portland, Oregon destroying things to demonstrate their opposition to his leadership.

Earlier in the week, including on Election Night, Portland descended back into its all-too-familiar anarchical state seen over the summer. Rioters burned an American flag, threw Molotov cocktails and glass bottles, vandalized local businesses, and continued to raise a commotion as they had done following the death of George Floyd in Minneapolis.

The destructive group, highly suspected of being Antifa, pushed Oregon Gov. Kate Brown to call in the state’s National Guard after she delayed the decision for at least six months while violence plagued the city. The violence, however, was not limited to Election Day or the few days that followed.

Even after the media projected that Biden was the winner of the presidential election on Saturday, Antifa members in Portland led a “violent anti-Joe Biden protest” on Sunday during which they attacked the Multnomah County Democrats building, smashing windows and spraying it with graffiti promoting anarchy and Black Lives Matter.

It’s Trump’s Fault

Democrats and the media tried to pin the rising violence this summer on President Donald Trump, saying that his rhetoric stoked division and hate and that he is a racist who refuses to denounce white supremacy. The left put all of their efforts into electing a candidate that, despite his own deeply racist history and questionable comments towards black people, would somehow bring the nation together to address and heal from years of racial injustice.

Even the Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler, a progressive Democrat who was complicit as violent mobs lit things on fire for months, tried to soothe the tension in Portland with words, saying “We’re going to need to come together as never before to address short-term issues and the long-term changes and investments needed to rebuild our economy, rebuild confidence in law enforcement and restore hope for our future.”

The mayor, however, was rejected by the rioters, who repeatedly protested outside of his apartment building and even organized a sit-in, demanding that he “reduce the Portland Police Bureau budget, commit to never voting for police budget increases again, and resign.” Wheeler’s challenger in the Portland mayoral election was Antifa advocate Sarah Iannarone, who netted nearly half of Portland citizens’ votes.

Despite some Democrats’ high hopes that unity could be achieved once the bad orange man left office, it is clear that, as many conservatives tried to warn earlier in the year, the mob is insatiable. The people who are arrested for rioting and destroying property in Portland only to be released and start the process all over again don’t care about Biden or the Democrats’ political chatter.

They desire anarchy. They want revenge. They long for chaos. And they won’t stop on their own.

Trump’s calls for law and order were criticized and laughed at by the media and liberals, but he was right. Unless someone steps up to denounce and actively counteract the chaos, it will prevail.

Do Biden’s Promises Extend to Antifa?

Biden claims he wants peace, unity, and healing, but so far, he has only loosely condemned the violence seen in U.S. cities. As far as Antifa in Portland goes, Biden has mostly ignored the issue, perhaps hoping that it would fizzle out on its own. But it’s not going away.

The question now is will Biden, who claims he’ll work hard for those who don’t support him, continue to ignore the destruction and erosion caused by Antifa in Portland, or will he try to gather them all around the fires they start outside of the Portland Police Bureau to sing Kumbaya and proclaim that racism is cured?

Either way, Portland will reject him, just as they rejected Wheeler. Nothing is good enough for them. They may have hated Trump, but they hate Biden just as much. And their cries of “F— Trump, F— Biden, death to America! We want something better than this trash, and we’re going to take it” will continue.

Jordan Davidson is a staff writer at The Federalist. She graduated from Baylor University where she majored in political science and minored in journalism.
Photo Antifa |Flickr

Reported by John Daniel Davidson NOVEMBER 12, 2020

One of the big changes we should expect under a Joe Biden administration is an explosion of illegal immigration and a renewed crisis at the U.S.-Mexico border. The reason for this is simple: the immigration and border policies the Trump administration has put into place over the past four years have succeeded in driving down illegal immigration, and Biden has promised to reverse nearly all of them.

Throughout the campaign, Biden was forthright about his plans to dismantle Trump’s immigration and border security agenda. His team is now planning to carry out those plans, including a 100-day moratorium on deportations, directives to curtail arrests of illegal immigrants, and a full restoration of the Obama-era Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, or DACA.

These actions will almost certainly trigger a wave of illegal immigration up and down the southwest border. Why? Because Trump’s policies helped bring illegal immigration under control. Undoing them will be interpreted, rightly, as an invitation to would-be migrants in Mexico and Central America, who will respond accordingly, especially as those countries continue to suffer from worsening conditions under the pandemic.

Although pandemic restrictions and border security policies in the United States and Mexico helped decrease the number of apprehensions at the southwest border over the summer and fall, illegal immigration was steadily declining long before the outbreak, largely because of programs and policies implemented by the Trump administration in response to a dramatic rise in illegal border crossings and apprehensions in 2019.

The Migrant Protection Protocols, or the “remain in Mexico” program, which requires most asylum-seekers to wait in Mexico for their cases to be heard by a U.S. immigration judge, has been one of the most prominent—and controversial—Trump administration policies aimed at curbing illegal immigration. In cooperation with the Mexican government, it has also been successful at deterring illegal immigration and reducing specious asylum claims.

Since the program’s inception in late 2018, some 67,000 people have been returned to Mexico after having been caught crossing the border illegally. Many of these migrants have opted to return to their countries of origin, citing dangerous conditions in Mexico and the likelihood they will lose their asylum cases in court. Biden has said he will end the program.

Another major action taken by the Trump administration was the termination of the Flores Decree, a 1997 court decision that prevented U.S. officials from detaining migrant families and unaccompanied minors for more than 20 days. Because Flores all but guaranteed that an adult who crossed the border with a child would, upon claiming asylum, be quickly released into the United States, it created a powerful incentive for families to cross the border illegally and make questionable asylum claims.

It also fueled a lucrative and exploitative human smuggling industry stretching from Central America to the Rio Grande. Flores meant children were used as “passports” into the United States—not just by families but also by unscrupulous smugglers and cartels that profit handsomely from illegal immigration. U.S. officials discovered thousands of “fake families” at the border in recent years, with adults posing as parents of unrelated children, and even cases where children were “recycled,” crossing the border multiple times with unrelated adults.

By ending Flores, the Trump administration was able to more or less end this practice, since it removed the promise of a quick release if you had a child with you and claimed asylum. Biden has said he will effectively reinstate Flores, releasing asylum-seekers who arrive with children before their court dates and funding various case-management programs in hopes that they don’t simply disappear into the immigration underground once they are released.

Biden has also said he will restore DACA, the Obama-era program that allowed illegal immigrants who were brought to the U.S. as minors a reprieve from deportation and renewable, two-year work permits. The promise of minors being allowed to stay in the United States helped fuel a surge of unaccompanied children and teenagers to the border beginning in 2014, with smugglers promising parents that they and their children would be granted “permits” to remain in the United States.

It didn’t matter that DACA didn’t actually apply to these minors. Unscrupulous smugglers, known as “coyotes,” sold families on the line to pocket their passage fees, with cartels taking their cut at the Rio Grande.

The Trump administration announced it was ending DACA in 2017, but the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in June that the administration hadn’t followed the proper procedures for ending the program, leaving it for the time being in administrative limbo. Even so, as the case has been wending its way through the courts the past few years, the message has gotten back to sending communities in Mexico and Central America that unaccompanied minors don’t have a guaranteed way to stay in the United States through DACA. Once Biden restores it, they will.

Another Border Crisis Is Already Brewing

All of these changes promised by the Biden administration will not go unnoticed by would-be migrants seeking entrance to the United States, or by the smugglers and cartels who profit off getting them here. Messaging and sometimes even minor U.S. policy changes have a ripple effect on the migration pipeline that runs from South Texas all the way to Guatemala City and Tegucigalpa.

What’s more, Biden need not have the cooperation of Congress to do these things. Indeed, Trump didn’t have congressional support for most of his immigration and border policies, and neither did President Obama. Most Americans don’t realize it, but U.S. immigration law gives wide latitude to executive branch agencies like the Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Customs and Border Protection to create and implement policies at the border, from the detention and processing of migrants caught crossing illegally to the procedures and requirements for asylum adjudication.

That’s partly by design: Congress has long abdicated its responsibility for immigration, instead delegating authority and policy-making to an ever-growing executive bureaucracy.

That means every time the White House changes hands, U.S. immigration and border policy goes through a massive upheaval. All along, Biden has been candid about his plans for the border, and if he follows through on them—like Trump, mostly via executive order—it will trigger a wave of migration from Central America and Mexico that U.S. border officials will be largely powerless to stop.

To suppose otherwise is not only to ignore recent history, but to assume that the people of Mexico, Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador have no agency. Already in late September, at least one large caravan was reportedly forming in Honduras, headed for Mexico and the U.S. border.

Others will follow under a Biden administration, their ranks filled with people drawn by the resurrection of Obama-era policies that will grant them, by various mechanisms, entry to the United States. They will be making a rational and reasonably informed choice. And on understanding just how drastically U.S. immigration policy can shift with a presidential election, and how much easier it will be to get in under Biden, they won’t be wrong.

John is the Political Editor at The Federalist. Follow him on Twitter.
Photo John Davidson

Reported by Christopher Bedford NOVEMBER 12, 2020

Georgia’s on the mind this fall as both Senate races head to winter run-offs. The contests pit Republican incumbent Sen. David Perdue against Democrat Jon Ossoff, and Republican Sen. Kelly Loeffler, who was nominated to fill a vacant seat just last year, against Raphael Warnock.

At first glance, the two Democrats appear to be dream candidates. In Ossoff, team blue has a young man with a Justin Trudeau look and an economics education from London running against an older incumbent. In Warnock, they have a black Baptist minister who literally leads Martin Luther King Jr’s old church running against a never-elected incumbent accused of insider trading.

Historically, Georgian Democrats have toed a more conservative line. A Georgian congressman was a co-founder of the moderate Blue Dog Democrats, for example, and the last Democratic senator to represent the state was Zell Miller, who famously growled “nothing makes this Marine madder than someone calling American troops occupiers rather than liberators” in a fiery Republican National Convention speech endorsing George W. Bush over John Kerry.

But southern Democrats don’t run quite like they used to. Ossoff first came onto the scene  in a special election in 2017 with a run for Congress, raising more than 95 percent from out-of-state donors, mainly Californians and New Yorkers. The year after, Stacey Abrams launched her ridiculous, never-conceded 2018 run for governor, landing frequent appearances on “The View” and other popular shows despite her failure.

Since these races, the major contests in the changing state have routinely become marquee-topping, left-wing, Hollywood and New York-funded events, thus far ending in failure, not unlike Texas’s blue hopes. In 2017, for example, despite running “the most expensive House contest in U.S. history,” Ossoff lost. Now he’s back with the same playbook, and in October he raised more than 87 percent of his funds from out of state, besting Warnock’s nearly 80 percent. On Monday, both candidates attended their first fundraiser of the run-off — with Silicon Valley elites in a San Francisco restaurant.

So what about these two Democrats attracts so much progressive money while Ossoff, for one, denies support for Green New Deal, defunding police, Medicare for All, and packing the Supreme Court? Check out Ossoff’s Instagram account for a starter, where he crows about his wife’s testimony against the Georgie heartbeat bill that protects babies with a beating heart. Then dig into his actual positions.

He’s told Georgians he supports the Paris Climate Accord, yes, but he also supports “historic infrastructure plan that includes massive investments in clean energy, energy efficiency, and environmental protection.” “A huge infrastructure plan, you say?” the left-wing New Republic joked. “One that reduces emissions while also providing well-paying jobs? That sounds mighty familiar.”

Similarly, he stands against defunding police while saying he’d “take a look” at the funding for police departments. He supports “comprehensive immigration reform,” including amnesty. He doesn’t like gun rights much either. Sounds right by California.

So how about Warnock? He’s carefully crafted himself after Martin Luther King Jr., attending the same college and now leading the same church. Like King, he’s an activist and a preacher, but unlike King, his sit-in arrest was over Obamacare — and he believes abortion “is consistent with” the Bible.

Warnock also loves Rev. Jeremiah Wright, calling his “God damn America” speech “a very fine sermon.” As recently as the ’90s, the New York City church Warnock pastored at chanted Fidel Castro’s name in jubilation, welcoming a dictator who closed churches, silenced priests, called Catholics “social scum” and even banned Christmas. He stayed with the church, actually rising in its ranks.

While he claims he is against defunding the police, Warnock’s said they have “a gangsta and thug mentality” and that it’s “often those who are sworn to protect cause more trouble.” And then his senior adviser thinks defunding “will actually make us safer.” While he’s to the left of Ossoff on packing the Supreme Court, he sure seems to share Ossof’s hope he beats the president’s supporters so badly they “never show [their] face in public again.”

Democrats face an uphill battle in both Senate races, with anti-Trump turnout non-existent in early January, but both races are still very competitive. “That Jon Ossoff’s message seems moderate,” Vox’s Matt Yglesias wrote in 2017, “is a sign of how far Democrats have shifted.” If that message can work in the strange, only-recently conservative state of Georgia, will serve as an important signal to national Democrats — and could decide control of the Senate.

Christopher Bedford is a senior editor at The Federalist, the vice chairman of Young Americans for Freedom, a board member at the National Journalism Center, and the author of The Art of the Donald. Follow him on Twitter.

Reported by Joy Pullmann NOVEMBER 12, 2020

A lawsuit filed Nov. 8 in Michigan alleges that Detroit, Mich. elections officials oversaw and openly encouraged election fraud totaling many “tens of thousands” of fraudulent ballots, plus other illegal election-tampering.

The complaint filed by an in-state conservative nonprofit legal group alleges numerous instances of illegal and suspicious activity in the Democrat stronghold encompassing Detroit, Wayne County. President Trump’s legal team has filed a separate lawsuit alleging additional voting crimes and irregularities in the county.

The current results of the presidential race in Michigan suggest an approximately 146,000-vote gap between President Trump and Joe Biden, and an 84,000-vote gap between U.S. Senate candidates Gary Peters (D) and John James (R). The Associated Press and the state’s Democrat officials say Biden has won the state’s electoral votes and that Trump’s claims of fraud are insulting and inaccurate.

Wayne County is estimated to have been the site of some 850,000 votes this year. If this lawsuit is accurate, however, a massive portion of these votes is fraudulent.

The Great Lakes Justice Center complaint provides “eyewitness accounts and direct evidence” that “approximately 40,000” unsecured, irregular ballots arrived in vehicles with out-of-state license plates at Detroit’s only vote-counting location, TCF Center, in the wee hours of the Nov. 4 morning during a shift change in election workers. Eyewitnesses signed affidavits saying that every one of this group of 40,000 ballots they saw “was counted orally and attributed only to Democratic candidates,” specifically Joe Biden.

Other eyewitnesses signed affidavits under penalty of perjury stating they saw multiple other piles of ballots, together additionally numbering in the tens of thousands, that were counted despite violating election law, sometimes at the direction of local election officials. This allegedly happened both before the election, during early voting, and during the election and subsequent vote count.

“After poll challengers started discovering the fraud taking place at the TCF Center, Defendant election officials and workers locked credentialed challengers out of the counting room so they could not observe the process, during which time tens of thousands of ballots were processed,” the complaint says. It also alleges:

  • “Defendant election officials and workers allowed ballots to be duplicated by hand without allowing poll challengers to check if the duplication was accurate. In fact, election officials and workers repeatedly obstructed poll challengers from observing. Defendants permitted thousands of ballots to be filled out by hand and duplicated on site without oversight from poll challengers.”
  • Poll challenger Daniel Gustafson signed an affidavit stating he “witnessed tens of thousands of ballots being delivered to the TCF Center that were not in any approved, sealed, or tamper-proof container…Large quantities of ballots were delivered to the TCF Center in what appeared to be mail bins with open tops. Contrary to law, these ballot bins and containers did not have lids, were not sealed, and did not have the capability of having a metal seal.”

The Federalist reported earlier this week on one affidavit filed in this complaint, from former Michigan Assistant Attorney General Zachary Larsen, but there are many,  many more, and the details are scandalous.

The First Big Batch of 40,000 Suspicious Votes

An affidavit signed by poll challenger Andrew Sitto tells more about the 40,000 ballots he says he saw brought in: “At approximately 4:00 a.m. on November 4, 2020, tens of thousands of ballots were suddenly brought into the counting room through the back door…by vehicles with out-of-state license plates (Exhibit C). It was observed that all of these new ballots were cast for Joe Biden,” summarizes the complaint.

Sitto’s affidavit expands on what he saw while observing the vote-counting process from election night, Nov. 3, overnight into the early morning of Nov. 4. He says by 4:30 a.m. on Nov. 4, right before a 5 a.m. shift change between poll watchers, one of two men in charge of the vote counting “got on the microphone and stated that another shipment of absentee ballots would be arriving and would have to be counted.”

“At approximately 4:30 a.m., tens of thousands of ballots were brought in and placed on eight long tables. Unlike the other ballots, these boxes were brought in from the rear of the room. The same procedure was performed on the ballots that arrived at approximately 4:30 a.m., but I specifically noticed that every ballot I observed was cast for Joe Biden,” his affidavit states. “While counting these new ballots, I heard counters say at least five or six times that all five or six ballots were for Joe Biden. All ballots sampled that I heard and observed were for Joe Biden.”

There Was a Second Big Dump of Suspicious Ballots

The lawsuit alleges the 40,000 vote dump is not the only suspicious one observed on Nov. 4 in Detroit. Poll challenger Robert Cushman attested that on Nov. 4, 2020 at approximately 9 p.m., he “was surprised to see numerous new boxes of ballots arrive at the TCF Center in the evening… I estimate these boxes contained several thousand new ballots when they appeared.” He noticed that none of the names on these new ballots were of registered voters, which poll workers were supposed to verify.

“I saw the computer operators at several counting boards manually adding the names and addresses of these thousands of ballots to the QVF system,” his affidavit states. “When I asked what the possible justification was to counting ballots from unknown, unverified ‘persons,’ I was told by election supervisors that the Wayne County Clerk’s Office had ‘checked them out.’” Subsequently, Cushman challenged the entire process encompassing these “thousands of ballots.”

Election workers are supposed to match the name on each ballot with a registered voter on the state’s official lists. Instead, Cushman says, the Wayne County Clerk’s officers told poll workers to add all the names on the ballots from these boxes to the state’s list, giving them all a false birth date of January 1, 1900.

Election rules also say absentee voters are supposed to be added to the state’s registered voter lists before 9 p.m. on Nov. 3, election day. All of the voters for these ballots were added after this deadline, at the direction of local election officials, Cushman says.

“None of the names of these new ballots corresponded with any registered voter,” the complaint says.

Whistleblower: Election Officials Broke the Law Big-Time

One of the affidavits is signed by a Detroit Elections Department worker whose identity is concealed in the court documents under whistleblower protections. A Great Lakes Justice Center attorney told The Federalist she snuck out yellow sticky notes during ballot processing to be able to stay and observe some of the illegal activities alleged in her affidavit. The affidavit alleges numerous illegal activities conducted by Wayne County election officials, affecting thousands if not tens of thousands of votes atop all those outlined above.

The whistleblower says that during her work processing early votes, “I was instructed by my supervisor to adjust the mailing date of these absentee ballot packages to be dated earlier than they were actually sent. The supervisor was making announcements for all workers to engage in this practice.” If true, this is fraud and election tampering.

The same sort of fraud, she alleges, happened on Nov. 4. That day, she says, “I was instructed to improperly pre-date the absentee ballots receive date that were not in the QVF [the state’s registered voter list] as if they had been received on or before November 3, 2020. I was told to alter teh [sic] information in the QVF to falsely show that the absentee ballots had been received in time to be valid. I estimate that this was done to thousands of ballots.”

Throughout her daily elections work in September through November 2020, the whistleblower says, “I directly observed, on a daily basis, City of Detroit election workers and employees coaching and trying to coach voters to vote for Joe Biden and the Democrat party.” This is also illegal. “I witnessed these workers and employees encouraging voters to do a straight Democrat ballot. I witnessed these election workers and employees going over to the voting booths with voters in order to watch them vote and coach them for whom to vote.”

The whistleblower also says Detroit election officials actively avoided verifying voters’ identities: “During the last two weeks while working at this satellite location, I was specifically instructed by my supervisor not to ask for a driver’s license or any photo I.D. when a person was trying to vote.”

The whistleblower also alleges encouraged voter fraud through the possibility of double voting: “I observed a large number of people who came to the satellite location to vote in-person, but they had already applied for an absentee ballot. These people were allowed to vote in-person and were not required to return the mailed absentee ballot or sign an affidavit that the voter lost the mailed absentee ballot.”

The suit names the City of Detroit, the Detroit Election Commission, Detroit Clerk Janice Winfrey, Wayne County Clerk Cathy Garrett, and the Wayne County Board of Canvassers as defendants. The Democratic Party has made a motion to join the lawsuit as defendants, meaning it is volunteering to be also sued for these alleged crimes.

Joy Pullmann is executive editor of The Federalist, a happy wife, and the mother of six children. Her newest ebooks are“Classic Books for Young Children” and “32 Classic Games You Can Play Anywhere.” @JoyPullmann is also the author of “The Education Invasion: How Common Core Fights Parents for Control of American Kids,” from Encounter Books.
Photo Photo By: Spc. Brian Pearson

Media outlets have called the presidency for Joe Biden, but by all accounts his win was much narrower than many Democrats expected, and Democrats down ticket performed much worse than expected, meaning that Democrats did not get the clean sweep on Election Day they hoped.

The “split decision” thus rendered by the American people on Election Day has led to an already spectacular amount of infighting among Democrats who are eager to point fingers for the party’s failure. In particular, the party’s liberal and more moderate wings have been particularly eager to point fingers at the other camp, with moderates aggressively blaming progressive policies like “defund the police” for their losses.

Massachusetts Sen. and former presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren (D), meanwhile, is confident that Biden’s expected win is a victory for “the most progressive economic and racial justice platform of any general election nominee ever,” as she wrote in an op-ed for the Washington Post.

As for the fact that the American people likely elected a Republican Senate and a larger number of Republican congressmen and therefore perhaps were not quite as keen on the most progressive platform ever? Warren argues that Biden should ignore that fact, saying, “We need to deliver [on progressive promises], even as Republican leaders can’t acknowledge the election outcome and plan to grind Congress to a halt.”

The fact that Republicans won enough elections in 2020 to grind Biden’s agenda to a halt is, apparently, an “election outcome” that Warren isn’t interested in acknowledging.

Instead, she argues that “there are lots of big changes that a Biden-Harris administration can achieve through executive orders and agency action on day one.” Among other things Warren thinks Biden should do without Congress, Warren argues that Biden should:

  • Cancel “billions of dollars” in student loan debt
  • Bypass patents for companies that have expended millions of dollars in research funds to develop life-saving drugs
  • Raise the minimum wage for all federal contractors to $15 an hour
  • Establish a “Racial and Ethnic Disparities Task Force” to “review racial disparities in pandemic funding.”
  • Declare the the climate crisis a national emergency
Warren concludes, “Even so, we know that Washington insiders and their establishment allies are ready to declare that unity and consensus mean turning over the governing keys to giant corporations and their lobbyists — the exact opposite of what voters want.”

Warren does not state who these people are who are arguing this, because they do not exist. Nevertheless, having demolished this straw man, Warren concludes, “Instead of allowing insiders to hijack the message sent by voters in both parties, we should listen to those voters and deliver real solutions to the problems we face.”


Commentary by Kylee Zempel NOVEMBER 12, 2020

The only thing worse than listening to a screaming toddler is seeing his smug, tear-stained but smiling face after his parent gives in to his irreverent outburst and rewards him for his tantrum. That’s all I could think about as I walked the streets of Madison, Wisconsin, Saturday night after several news outlets called the presidential race for Joe Biden.

A hopeful energy pulsed through State Street, the bustling pedestrian mall of restaurants and storefronts bookended by the university and the Capitol. I walked past business after business boarded up tight in anticipation of a fiery post-election purge, but instead, front doors were propped open on the uncharacteristically warm November night as groups of friends chattered and shopped and drank in merriment. No sirens or chanting interrupted my pleasant patio dinner date.

I breathed easier than I would have under different circumstances, I’ll admit. Had the media called the race differently, I likely wouldn’t have left the apartment and I certainly wouldn’t have neared downtown. Underneath that peaceful veneer, however, remains the gross reality that things are calm only because the snotty toddler got his way.

Unity Is a Joke

These are the infantile adults that were told “no” in 2016 by the half of the country they most despised and spent the next four years screaming that everything was unfair and that those who disagreed with them were racists, sexists, bigots, and homophobes. Instead of biting and hitting, they looted and vandalized, and the equally childish media covered for them.

They promised to “impeach the motherf-cker,” canceled dissenters, and maligned anyone who wanted to “Make America Great Again.” They smeared mask rebels and churchgoers as grandma-killers and squawked in our faces that boys are girls, silence is violence, and all women are inherently trustworthy, straight white men be damned. Only now that they think they’ve won do they have any interest in faux “unity.”

In a recent editorial, the Washington Examiner posited, “Biden has a historic opportunity to heal the country’s wounds, and if he wants an admired legacy, he will start now to fulfill the promise of his Delaware speech and bring uniters, not dividers, into his administration.” Conservatives who fall for this “unity” schtick are hopelessly naive.

While things might be quiet now, all hell is sure to break loose again the moment things don’t go in the way of the tantrum-throwers. This is because the wrong side won — or at least the fact that they believe they did proves the point. The toddlers got what they wanted. Their abhorrent behavior was reinforced with their most prized reward: the end of the Trump presidency.

Now rather than watching the thugs tear down and set ablaze our livelihoods, we’re stuck looking at their smug faces instead. It was always going to be one or the other: Elect us and we’ll destroy the country, or elect Trump and we’ll destroy your property.

For this reason, the relative peace in our cities now is a bad omen. This cultural calm is a reminder that, like the short-sighted parent capitulating to her toddler, the electorate traded long-term stability for short-term quiet. We didn’t bring an end to the fearmongering and the incivility; we put the uncivil fearmongers in power, and they have sinister plans for their political opponents.

Political Religion Makes All of Life a Holy War

This all goes back to the infantilization of the left, and it’s not surprising. There’s a reason shop-owners were afraid of spurned Biden supporters but relaxed when they remembered the frustrated Trumpsters had no intention of acting out.

When Trump supporters heard the unwelcome news that Biden would ostensibly be the president-elect, they were bummed. Some were mad, others were suspicious, and others felt defeated and discouraged — but they dutifully returned to their daily grinds, clocking in for work, caring for their families, and carrying on their commitments to their churches.

That’s because, for so many on the right, politics is an add-on. Family and faith, however imperfectly, inform civic values, but politics is no replacement for those superior institutions.

For many on the left, that isn’t the case. For those who have chosen to worship at the feet of progressivism as religion, this election was life or death because it was central to everything else.

For a population who has pushed off marriage, disposed of its children, abandoned church, and relinquished its independence to the nanny state and its individualism to identity politics, to lose an election is to lose it all. All battles therefore become moral, meaning victory by any means necessary — including stealing and destroying and sometimes even killing — is justified.

Don’t Let the Leftist Toddlers Get Their Way

That leaves us quite a divided America. How can we ever hope for unity when one side holds the other hostage? Give us what we want, or else. That’s no way to start a mutually beneficial negotiation.

So conservatives are left with a choice. Will we continue caving in to the boisterous toddler until it becomes an unruly and insufferable adult? Or will stand our ground and endure the tantrums until the left tuckers itself out on its own fickle rhetoric and runs its own cities into the soil? Don’t relish the present quiet; realize what it stands for.

Presidents come and go, and if Trump does finally lose re-election after all the legal battles run their course, so be it. The worst thing for our country isn’t a Biden presidency. It’s giving the leftist toddlers what they want.

Kylee Zempel is an assistant editor at The Federalist. Follow her on Twitter @kyleezempel.

Commentary by Ann Coulter Ann Coulter | Posted: Nov 11, 2020 2:15 PM

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Townhall.com.
The Democrats' Guide to Losing Gracefully

Source: AP Photo/Richard Drew  

Trending

Here are the times Democrats have conceded a presidential election with grace and dignity:

OK, now on to my column.

I hope someone is recording the media’s demands that Trump supporters ACCEPT THE RESULTS OF THE ELECTION! inasmuch as the Democrats refuse to accept the results of any presidential election they lose, unless it’s a landslide, and sometimes even then.

After George W. Bush won the 2000 election — despite the media depressing Bush turnout in Florida by calling the state for Gore when polls were still open in the conservative panhandle — Gore contested the election until Dec. 13, the day after the Supreme Court called off the endless recounts (in only certain Florida counties) demanded by Gore.

The night of the court’s ruling, Laurence Tribe, the Harvard law professor who’d argued one of Gore’s cases before the court, and Ed Rendell, general chairman of the Democratic National Committee, went on TV and said it was time for Gore to concede.

Both were immediately attacked by their fellow Democrats and forced to retract their statements. Gore’s deputy campaign manager, Mark Fabiani, for example, told The New York Times that Rendell “seems to be more interested in getting his mug on TV than in loyalty.”

The next day, Gore conceded, telling his supporters he had “congratulated him on becoming the 43rd president of the United States,” adding, “while I strongly disagree with the court’s decision, I accept it.”

But that still wasn’t the end of it! Weeks later, the Congressional Black Caucus tried to prevent congressional certification of the Electoral College for Bush, raising objection after objection on the House floor.

Over the course of the next year, the Florida ballots were painstakingly recounted by an independent investigative firm at a cost of nearly a million dollars, paid for by the same media outlets currently telling you to shut up and accept the results — including The New York Times, CNN, The Washington Post and the Associated Press, along with several others.

The year-long, million-dollar recount led to this shocking conclusion: Bush still won. As the Times put it, contrary to the claims of Gore partisans, “the United States Supreme Court did not award an election to Mr. Bush that otherwise would have been won by Mr. Gore.”

And yet, to this day, Democrats claim Bush was “selected, not elected,” as so wittily put by Hillary Clinton.

Hillary was still harping on Bush’s stolen election when she ran for president in the 2008 cycle. At a 2007 primary presidential debate, she delighted the Democratic audience by remarking, “Well, I think it is a problem that Bush was elected in 2000. (APPLAUSE) I actually thought somebody else was elected in that election, but … (APPLAUSE).”

At a subsequent primary debate in 2008, Hillary said that she and President Clinton had been making great progress “until, unfortunately, the Supreme Court handed the presidency to George Bush.”

In 2006, Michael Kinsley claimed in The New York Times that the 2000 election was “actually stolen.”

And so on.

When Bush was reelected in 2004, Democrats again refused to accept the results of the election, and again attempted to block Congress’ counting of electoral votes, this time with the connivance of Sen. Barbara Boxer.

Their smoking gun? The election results in Ohio didn’t match the exit polls! If that’s not enough proof for you, and I can’t imagine why it wouldn’t be, the voting machines were manufactured by Diebold, and Diebold’s CEO was a Bush supporter. Yes, apparently, the voting machines in Ohio were rigged to flip votes from Kerry to Bush.

This crackpot theory was pushed assiduously by Vanity Fair (Michael Shnayerson in the April 2004 issue, and Christopher Hitchens in the March 2005 issue), Rolling Stone magazine (Robert F. Kennedy Jr., June 15, 2006), and in books: John Conyers’ “What Went Wrong in Ohio” — introduction by Gore Vidal — and “Was the 2004 Presidential Election Stolen?” by Steven F. Freeman and Joel Bleifuss. (You’ll have to read it to find out!)

I haven’t even mentioned the craziest of the Democrat media complex’s attacks on the results of an election: Reagan’s 489-49 electoral landslide against Jimmy Carter in 1980. (Stay tuned!)

Election results, according to Democrats:

— 1960: Kennedy wins a razor-thin victory after a surprisingly high turnout of dead voters in Texas and Illinois — FAIR ELECTION, CLEAN AS A WHISTLE!!

— 1964: Landslide election for Lyndon Johnson — FAIR ELECTION, CLEAN AS A WHISTLE!!

— 1968: Nixon won with his racist (and mythical) “Southern strategy.”

— 1972: Nixon landslide — no provable cheating.

— 1976: Carter won — FAIR ELECTION, CLEAN AS A WHISTLE!!

— 1980: Reagan won by traitorously colluding with Iran to prevent the release of American hostages before the election!

— 1984: Reagan landslide — no provable cheating.

— 1988: Bush 41 won in a landslide because of his racist Willie Horton ads.

— 1992: Clinton won with 43% of the vote — FAIR ELECTION, CLEAN AS A WHISTLE!!

— 1996: Clinton won with 49% of the vote — FAIR ELECTION, CLEAN AS A WHISTLE!!

— 2000: Bush 43 was “selected, not elected” after the Supreme Court stole it for him.

— 2004: Bush won because of Diebold hacking the voting machines in Ohio.

— 2008: Obama won — FAIR ELECTION, CLEAN AS A WHISTLE!!

— 2012: Obama won — FAIR ELECTION, CLEAN AS A WHISTLE!!

— 2016: Trump won after colluding with Russia to persuade them to purchase $200,000 in Facebook ads.

If that’s how we’re supposed to “accept the results of the election,” then WOW — game on!

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: