Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘Donald Trump’

Randy DeSoto Op-ed: Adam Schiff Gets Verbally KO-ed on Air When Fed-Up Interviewer Finally Nails Him


Commentary By Randy DeSoto | November 9, 2021

Read more at https://www.westernjournal.com/adam-schiff-gets-verbally-ko-ed-air-fed-interviewer-finally-nails/

Former Trump administration State Department spokesperson Morgan Ortagus clearly made House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff uncomfortable when she pressed him on Tuesday about his promotion of the debunked Steele dossier.

Last week, special counsel John Durham charged Igor Danchenko with five counts of lying to the FBI. Danchenko is a Russian national who worked at the liberal Brookings Institution in Washington, D.C., and is believed to be a primary source of information contained in the infamous anti-Trump dossier compiled by former British intelligence agent Christopher Steele. That document was paid for by the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee and was used to help launch the Russia probe in search of ties between the 2016 Donald Trump presidential campaign and Russia.

Ortagus, who was a guest-hosting ABC’s “The View” on Tuesday, questioned Schiff about his promotion of the Steele dossier and the false narrative underlying it.

“You’ve been really prolific over the past few years being the head of the Intel Committee. You defended, promoted, you even read into the Congressional Record the Steele dossier,” Ortagus said.

“And we know last week the main source of the dossier was indicted by the FBI for lying about most of the key claims in that dossier. Do you have any reflections on your role in promoting this to the American people?” she asked.

Schiff first responded in a reasonable fashion, saying any who lied to the FBI should be prosecuted.

He then defended his conduct.

“We couldn’t have known, for example, people were lying to Christopher Steele. So it was proper to investigate them,” Schiff said.

The congressman added that one benefit of the investigation was learning that Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort had given polling data to Russian intelligence. Schiff was playing pretty fast and loose with the facts. According to The Associated Press, Manafort gave polling data to Konstantin Kilimnik, a Russian and Ukrainian political consultant, who allegedly passed it along to Russian intelligence.

“But Mueller’s team said it couldn’t ‘reliably determine’ Manafort’s purpose in sharing it, nor assess what Kilimnik may have done with it,” the AP reported.

That sort of exaggeration by Schiff was typical throughout the Russia probe.

Ortagus reminded Schiff that Manafort was removed from the campaign in the summer of 2016 when questions arose regarding his past lobbying work for pro-Russian Ukrainian oligarchs. Further, it should be noted that Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s team, though filled with Democratic investigators, “did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated” with Russia, according to the Justice Department’s Mueller report.

Ortagus then brought the conversation back to Schiff’s role in promoting the whole collusion false narrative and the dossier.

“You may have helped spread Russian disinformation yourself for years by promoting this. I think that’s what Republicans and what people who entrusted you as the Intel Committee chair are so confused about your culpability in all of this,” Ortagus said.

“Well, I completely disagree with your premise,” Schiff responded. “It’s one thing to say allegations should be investigated, and they were. It’s another to say that we should have foreseen in advance that some people were lying to Christopher Steele, which is impossible of course to do.”

The Californian sells himself short. He was constantly out in front of the cameras claiming he was privy to intelligence that he could not share with the public validating the collusion charge. For example in March 2017, NBC “Meet The Press” host Chuck Todd asked Schiff if there was anything beyond circumstantial evidence suggesting the Trump campaign’s connection to Russia.

“I can tell you that the case is more than that and I can’t go into the particulars, but there is more than circumstantial evidence now,” Schiff said.

Further questioned whether he had seen direct evidence, the representative responded, “I don’t want to get into specifics but I will say that there is evidence that is not circumstantial and is very much worthy of an investigation.”

Despite making claims like that for many months, Schiff never came forward with such evidence, even after Mueller issued his report.

On Tuesday’s showing of “The View,” the Democrat pivoted away from discussing the dossier to raising the issue of the 2019 House Democratic impeachment of Trump and the Capitol incursion to prove investigating him was justified.

You’ll recall it was during the impeachment hearing that Schiff famously made up his own fanciful version of Trump’s call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to build his case that the American leader conducted a shakedown to secure an investigation into Joe and Hunter Biden’s shady dealings in Ukraine. This performance was even after Zelensky himself said he felt no pressure from Trump’s call and his country launched no investigation into the Bidens.

Schiff told Ortagus, “None of that is undercut. None of that serious misconduct is in any way diminished by the fact that people lied to Christopher Steele.”

“No. I think just your credibility is,” Ortagus shot back.

Schiff then opted for the verbal attack of a schoolboy, saying, “I think the credibility of your question is in doubt.”

Having boasted about so much with so little pushback from the media, it was refreshing to see his feet actually held to the fire for once.

Randy DeSoto, Senior Staff Writer

Randy DeSoto has written more than 2,000 articles for The Western Journal since he joined the company in 2015. He is a graduate of West Point and Regent University School of Law. He is the author of the book “We Hold These Truths” and screenwriter of the political documentary “I Want Your Money.”@RandyDeSoto

DURHAM ARRESTS STEELE’S TOP SOURCE


Reported by MICHAEL GINSBERG | CONGRESSIONAL REPORTER | November 04, 2021

Read more at https://dailycaller.com/2021/11/04/igor-danchenko-arrested-christopher-steele-john-durham-fbi-trump/

BRITAIN-RUSSIA-US-MEDIA-STEELE
(Photo by TOLGA AKMEN/AFP via Getty Images)

Federal agents arrested Igor Danchenko, the primary researcher of a dossier compiled by ex-British spy Christopher Steele, as part of Special Counsel John Durham’s probe into the origins of the FBI’s Crossfire Hurricane investigation into former President Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign.

Danchenko was taken into custody on Thursday, the New York Times (NYT) first reported. He was employed by Steele’s firm, Orbis Business International, but was previously investigated during the Obama administration as part of a probe into suspected Russian intelligence officers operating in Washington, DC. Before his time at Orbis, Danchenko worked as a Russia analyst at the liberal Brookings Institute, where he became known for accusing Russian President Vladimir Putin of plagiarizing his economics dissertation. 

Danchenko is charged with five counts of making false statements to investigators.

As part of his work on the Steele dossier, Danchenko claimed to have interviewed six individuals with knowledge of alleged collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. However, during a 2017 FBI interview, Danchenko contradicted many of the dossier’s key assertions. As a result, the FBI concluded that “the reliability of the dossier was completely destroyed,” according to Republican South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham. 

Danchenko has defended his work on the Steele dossier, describing it as “raw intelligence from credible sources” in a 2020 interview with NYT. The dossier served as primary evidence for the FBI’s Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) warrant request for Trump campaign aide Carter Page, a Department of Justice (DOJ) Inspector General report found.

As part of his investigation into the origins of the DOJ probe into alleged collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian government, Durham has targeted the production and dissemination of the Steele dossier. He indicted former Perkins Coie and Democratic National Committee attorney Michael Sussmann in September for lying to the FBI’s top attorney during a meeting in which Sussmann passed along allegations against the Trump campaign.

Photo: Marine Vet Gets Award for Stopping Robbery, But His Anti-Biden Shirt Steals the Show


Reported By Randy DeSoto | October 27, 2021

Read more at https://www.westernjournal.com/photo-marine-vet-gets-award-stopping-robbery-anti-biden-shirt-steals-show/

U.S. Marine veteran James Kilcer, who thwarted an attempted robbery in an Arizona convenience store last week, received an award Tuesday from the Yuma County Sheriff’s Office while wearing a “Let’s Go Brandon” T-shirt. He was also sporting a red “Make America Great Again” hat, apparently in support of former President Donald Trump.

Sheriff Leon Wilmot presented Kilcer with the YCSO Citizen’s Valor Award, “For extraordinary heroism and exceptional courage while voluntarily coming to the aid of another citizen during an incident involving criminal activity at extreme, life threatening, personal risk in an attempt to save or protect human life,” the sheriff’s office said in a news release.

“The YCSO Citizen’s Valor Award is the highest award for citizens whose actions warrant recognition.”

Surveillance video of Kilcer stopping the robbery at the Chevron convenience store early in the morning on Oct. 20 went viral. The now-U.S. Army Yuma Proving Ground employee had just purchased some Gatorades and other items and was talking to the clerk when the suspects came in, Kilcer told the Defense Visual Information Distribution Service.

“I heard the door start opening forcefully and my ‘Spidey senses’ or whatever kind of tingling, and I turn around and saw they were coming in real quick,” he said.

The veteran turned around and his military training kicked in as he sought to disarm the robber.

“I was ready: I saw it coming,” Kilcer said. “The minute my hands closed around it, I never lost contact with the gun. And I pulled him down.”

He held the suspect down until law enforcement arrived. The person arrested was a 14-year-old juvenile who has now been charged with one count of armed robbery and one count of aggravated assault.

“Kilcer served as a tactical air operations technician in the Marine Corps and was deployed to Afghanistan during his time in the military. He credits his actions to his Marine Corps basic training and mindset,” DVIDS reported.

“I guess I was just in the right place at the right time,’’ Kilcer said. “I was doing what needed to be done.”Advertisement – story continues below

While appearing on Fox News on Friday, the Arizonan also waded into the political when he ended the segment, saying with a smile to host Dana Perino, “And remember, [Jeffrey] Epstein didn’t kill himself.”

“OK, got it,” said Perino, who laughed and added, “Very clever.”

Randy DeSoto, Senior Staff Writer

Randy DeSoto has written more than 2,000 articles for The Western Journal since he joined the company in 2015. He is a graduate of West Point and Regent University School of Law. He is the author of the book “We Hold These Truths” and screenwriter of the political documentary “I Want Your Money.”@RandyDeSoto

C. Douglas Golden Op-ed: The Truth About Democrats’ Tax Bill Revealed, Middle-Class Americans Are in for a Nasty Surprise


Commentary By C. Douglas Golden | September 29, 2021

Read more at https://www.westernjournal.com/truth-democrats-tax-bill-revealed-middle-class-americans-nasty-surprise/

President Joe Biden, left, meets with Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and committee chairs to discuss the coronavirus relief legislation in the Oval Office at the White House on Feb. 5, 2021, in Washington, D.C. (Stefani Reynolds – Pool / Getty Images)

President Joe Biden’s “Build Back Better” agenda is supposed to tax the wealthy to help the middle class. If you don’t believe me, just ask Biden, who’s more than willing to tell you about it on his Twitter account.

To be fair, I’m assuming the messages aren’t written by Biden himself, a man who seems like his relationship with technology involves yelling at his phone, either asking Siri to find his slippers or telling Scotty to beam him up. However, whoever tweets for him stays on message when it comes to the president’s tax-and-spend plan.

“We’re going to pass a historic middle class tax cut — and we’ll do it by making those at the top pay their fair share,” one tweet from Sunday read. “I know the crowd on Park Ave might not like it, but it’s time we give people in towns like Scranton — the folks I grew up with — a break for a change.”

“From health care to child care, my Build Back Better Agenda will lower everyday costs for middle class Americans,” a tweet from this Monday read.

“I’m not looking to punish anyone, I just think it’s only fair that the wealthiest Americans pay their fair share once again. Then, we’ll use that money to invest in the middle class,” a tweet from last week reads.

“For me it’s pretty simple: It’s about time working people got the tax breaks in this country,” a tweet from the day before that read. “That’s the Build Back Better Agenda.”

If someone has to repeat themselves this much, it’s usually because they’re lying — and, lo and behold, the Joint Committee on Taxation seems to have confirmed that.

According to a media release from the Republicans on the House Ways and Means Committee on Tuesday, the Joint Committee on Taxation — a non-partisan congressional tax scorekeeper — found that almost every income level below the threshold the Biden administration said would be immune would take a hit.

Furthermore, the committee’s analysis found the vast majority of taxpayers would see no benefit from the plan in its current form.

According to the analysis, by the calendar year 2023, nearly 5 percent of those making between $40,000 and $50,000 would see a tax increase. Nine percent of those making between $50,000 and $75,000 would see an increase, 18 percent earning between $75,000 and $100,000 would see their taxes go up and 35 percent of those earning between $100,000 and $200,000 would be subject to a hike.

The media release also noted that the benefit most people see will pretty much be nil.

In 2023, two-thirds of all taxpayers won’t get see any kind of real benefit from the legislation, either seeing their tax bill changed by less than $100 or getting a tax increase.

By 2027, this number would balloon to 85.5 percent, with huge swaths of the middle class seeing a sizable tax increase; these numbers are projected to stay mostly steady until 2031.

Meanwhile, the Joint Committee on Taxation also found that hiking corporate taxes would hit middle-class Americans hard, too.

“Within 10 years of a corporate tax increase from 21 percent to 25 percent, 66.3 percent of the corporate tax burden would be borne by lower- and middle-income taxpayers with income well below $500,000,” an August media release from the Republicans on the House Ways and Means Committee read.

“This statistic becomes only more striking in absolute number of taxpayers. Of the more than 172 million taxpayers who would bear the burden of the increased corporate tax rate, 98.4 percent, or about 169 million, have incomes under $500,000.”

Of course, the charge from the left would be that this doesn’t take into account what the spending these tax hikes will pay for is going to buy for the middle class. Beyond the fact these “investments” never bring back the kind of returns that are promised, Biden promised a middle-class tax cut. At least in the plan’s current form, it doesn’t look like it’ll end up delivering — no matter what the president says.

Do you know who did lower taxes on the middle class? Former President Donald Trump.

Joe Biden may have spent much of the campaign whining about Trump’s Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, which slashed taxes across the board. Most of the outrage focused on the fact he didn’t soak the rich: “Tax experts estimate that over the long run, 83% of Trump’s tax giveaway will flow to the top 1% of earners in this country,” Biden’s campaign website read.

And yet, in March of 2020, MarketWatch reported that “Americans paid almost $64 billion less in federal income taxes during the first year under the Republican tax overhaul signed into law in late 2017 by President Donald Trump, with some of the sharpest drops clustered among taxpayers earning between $25,000 and $100,000 a year, even as the overall number of refunds dropped during a turbulent tax season” in 2019.

Biden plans on taking that away. In return, he’s offered nothing of substance — except, as promised, he’s soaking the rich. And the upper-middle class. And some people in the middle class, too. But mainly the rich. See, priorities!

Biden may not be giving people in towns like Scranton — the folks he grew up with — a break the same way Trump did. But at least they can watch as his administration takes (and then squanders) Park Avenue’s money. He’ll be squandering Scranton’s money, too, but at least they get the joy of class-based schadenfreude out of the deal.

C. Douglas Golden, Contributor

C. Douglas Golden is a writer who splits his time between the United States and Southeast Asia. Specializing in political commentary and world affairs, he’s written for Conservative Tribune and The Western Journal since 2014.

@CillianZealFacebook

Report: Milley Promised To Warn Chinese About US Military Operations


Reported by Joseph Simonson | September 14, 2021

Read more at https://www.conservativereview.com/report-milley-promised-to-warn-chinese-about-us-military-operations-2655025552.html/

U.S. Army Gen. Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, holds a press briefing about the U.S. military drawdown in Afghanistan, at the Pentagon in Washington, D.C., September 1, 2021. / Getty Images

Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Gen. Mark Milley secretly promised to warn the head of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army before the United States would carry out any “attack or conduct any kinetic operations against you.”

The shocking anecdote is described in a new book by Washington Post journalists Bob Woodward and Robert Costa, which discloses the extent to which the Pentagon worked to subvert former president Donald Trump’s foreign policy goals. Trump’s rhetoric toward China, according to a Washington Post summary, increasingly alarmed Milley, who suspected the president might order a surprise strike.

“I want to assure you that the American government is stable and everything is going to be okay,” Milley reportedly told Gen. Li Zoucheng, on Oct. 30, 2020. Milley went on to highlight the close relationship between the two men, saying, “If we’re going to attack, I’m going to call you ahead of time. It’s not going to be a surprise.”

Milley never informed the president of the conversation. He called Li again on Jan. 8, 2021 to “address Chinese fears about the events of Jan. 6,” according to the Washington Post.

“We are 100 percent steady. Everything’s fine,” Milley told Li. “But democracy can be sloppy sometimes.”

Milley’s fears—which later proved erroneous as there is no evidence Trump attempted to, or even considered a strike against China during his last days in office—were in part prompted by the then-president signing an order to withdraw all U.S. forces from Afghanistan by Jan. 15, 2021. That order never went through, but, according to a summary of the book by CNN, “Milley could not forget that Trump had done an end run around his top military advisers.”

A spokeswoman for the Joint Chiefs declined to comment.

Out of fear that China could “lash out” against the United States, Milley sought to unilaterally defuse tensions between the two countries on Jan. 8, 2021. He called the chief Navy official in charge of America’s Indo-Pacific Command and told him to postpone scheduled military exercises. That same day, Milley spoke with Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.), who grew concerned Trump might order a nuclear strike.

“What I’m saying to you is that if they couldn’t even stop him from an assault on the Capitol, who even knows what else he may do? And is there anybody in charge at the White House who was doing anything but kissing his fat butt all over this?” Pelosi said, adding that Trump has “been crazy for a long time.”

Milley responded by saying, “I agree with you on everything,” and assured her that the military would not authorize any military strikes, which, according to Costa and Woodward, meant he “was overseeing the mobilization of America’s national security state without the knowledge of the American people or the rest of the world.”

According to the book’s authors, Milley considered President Joe Biden’s “50 years” of experience in politics as reason to “always give him decision space,” even as the White House agreed with the previous administration on a full withdrawal of forces from Afghanistan.

“Here’s a couple of rules of the road here that we’re going to follow,” Milley said in private remarks to the Joint Chiefs. “One is you never, ever, ever box in a president of the United States.”

Milley’s comments during a June congressional hearing, in which he defended the teaching of critical race theory in the armed services, sparked outrage and accusations that he was overseeing a politicization of the military.

“I want to understand white rage, and I’m white,” Milley said in his testimony. “I have read Mao Zedong, I’ve read Karl Marx, I’ve read Lenin—that doesn’t make me a communist. So what is wrong with having some situational understanding about the country for which we are here to defend?”

Wasn’t Trump Impeached Over a Call? Biden Coerced Afghan Pres to Lie About Taliban Winning in Leaked Call: Report


By Taylor Penley | September 1, 2021

Read more at https://www.westernjournal.com/wasnt-trump-impeached-call-biden-coerced-afghan-pres-lie-taliban-winning-leaked-call-report/

Remember when House Democrats accused former President Donald Trump of pressuring Ukraine to investigate then-candidate Joe Biden while leveraging military aid as collateral during a phone call with Ukraine’s president in 2019? I do. The accusation prompted Trump’s first impeachment on the grounds of “abuse of power” and “obstruction of Congress” that December, according to the U.S. Sun.

Now, two years later, it’s President Joe Biden who’s responsible for talks with world leaders, talks like the one House Democrats used to attack Trump. And, to afford Biden similar scrutiny to what Trump received, one particular aspect of Biden’s last call with now-former Afghanistan President Ashraf Ghani seems especially interesting.

Biden’s final call with Ghani came on July 23 — three weeks before Kabul fell to Taliban forces and Islamic extremism toppled 20 years of democratic progress in the country. The two discussed “military aid, political strategy and messaging” for approximately 14 minutes, Reuters reported on Tuesday after reviewing what it said was a transcript and audio of the exchange provided by an anonymous source. One particular aspect of the leaked transcript appears especially damning for Biden, as the New York Post pointed out.

The Post noted the transcript shows Biden “pressured” Ghani to “‘create the perception’ that the Taliban weren’t winning, ‘whether it is true or not.’”

“I need not tell you the perception around the world and in parts of Afghanistan, I believe, is that things are not going well in terms of the fight against the Taliban,” Biden said during the call, according to Reuters.

“And there is a need, whether it is true or not, there is a need to project a different picture.”

Biden’s pressuring went a step further, however, according to Reuters.

If Ghani could successfully fool the public into thinking the Afghan government had plans to control what Reuters called the “spiraling situation” of the Taliban’s resurgence, Biden would offer aid.

“We will continue to provide close air support, if we know what the plan is,” Biden said, according to Reuters.

The outlet added that, just days before the call, the U.S. supported Afghan security forces with air strikes against the Taliban. The Taliban maintained that these air strikes violated the Doha peace agreement signed under the Trump administration.

To provide some context, the Taliban had already advanced into approximately half of Afghanistan’s district centers at the time of the phone call, the Post noted. Just three weeks later, the nation’s capital would be directly threatened by Taliban forces. Ghani fled just before the city fell. But before that would happen, Biden advised Ghani during their exchange to employ prominent Afghan political and military figures — including former Afghan President Hamid Karzai — to further generate the sense of security, the Post added.

“That will change perception, and that will change an awful lot, I think,” Biden said, according to Reuters.

At another point in the conversation, Biden said a change in the Afghan government’s strategy would do more than help “on the ground,” Reuters reported. It would generate support for the Ghani regime internationally.

“I’m not a military guy, so I’m not telling you what that plan should precisely look like, you’re going to get not only more help, but you’re going to get a perception that is going to change,” he said, according to Reuters.

It was never OK to give Afghans or our allies a false sense of security in light of the danger steadily progressing across the country.

Afghan civilians and U.S. allies alike (particularly those in Europe) have since succumbed to a grim reality in one way or another — either being forced to flee their homes, scramble to return to their home countries (if residing there on behalf of another nation) or stay behind in the Taliban’s wake.

And it makes our president look like a liar.

Now, as September begins, the aftermath of the U.S.’s botched withdrawal from Afghanistan seems clearer every day.

Our allies are furious with us, Gold Star families mourn the loss of our 13 heroes killed in action during an ISIS suicide bombing outside of Kabul’s Hamid Karzai International Airport and several Americans and U.S. allies have since been left behind in the region.

We can only expect things to get worse from here.

Amid the bombshell leaked transcript of Biden and Ghani’s exchange that’s likely to make headway in the news, it’s reasonable to wonder whether Biden’s coercion and deception will stick to his image or roll off his shoulders as if he’s covered in Teflon.

Considering the establishment media’s — and our elected officials’ — histories of handling Biden with kid gloves, the likely answer is already clear.

Taylor Penley, Contributor

Taylor Penley is a political commentator residing in Northwest Georgia. She holds a BA in English with minors in rhetoric/writing and global studies from Dalton State College. As a student, she worked in government relations and interned for Georgia’s 14th congressional district. She previously published an article with Future Female Leaders and published her rhetorical analysis of President Reagan’s Berlin Wall Speech in a collegiate journal. She seeks to study journalism or communication in graduate school.

Senate Passes The Largest Infrastructure Package In Decades, Over A Dozen Republicans Vote In Favor


Reported by ANDREW TRUNSKY | POLITICAL REPORTER | August 10, 2021

Read more at https://dailycaller.com/2021/08/10/senate-passes-infrastructure-package-dozen-republicans-join-dems-kyrsten-sinema-rob-portman-joe-biden/

Lawmakers Continue To Work On Bipartisan Infrastructure Deal On Capitol Hill
(Alex Wong/Getty Images)

The Senate on Tuesday passed its bipartisan infrastructure bill, moving what would be the largest public works package in decades one step closer to becoming law months after negotiations first began. The bill, which advocates praised as the largest investment in America’s infrastructure since the construction of the interstate highway system in the 1950s, passed 69-30. Nineteen Republicans joined every Democrat in voting for the package.

The legislation, titled the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), was on a glide path to passage after beating a Senate filibuster Sunday night, when 68 senators voted to end debate.

Arizona Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, the bill’s lead Democratic negotiator, said Monday on the Senate floor that the bill would “make America stronger and safer, create good-paying jobs and expand economic opportunities across the country,” and praised her colleagues for their commitment to reaching an agreement. “This is what it looks like when elected leaders take a step toward healing our country’s divisions rather than feeding [them],” she added.

The IIJA costs $1.2 trillion over eight years, $550 billion of which is new government spending, and puts hundreds of billions of federal dollars toward roads, bridges, ports, broadband and more. It was led by Ohio Sen. Rob Portman on the Republican side, and was the product of negotiations among 22 senators and President Joe Biden.

“[This is] landmark and needed legislation in fixing our roads, railroads, our ports, electrical grid and more,” Portman said on the floor. “I’m proud of what was done on that … It will improve the lives of all Americans. It’s long-term spending to repair and replace and build assets that will last for decades.”

Talks first began with West Virginia Republican Sen. Shelley Moore Capito, but collapsed after she and the White House could not agree on the overall size and scope of the bill. Negotiations then shifted to the bipartisan group, but remained precarious for weeks as they struggled to compromise on how to finance the new spending and what it should cover.

It was late July when Portman announced that the group had reached agreement on the “major issues,” and that Republicans were ready to move forward. 

Sen. Kyrsten Sinema speaks after the bipartisan bill cleared its first procedural vote in July. (Alex Wong/Getty Images)

Sen. Kyrsten Sinema speaks after the bipartisan bill cleared its first procedural vote in July. (Alex Wong/Getty Images)

The bill cleared its first procedural vote hours later with the support of 17 Republicans, including Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a clear indication that it had the necessary support to beat a filibuster and pass. Two days later, 16 Republicans joined Democrats in officially voting to begin debate.

Senators originally sought to pass the bill last week or over the weekend, but were blocked from doing so by Tennessee Republican Sen. Bill Hagerty, who refused to forgo hours of scheduled debate. He cited the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate that the bill would add $256 billion to the deficit over the next 10 years, arguing that the legislation was not fully paid for, unlike what its negotiators previously said.

Hagerty’s delays earned praise from former President Donald Trump on Sunday, who had repeatedly tried to intimidate Republicans into opposing the package. In multiple email statements he disparaged McConnell for supporting the bill, calling it a “disgrace” and the “beginning of the Green New Deal,” and floated backing primary challengers against other Republicans who backed it. 

With the IIJA’s passing, senators are now set to take up their budget resolution, keeping them in Washington for another marathon session with dozens of politically tricky amendment votes and eating into their prized August recess. The mammoth resolution, unveiled by Vermont Independent Sen. Bernie Sanders on Monday, addresses priorities omitted from the infrastructure bill including health care, climate change and immigration and as outlined costs $3.5 trillion.

“This legislation in so many ways begins to address the working families of our country,” Sanders said on the Senate floor Monday. “But in one important way, maybe the most important, is as we address the needs of our people in health care and education and climate, we are going to create many millions of good-paying jobs that the American people desperately need.” 

Sen. Bernie Sanders authored Democrats' $3.5 trillion budget, which he has acknowledged will likely pass on party lines. (Win McNamee/Getty Images)

Sen. Bernie Sanders authored Democrats’ $3.5 trillion budget, which he has acknowledged will likely pass on party lines. (Win McNamee/Getty Images)

While Republicans unanimously oppose the reconciliation package, Senate rules allow for Democrats to pass it with just a simple majority vote, meaning that it could pass strictly along party lines if their caucus all votes for it.

McConnell on Tuesday accused Democrats of playing “Russian roulette with our country” and said the budget would be the “largest peacetime tax hike on record.”

“This new reckless taxing and spending spree will fall like a hammer blow on workers and middle-class families,” McConnell said. “If all 50 Democrats want to help [Budget Committee] Chairman Sanders hurt middle-class families … well, that’s their prerogative, but we’re going to argue it out right here on the floor at some length.”

Several progressives, however, have sought to tie the bipartisan bill with the reconciliation package, with some in the House hinging their support for the former on Senate Democrats passing the latter. In an attempt to hold her narrow majority together, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has said that she will not bring the bipartisan bill up for a vote until the Senate passes the reconciliation package as well, despite moderates urging her to bring up the infrastructure package as soon as possible. 

Others have also been critical of the infrastructure bill, which was adopted as a substitute for the $715 billion surface transportation bill that the House passed in July, arguing that it inadequately invests in climate, housing, child care and more.

Oregon Democratic Rep. Peter DeFazio, the chair of the House Transportation Committee, reportedly called the bill “crap” after a deal was reached, lamenting the fact that it omitted large swaths of the transportation bill he authored and disregarding the White House’s endorsement of it.

“I could give a damn about the White House. We’re an independent branch of government,” he told reporters in July. “They cut this deal. I didn’t sign off on it.”

Capitol Rioter Sentenced To 8 Months In Prison In First Felony Case


Reported by ANDREW TRUNSKY, POLITICAL REPORTER for DailyCaller.com | July 19, 2021

Read more at https://dailycaller.com/2021/07/19/capitol-riot-paul-allard-hodgkins-sentence-felony-donald-trump/

Congress Holds Joint Session To Ratify 2020 Presidential Election
(Win McNamee/Getty Images)

A Florida man who breached the Senate floor on Jan. 6 while carrying a Trump flag was the first Capitol rioter sentenced with a felony offense.

Prosecutors are seeking a minimum 18-month sentence for Paul Allard Hodgkins. In a July 14 court filing, they alleged that he, “like each rioter, contributed to the collective threat to democracy” as they forced lawmakers, reporters, staff and Vice President Mike Pence into hiding as they convened to certify President Joe Biden’s victory.

He was sentenced to eight months in prison.

Video footage described in the report shows Hodgkins, 38, sporting a Trump T-shirt and flag on the Senate floor. At one point he took a selfie with the self-described shaman, who is also awaiting trial for participating in the riot. 

Rioters enter the Senate Chamber on January 6. (Win McNamee/Getty Images)

Lawyers for Hodgkins had argued that the court of public opinion was enough punishment to avoid a prison sentence.

“Whatever punishment this court may provide will pale in comparison to the scarlet letter Mr. Hodgkins will wear for the rest of his life,” his lawyer, Patrick N. Leduc, wrote in a filing on July 12.

That filing likens Hodgkins’ actions to those of Anna Lloyd Morgan, a 49-year-old from Indiana who was the first of hundreds to be sentenced. She pleaded guilty to misdemeanor disorderly conduct in June and was given three years of probation

Hundreds of rioters stormed the Capitol as Congress sought to certify President Joe Biden’s victory. (Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images)

Though Hodgkins was never accused of assaulting anyone or damaging property, prosecutors noted that when he boarded a bus from Tampa, Florida, to D.C. he had rope, protective goggles and latex gloves, and said that demonstrated that he was prepared for violence.

Prosecutors also said, however, that Hodgkins deserved leniency for immediately coming forward and pleading guilty to his obstruction charge, which carries a maximum sentence of two decades. But they noted that “time and time again, rather than turn around and retreat, he pressed forward.” 

“When a mob is prepared to attack the Capitol to prevent elected officials from both parties from performing their constitutional and statutory duty, democracy is in trouble,” Federal District Judge Randolph Moss said Monday. “The damage that they caused that day is way beyond the delays that day. It is a damage that will persist in this country for decades.”

Leduc argued in his filing that Hodgkins was “a man who for just one hour on one day lost his bearings” and “made a fateful decision to follow the crowd.” It also noted former President Abraham Lincoln’s attempt to reconcile immediately after the Civil War.

“The court has a chance to emulate Lincoln,” Leduc wrote.

Breaking: AZ Auditors Reveal Massively Disturbing Results in 2020 Election


Reported by Michael Austin July 15, 2021

Read more at https://www.westernjournal.com/breaking-az-auditors-reveal-massively-disturbing-results-2020-election/

On Thursday, Arizona Republicans issued a major announcement related to the audit of Maricopa County’s 2020 general election results. During the proceedings, Arizona state Senate President Karen Fann, along with state Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Warren Petersen, gave the floor to auditors who announced that as many as 74,000 absentee ballot mail-in records are missing in addition to a great many vote irregularities found by the audit.

“… as many as 74,000 absentee ballot mail-in records are missing in addition to a great many vote irregularities found by the audit.

Fann began the hearing by introducing three individuals who played key roles in the state audit.

Lead auditor Doug Logan first introduced a video clip that detailed the process and emphasized the security measures that were taken to ensure the audit could proceed safely.

Former Arizona Secretary of State and Arizona Senate liaison Ken Bennett then provided specifics of the audit, including how many ballots were received and examined, how data was collected and examined from voting equipment and which security protocols were enforced while the audit took place.

The liaison noted that the examination of duplicate ballots was a particularly strenuous process. Duplicate ballots are typically produced when a ballot becomes damaged or is improperly marked.

“It has created great difficulty to try to match up a duplicated ballot to its duplicate,” Bennett said, noting that some serial numbers were completely missing from duplicated ballots, ……….. READ THE REST OF THIS IMPORTANT REPORT AT https://www.westernjournal.com/breaking-az-auditors-reveal-massively-disturbing-results-2020-election/

Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer Weighs In On His Potential Retirement


Reported by ANDREW TRUNSKY, POLITICAL REPORTER | July 15, 2021

Read more at https://dailycaller.com/2021/07/15/stephen-breyer-supreme-court-donald-trump-joe-biden/

Justice Stephen Breyer participates in a panel at Georgetown University Law Center on April 21, 2014 (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer said that he was undecided on his retirement in a new interview. Speaking with CNN in an interview published Thursday, the 83-year-old Breyer answered “no” when asked if he knew when he would retire. He gave two reasons that would contribute to an eventual decision: “Primarily, of course, health,” Breyer said. “Second, the court.”

Liberals have urged Breyer to step down at the end of the court’s current term so that President Joe Biden can name a younger, liberal justice to the bench while Democrats hold a Senate majority. But Breyer told CNN that he was happy as the court’s highest-ranking liberal, saying that it had “made a difference” to him.

The nine Supreme Court justices in April, 2021. Breyer sits in the front row, second from the right. (ERIN SCHAFF/POOL/AFP via Getty Images)

Breyer has played a central role in several recent high-profile cases, from rejecting a third attempt to kill the Affordable Care Act to safeguarding student speech rights.

He has also warned against packing the Supreme Court, warning in April that doing so could further erode Americans’ trust in it. He defended the court’s refusal to hear former President Donald Trump’s challenges to the 2020 election, noting that the “court is guided by legal principle, not politics.” 

Breyer has been on the court since 1994, longer than any justice except for Clarence Thomas, who was confirmed in 1991.

Ban On Goods Made With Forced Labor Slows Clothing Imports


Reported by KENDALL TIETZ, CONTRIBUTOR | June 28, 2021

Read more at https://dailycaller.com/2021/06/28/customs-and-border-protection-joe-biden-donald-trump-uyghur-xinjiang/

Uyghur Women Getty
(Photo by PETER PARKS/AFP via Getty Images)

Increased enforcement of a ban on imported products made with forced labor has led to cargo stoppages and complaints from importers, The Wall Street Journal reported.

Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers are charged with enforcing the ban on goods, such a cotton and tomato products from the Xinjiang region of China, where Uyghurs are detained in forced labor camps. The bans were first put in place during the Trump administration in an effort to remove forced labor from import supply chains, the WSJ reported.

The ban on cotton from the region has had an impact on retailers who rely heavily on the commodity and must prove their supply chains don’t rely on slave labor, the WSJ reported. Importers have three months from the time of detainment to prove products pass CBP standards, if not, cargoes will be exported or abandoned.

Retailer Uniqlo Co, had a shipment of men’s shirts detained in January at the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach because customs officers suspected it violated the December ban on Xinjiang cotton, according to internal CBP documents, the WSJ reported.

 This photo taken on June 2, 2019 shows buildings at the Artux City Vocational Skills Education Training Service Center, believed to be a re-education camp where mostly Muslim ethnic minorities are detained, north of Kashgar in China's northwestern Xinjiang region. (Photo by GREG BAKER/AFP via Getty Images)

This photo taken on June 2, 2019 shows buildings at the Artux City Vocational Skills Education Training Service Center, believed to be a re-education camp where mostly Muslim ethnic minorities are detained, north of Kashgar in China’s northwestern Xinjiang region. (Photo by GREG BAKER/AFP via Getty Images)

Uniqlo objected, providing documents that showed the cotton came from Australia, Brazil and the U.S., the WSJ reported. But CBP still did not release the cargo, citing that the company was unable to prove the shirts weren’t made using forced labor. 

Representatives for the retail industry say the burden of proof is too high and that expectations are unclear, the WSJ reported.

“It turns U.S. jurisprudence on its head. As opposed to innocent until proven guilty, it is now guilty until proven innocent,” said Nate Herman, senior vice president of policy at American Apparel & Footwear Association, the WSJ reported. ”Companies don’t know what they are trying to prove because they don’t know what part of the shipment triggered the detention or why it was in violation.”

One possible factor for the lack of transparency and stalled imports could be a shortage of CBP staff, which “limits its ability to pursue forced labor investigations,”Government Accountability Office report said in October.

Trade lawyers and business groups said they expect more import bans and disputed shipments, due to an increasing focus on human rights, the WSJ reported.

“As President Biden made clear at the recent G7 summit, the United States will not tolerate modern-day slavery in our supply chains,” said Secretary of Homeland Security, Alejandro N. Mayorkas in a press release Thursday. “This Withhold Release Order demonstrates we continue to protect human rights and international labor standards and promote a more fair and competitive global marketplace by fulfilling the Biden-Harris Administration’s commitment to ending forced labor.”

Georgia Poll Manager: There Were ‘Pristine’ Biden Ballots That Looked Like They’d Been Xeroxed


Reported by Taylor Penley June 8, 2021 at 4:21pm

Read more at https://www.westernjournal.com/georgia-poll-manager-pristine-biden-ballots-looked-like-xeroxed/

Suzi Voyles is no stranger to elections. And after monitoring voting in Atlanta-area Fulton County, Georgia, for two decades, Voyles said that the highly contentious 2020 election proved to be unlike any other. Voyles testified that as she thumbed through a stack of mail-in ballots last November, strangely “pristine” ballots printed on stock paper different from the others seized her attention.

What did these ballots have in common?

Voyles testified that each ballot contained uniformly filled-in ovals, and every one presented an identical crescent-shaped “void” inside them — indicating the ballots weren’t filled in with pencil or pen, but rather by toner ink.

“Every single ballot was absolutely identical and they appeared to be printed with some sort of marking device,” Voyles said. “And the fact that there was a little eclipse in an oval that was void in exactly the same spot in all these ballots, we didn’t see any differentiation — even when it came to the Senate candidates or when it came to some of the referendums on the back.”

“Everything was precisely the same. I’ve never seen that before in 20 years,” Voyles said. She added that these suspicious ballots had no creases or folds indicative of other mail-in ballots extracted from envelopes.

Voyles wasn’t alone in her testimony.

According to RealClear Investigations, at least three other Fulton County poll workers reported that they encountered the same enigma in other stacks of absentee ballots and have joined Voyles in “swearing under penalty of perjury that [the ballots] looked fake.”

Eight months later, we see the same suspicion resurging in the Republican stronghold that unexpectedly flipped blue for the first time since 1992. Using affidavits to convince a state judge to warrant a closer inspection of ballots for potential illicit election activity, election integrity advocates assert that Biden’s late surge of 12,000 votes was manufactured — and for good reason.

“We have what is almost surely major absentee-ballot fraud in Fulton County involving 10,000 to 20,000 probably false ballots,” Garland Favorito, poll watcher and a lead petitioner in the case against fraudulent ballots, told RealClear Investigations.

“We have confirmed that there are five pallets of shrink-wrapped ballots in a county warehouse,” he added, reiterating his claim.

As questions surrounding the legitimacy of the 2020 election outcome continued in Georgia, as well as other states, Superior Court Judge Brian Amero ordered on May 21 that 147,000 ballots be unsealed and asked that officials guard the warehouse containing these ballots until an inspection date could be set, according to the report. Unfortunately, the warehouse’s security was breached only eight days later. According to Favorito, “The front door was [found] unlocked and wide open in violation of the court order.”

County officials did confirm that security motion detectors were triggered shortly after deputies left the premises, but said the room containing the ballots was “never breached or compromised.”

Still, Favorito — and likely many others — would not be convinced and Favorito seeks to obtain security footage to supplement the investigation, the report states.

Still, all of the contention brewing in the Peach State appears to reaffirm many suspicions that have arisen since Nov. 3 — and may validate Voyle’s bombshell claims. We can’t allow our officials to ignore their obligation to ensure fair, ethical elections for all Americans.

If we do, we have surrendered the most integral aspect of our republic.

Taylor Penley, Contributor, Commentary

Taylor Penley is a government relations intern and student studying English, rhetoric and global studies. She plans to graduate in May 2021 and begin a master of arts program in political science this fall.

‘Their Legacy Is Immortal’: Trump Delivers Stirring Memorial Day Statement


Reported by Dillon Burroughs | May 31, 2021

Read more at https://www.westernjournal.com/legacy-immortal-trump-delivers-stirring-memorial-day-statement/

In contrast with brief comments from President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris prior to Memorial Day, former President Donald Trump released a statement on Monday to remind Americans of the reasons behind the holiday.

“On this Memorial Day, we remember the fallen heroes who took their last breaths in defense of our Nation, our families, our citizens, and our sacred freedoms,” Trump wrote in a statement.

“The depth of their devotion, the steel of their resolve, and the purity of their patriotism has no equal in human history. On distant battlefields, in far-off oceans, and high in the skies above, they faced down our enemies and gave their lives so that America would prevail,” the former president added.

Trump also highlighted the “supreme sacrifice” given by many armed forces personnel who have served the nation.

“They made the supreme sacrifice so that our people can live in safety and our Nation can thrive in peace. It is because of their gallantry that we can together, as one people, continue our pursuit of America’s glorious destiny,” he said.

Trump referred to the service of America’s fallen heroes as “immortal,” highlighting loyalty to those who have paid the ultimate price with their lives on the battlefield.

“We owe all that we are, and everything we ever hope to be, to these unrivaled heroes. Their memory and their legacy is immortal. Our loyalty to them and to their families is eternal and everlasting,” he said.

In contrast to the “woke” promotions highlighted in recent military ads, Trump referred to the nation’s military personnel as warriors.

“America’s warriors are the single greatest force for justice, peace, liberty, and security among all the nations ever to exist on earth. God bless our fallen Soldiers, Sailors, Coast Guardsmen, Airmen, and Marines. We honor them today, forever, and always,” Trump said.

The former president’s statement serves as a follow-up to his Thursday attacks on the Biden administration before Memorial Day.

“With Memorial Day Weekend coming up, tomorrow people start driving in the biggest automobile days of the year,” Trump said in the statement.

“I’m sorry to say the gasoline prices that you will be confronted with are far higher than they were just a short number of months ago where we had gasoline under $2 a gallon.”

Trump’s statement also strongly contrasted Twitter posts by both Biden and Harris entering the holiday weekend.

Biden tweeted, “Stay cool this weekend, folks.” He later added a more traditional Memorial Day statement.

Harris simply posted Friday, “Enjoy the long weekend.”

The vice president’s initial post angered many on social media who found her whimsical words offensive, as Memorial Day commemorates Americans who have died in the armed forces.

Today’s THREE Politically INCORRECT Cartoon’s by A.F. Branco


A.F. Branco – RIP Rush Limbaugh

RIP Rush Limbaugh the GOAT of talk radio has passed away today Feb 17, 2021, at 70.

RIP Rush LimbaughPolitical cartoon by A. F. Branco ©2021.

A.F. Branco Cartoon – On Loan From God

Rush Limbaugh has passed on but is important that we keep his legacy alive by spreading the Truth.

Rush Limbaugh Torch of TruthPolitical cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2021.

A.F. Branco Cartoon – A Pain in the Burro

Trump found a new place to set up his new office of Former President, rent Free.

Trump in Democrat’s HeadsTrump found a new place to set up his new office of Former President, rent Free. Political cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2021.
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.

Ex-FBI Lawyer Receives Probation For Altering Email About Carter Page


Reported by CHUCK ROSS, INVESTIGATIVE REPORTER | January 29, 2021

Read more at https://dailycaller.com/2021/01/29/kevin-clinesmith-sentencing-carter-page-john-durham/

Former FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith was sentenced to probation on Friday for altering an email about former Trump aide Carter Page’s relationship with the CIA. District Court Judge James Boasberg ordered Clinesmith to receive 12 months of probation and perform 400 hours of community service, a sentence far more lenient than the three to six months in prison sought by John Durham, the U.S. Attorney for Connecticut.

Clinesmith, who was an assistant general counsel in the FBI’s cyber law branch, pleaded guilty on Aug. 19, 2020 to altering a June 2017 email he received from a CIA employee regarding Page.  The CIA employee wrote that Page had been “a source” for the spy agency through 2013. Clinesmith forwarded the email to FBI colleagues but altered the document to say that Page was “not a source.” (RELATED: Carter Page Wants A Say At Kevin Clinesmith’s Hearing)

Clinesmith helped the FBI’s Crossfire Hurricane team, which investigated possible links between the Russian government and Trump campaign, draft applications for Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrants on Page. He later joined the special counsel’s team, but was removed after the Justice Department inspector general found that he sent text messages criticizing President Trump following the 2016 election.

The IG blasted the FBI for providing misleading information to the FISA Court in order to obtain warrants on Page, a former Navy officer who joined the Trump campaign in March 2016. The Crossfire Hurricane team relied heavily on unverified and since-debunked allegations from Christopher Steele, a former British spy who investigated the Trump campaign on behalf of the Clinton campaign and DNC. Prosecutors asserted that Clinesmith had not taken full responsibility for his actions. They noted that he has claimed that he believed the alteration to be accurate at the time.

Anthony Scarpelli, an assistant U.S. attorney, said during the hearing that Clinesmith’s lies about Carter Page were “more egregious” than those told by George Papadopoulos, a former Trump campaign aide who pleaded guilty in October 2017 to making false statements to the FBI. Speaking at Clinesmith’s hearing, Page said that the “manufactured scandal and associated lies caused me to adopt the lifestyle of an international fugitive for years.”

“I often have felt as if I had been left with no life at all. Each member of my family was severely impacted.”

Page has sued the Justice Department, FBI, Clinesmith and other current and former FBI employees over the inaccurate FISA applications.

McConnell Votes In Favor Of Rand Paul’s Motion To Dismiss Trump’s Impeachment Trial, Five GOP Senators Opposed


Reported by HENRY RODGERS, SENIOR CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT | January 26, 2021

Read more at https://www.conservativereview.com/mcconnell-votes-in-favor-of-rand-pauls-motion-to-dismiss-trumps-impeachment-trial-five-gop-senators-opposed-2650145477.html/

THESE FIVE GOP SENATORS VOTED TO TABLE THE MOTION: 

  • Maine Sen. Collins

  • Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski

  • Utah Sen. Mitt Romney

  • Nebraska Sen. Ben Sasse

  • Pennsylvania Sen. Pat Toomey

In order to convict Trump in the Senate, Democrats will need 17 Republican senators to side with every Democrat. (RELATED: Schumer Says Impeachment Trial Will Move Quickly, Won’t Need A Lot Of Witnesses)

Members were sworn in for trial on Tuesday. The arguments will start the week of Feb. 8, Schumer announced.

Trump issues wave of pardons in final hours as president


Reported by W. James Antle III | Washington Examiner | January 20, 2021

President Trump issued 73 pardons and commuted the federal sentences of 70 other people in the final hours of his administration, headlined by former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon. Trump also granted relief to rappers Lil Wayne and Kodak Black, who were convicted on weapons charges, as well as to former Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick. Kilpatrick, a Democrat, was convicted of mail fraud, wire fraud, and racketeering. He was serving a 28-year sentence. Trump through the White House press secretary cited Diamond and Silk and Pastor Paula White, strong supporters of his, as backers of commuting Kilpatrick’s sentence.

Elliott Broidy, the former deputy finance chairman of the Republican National Committee, received a full presidential pardon. He was convicted on one count of conspiracy to serve as an unregistered agent of a foreign principal. Trump invoked Rep. Devin Nunes of California and Ambassador Richard Grenell, among other friends of the White House, as supporters of the pardon.

The last-minute acts of clemency cap four years of controversial pardons of supporters and allies, including former 2016 campaign chairman Paul Manafort, Republican operative Roger Stone, former Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, former national security adviser Michael Flynn, former campaign aide George Papadopoulos, former Reps. Duncan Hunter and Chris Collins, and Charles Kushner, father of the president’s son-in-law and senior adviser Jared Kushner.

Other recipients of Trump pardons who raised eyebrows included former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich, a Democrat, four Iraq War veterans convicted in a Blackwater shooting, former New York City Police Commissioner Bernie Kerik, conservative commentator Dinesh D’Souza, and Scooter Libby, who had served as chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney. Trump pardoned Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean, two former border patrol agents whose cases had long been championed by immigration hawks.

Trump has also occasionally issued pardons to further the goals of criminal justice reform, such as when he granted clemency to Alice Marie Johnson, a first-time nonviolent drug offender who spent 21 years in prison. “That means you can do whatever you want in life,” Trump told her in the Oval Office earlier this year. He had previously commuted her life sentence in 2018.

Death Row Records co-founder Michael “Harry O” Harris was granted early release from prison, where he had served three decades for attempted murder and cocaine trafficking. Rapper Snoop Dogg praised the move. These acts of clemency have generally received more positive reviews than Trump’s pardons of political supporters and personal associates, rekindling the former reality TV star’s once-chummy relationship with Hollywood.

Kim Kardashian West has visited the White House to advise Trump on less famous people who could benefit from pardons and commutations. Rep. Thomas Massie, a Kentucky Republican, tweeted Wednesday night that he was “more interested” in seeing Trump’s pardons than President-elect Joe Biden’s Cabinet nominees.

A number low-level drug offenders were included in the current Trump list. Some supporters had hoped he would strike against the “deep state” by pardoning WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange and whistleblower Edward Snowden, who leaked highly classified information from the National Security Agency while a federal contractor. They were not on the pardons list.

Trump has also used the pardon power to strike back at the investigation conducted by special counsel Robert Mueller, which the president has regularly described as the “Russia hoax.” This led to the pardons of Manafort, Stone, Papadopoulos, and, to a lesser extent, Flynn. Trump repeated the phrase “Russian collusion hoax” in announcing a full pardon for Paul Erickson. Mueller’s final report did not establish the Trump campaign colluded with Russia in the 2016 presidential election.

Bannon was charged with defrauding donors who hoped to help privately fund the construction of a wall along the U.S.-Mexican border, a key Trump campaign promise. Bannon, a staunch proponent of the president’s populist and nationalist variant of conservatism both before and after serving in the White House, has denied the allegations. He had yet to stand trial.

In the days leading up to the final pardons, there was rampant speculation that Trump might pardon family members or even himself. Acts of clemency for Donald Trump Jr., Eric Trump, or Ivanka Trump, three of the president’s adult children, were thought to complicate any political future they or their spouses might be entertaining. The constitutionality of a presidential self-pardon has been debated by legal scholars.

Trump was reportedly warned by top aides not to pardon anyone involved in the “Stop the Steal” rally prior to the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol by die-hard supporters of the president who were protesting the certification of Biden’s Electoral College victory. The House voted to impeach Trump for inciting the riot, and a Senate trial will follow after he leaves office, potentially paving the way for legislation to prevent him from running again in 2024. Five people died in the riots.

Trump has steadfastly maintained the election was stolen due to widespread voter fraud, though he has in recent days acknowledged “a new administration” will be taking power at the conclusion of his term. The slew of pardons beginning in December were also seen as a concession that his time in the White House was coming to a close.

Nolte: Donald Trump Leaves Office with 51% Approval Rating


Reported by JOHN NOLTE | 

Read more at https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2021/01/19/nolte-donald-trump-leaves-office-51-approval-rating/

US President Donald Trump gestures during a Keep America Great Rally at Kellogg Arena December 18, 2019, in Battle Creek, Michigan. (Photo by Brendan Smialowski / AFP) (Photo by BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI/AFP via Getty Images)

Trump’s disapproval rating sits at just 48 percent.

There are a lot of media polls that show Trump’s approval rating in the low forties, and even in the thirties. But, over the course of the last few election cycles, we have learned that these are almost all fake polls, rigged polls, polls that in no way reflect reality. And we know this because when the ultimate poll is taken on Election Day, the media polls are all wrong. The whole point of media polls is to mislead, demoralize, and deceive the American people into believing Trump is less popular than he really is.

Time and again, Rasmussen has proven to be reliable and accurate, which tells us the insanity of the Capitol Hill riot and the corporate media’s determination to blame the president for it — even though he expressly called on that crowd to be respectful and peaceful, even though he almost immediately called for the anarchy to stop once it began (which is more than any Democrat has ever done) — is not penetrating into the electorate at large.

People don’t trust the media and are not listening to the media, and why should they? The media have lied about everything for nearly a decade now.

So basically, all this unfounded left-wing hysteria is affecting absolutely nothing outside the corporate media bubble, even though the hysteria has gone so far that we now have to look at the kabuki theater of the military shutting down Washington, D.C., which includes fences covered in razor wire. This is all being done in an effort to fool people into believing Trump supporters are some sort of danger to His Fraudulency Joe Biden’s inauguration.

Oh, and did you know there is no evidence of any threats against His Fraudulency?  That’s right, none.

What’s more, in this particular poll, Trump’s job approval rating has actually INCREASED since the Capitol Hill riot. What had been a 47 percent approval rating on January 7 is now a 51 percent approval rating, a bump of four points in approval.

Because Wednesday is Trump’s last full day in office, this will be Rasmussen’s final tracking of his daily approval numbers.

I do hope that those of you still naïve enough to be fooled by the fake news media pay attention to this poll. One trick the fake media are quite good at is delivering the impression they can still shape public opinion and move that needle. But what more proof do you need of how impotent the modern-day media are than this poll?

For two weeks the public have been gaslit by every corner of the dominant culture into believing Trump called for a riot and that Washington, D.C., is under imminent threat of attack by Trump supporters (when the truth is that there’s zero evidence of any kind of attack). To back up this nonsense, His Fraudulency and Capitol Hill Democrats have basically declared martial law around the White House, and what’s the result…

Trump’s approval rating has INCREASED and he leaves office with a perfectly respectable 51 percent.

Don’t let the media grifters and liars fool you. The only power they have left is to gin up violence in Democrat-run cities.

No one else is paying attention.

Follow John Nolte on Twitter @NolteNCFollow his Facebook Page here.

Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoon by A.F. Branco


A.F. Branco Cartoon – Team-Work

RINOs join the left to impeach trump again on totally ridiculous frivolous charges.

RINOs For Impeachment 2.0Political cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2021.
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.

Donald Trump to Supporters: ‘NO Violence, NO Lawbreaking, and NO Vandalism’


Reported by CHARLIE SPIERING | 
Read more at https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2021/01/13/donald-trump-to-supporters-no-violence-no-lawbreaking-and-no-vandalism/

donald trump wall / AP Photo/Alex Brandon

“In light of reports of more demonstrations, I urge that there must be NO violence, NO lawbreaking, and NO vandalism of any kind,” the president said in a statement to reporters that was first published by Fox News.

Trump reminded his supporters that he did not stand for violent protests amid reports that there were other uprisings planned around the country.

“That is not what I stand for, and it is not what America stands for,” he said. “I call on ALL Americans to help ease tensions and calm tempers.”

Trump’s message was released Wednesday afternoon as the House of Representatives, led by Speaker Nancy Pelosi, moved to impeach the president on the basis that he incited the mob of his supporters to attack Capitol Hill.

A senior Trump adviser told Fox News that the president wanted Big Tech companies to “join with him” to secure a peaceful transition of power.

“This is a critical time in our nation’s history and surely we can all come together to deliver this important message and not continue to play partisan politics,” the adviser told Fox News.

Jim Jordan Calls Out Democrats’ ‘Double Standard’ In Fiery Speech During Impeachment Proceedings


Reported By Jack Davis | Published January 13, 2021 at 12:00pm

Read more at https://www.westernjournal.com/jim-jordan-calls-democrats-double-standard-fiery-speech-impeachment-proceedings/

Jordan spoke as the House moved forward with the process of impeaching President Donald Trump, citing last week’s Capitol incursion and Trump’s words and action before, during and after the violence. Jordan is among the Republicans opposing impeachment, which is likely to pass the House. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has said impeachment is unlikely to make it on the Senate calendar until after Trump’s term in office has ended.

Jordan said that Republicans who last week wanted to voice objections to the Electoral College vote that gave President-elect Joe Biden his victory were only doing something Democrats have done before.

“In his opening remarks, the Democrat chair of the Rules Committee said that Republicans last week voted to overturn the results of an election. Guess who the first objector was on Jan. 6, 2017? First objector: the Democrat chairman of the Rules Committee,” Jordan said, referring to Democratic Rep. Jim McGovern of Massachusetts.

“And guess which state he objected to? Alabama. The very first state called. Alabama. President Trump, I think, won Alabama by like 80 points,” Jordan said, before consulting notes and saying that Trump in fact won the state by 30 points.

READ THE BALENCE OF THIS REPORT AT https://www.westernjournal.com/jim-jordan-calls-democrats-double-standard-fiery-speech-impeachment-proceedings/

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Twitter Is The Enemy Of The American People


JANUARY 9, 2021 By 

Twitter Is The Enemy Of The American People

On Oct. 18, 2020, Twitter banned the account of Dr. Scott Atlas for defending President Donald Trump’s position on mask mandates. In his tweet, he cited scientific studies, and the tweet contained absolutely no false information.

Also in October, Twitter banned the account of The New York Post for accurately reporting on a story about Hunter Biden’s laptop. Today we know these were just the first salvos in this evil company’s assault on American liberty.

For all its talk about safety, community, and the health of discourse, we see today that Twitter acts in favor of one interest and one interest alone: its own, even when it means destabilizing the American people. On Friday, the company permanently banned Trump from its platform and began a purge of conservative voices. They claim this is needed to protect America from a coup. That is a farcical lie. They did it because their political enemies such as Trump and Sen. Josh Hawley are now out of power, and they mean to keep it way.

As a private company, Twitter is free to do as it pleases. And I am free to call them what they are: a shill for communist China that seeks the destruction of America. Do you doubt that? Then explain why Iran can call for Jews to be killed on Twitter’s platform and China can spread propaganda about how rounding up Uyghur men and forced sterilization of Uyghur women is actually good, but Donald Trump can’t tweet. It is evil. And anyone defending Jack Dorsey’s death machine is complicit.

We live in two Americas right now. In Republican-led Florida and Texas, economies are open, people go to restaurants and movies, small businesses can prosper. In Democrat-led New York and California, lockdowns are crushing the people. They are not allowed to gather in person, only on big tech platforms. Guess which outcome Twitter prefers?

Now compare the effects of COVID on these two Americas. There is no rational way to argue that the lockdowns led to better results.

I want to put this as clearly as possible. Twitter attempted and largely succeeded in silencing dissent to policies that were against its own interests. They don’t care about the suicides, overdoses, missed cancer screenings, or poverty caused by these actions, they only care about money and power. Blood is dripping from Jack Dorsey’s hands across the globe and here at home as he counts his billions.

Feckless Democrats and faux conservatives applaud or look the other way at Twitter’s actions because it serves their purposes; the poor, blind fools have no idea that they will be next. This has nothing to do with the Constitution, or laws, this has to do with Dorsey being a liar who orchestrates mass disinformation campaigns on the American people. Twitter’s safety guidelines have nothing to do with safety, they have to do with profit.

I am not writing here about Section 230, or legislative approaches to rein in Big Tech. That can come later. I am writing to make it clear that Twitter has played a central role in destroying Americans’ lives through lockdowns, lying to them about Hunter Biden to win an election, and enabling the world’s most brutal regime to practice genocide in peace.

Twitter doesn’t want to serve you; it wants to rule you. And it is well on its way.

Now Big Tech is seeking to deplatform Twitter’s competitor, Parler. Politicians and journalists are cheering for censorship and suggesting that cable operators should ban conservative news outlets. You see, these people know what is good for you and what isn’t. They just want to protect you from dangerous information. To them, you are a child and they are your parents, the only difference being that you pay them an allowance.

Now we Americans have no choice. Now we must convene our secret meetings in person, far from the peering eyes of Big Tech and its Chinese overlords, for whom it will do anything. Consider the fact that in many places in America meetings are literally illegal right now. Everything changed on Friday. The cards all stare up at us from the table now. Twitter’s goal is to create for our children an America our parents would not recognize.

Twitter is the enemy of freedom, the enemy of liberty, and the enemy of the American people. It must be treated as such.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:
David Marcus is the Federalist’s New York Correspondent. Follow him on Twitter, @BlueBoxDave.

First Lady Melania Trump Breaks Silence On Capitol Riot


Reported by MARY MARGARET OLOHAN, SOCIAL ISSUES REPORTER | January 11, 2021

Read more at https://dailycaller.com/2021/01/11/melania-trump-breaks-silence-capitol-riot/

First Lady Melania Trump broke her silence Monday after the Capitol riot, condemning violence and urging Americans to “listen to one another, focus on what unites us, and rise above what divides us.”

Rioters supporting President Donald Trump stormed the United States capitol Wednesday, committing acts of vandalism and postponing the certification process as members of Congress were forced to evacuate the building. Melania Trump did not comment on these events until Monday when she issued a statement that began by emphasizing how the coronavirus pandemic has wreaked havoc on American lifestyles.

“I am disappointed and disheartened with what happened last week,” she said. “I find it shameful that surrounding these tragic events there has been salacious gossip, unwarranted personal attacks, and false misleading accusations on me – from people who are looking to be relevant and have an agenda. This time is solely about healing our country and its citizens. It should not be used for personal gain.”

“I pray for their families comfort and strength during this difficult time,” she said. (RELATED: Twitter Follows Trump Suspension With Massive ‘Purge’ Of Conservative Accounts)

“I implore people to stop the violence, never make assumptions based on the color of a person’s skin or use differing political ideologies as a basis for aggression and viciousness,” she said. “We must listen to one another, focus on what unites us, and rise above what divides us.”

Melania Trump said it is “inspiring” to see so many Americans show “passion and enthusiasm in participating in an election,”  but urged Americans not to “allow that passion to turn to violence.”

“Our path forward is to come together, find our commonalities, and be the kind and strong people that I know we are,” she said. (RELATED: Five People Died In The Capitol Riot. Here’s What We Know About Them)

“It has been the honor of my lifetime to serve as your First Lady,” she said, nodding to her upcoming departure from the White House. “I want to thank the millions of Americans who supported my husband and me over the past 4 years and shown the incredible impact of the American spirit. I am grateful to you all for letting me serve you on platforms which are dear to me.”

 

Editorial Board: Patriots Do Not Storm Their Nation’s Capitol


Commentary by EDITORIAL BOARD, CONTRIBUTOR | January 06, 2021

Read more at https://dailycaller.com/2021/01/06/editorial-board-patriots-do-not-storm-their-nations-capitol/

Patriots do not storm their own Capitol over a lost election. They do not bum rush members of Congress. They do not assault strangers. They do not push and shove police officers and trash federal buildings. These are things criminals do, and criminals of any political stripe deserve one thing: the rule of law.

As this summer’s political protests escalated into rioting and lawlessness, many of us pointed out how unacceptable that was for any reason. This situation is no different. Every single one of the people who stormed that building and participated in that rank, un-American lawlessness should be in jail. There are prodigious photos and video evidence. Law enforcement officials should find them and prosecute them, all of them, no exceptions.

The left excused this summer’s rioting as “mostly peaceful.” The same could be said of the events in Washington. It’s irrelevant. “Mostly” is not the standard to which we should aspire. Political violence is wrong. Period. This was true in 2016 when the #NotMyPresident rioters disrupted the Trump Inaugural and it’s true today. Rule of law is an essential element of our peaceful transition of power. The people who stormed that building do not represent the vast majority of America.

‘Did You Listen To The President’s Speech?’: Trey Gowdy Throws Question Back At Fox News Anchor, Says He’s ‘Not Real Sure’ What Republican Party Stands For


Reported by DAVID KRAYDEN, OTTAWA BUREAU CHIEF | January 07, 2021

Read more at https://dailycaller.com/2021/01/07/not-sure-trey-gowdy-not-certain-republican-party-stands-for-riot/

Former Republican South Carolina Rep. Trey Gowdy said Thursday that he’s “not real sure anymore” what the Republican Party “stands for” as he blamed President Donald Trump for the Capitol riot Wednesday.

“If you really wanted to ask me a tough question, ask me what the Republican Party stands for,” Gowdy told Fox News’ “America’s Newsroom.”

“It used to be law and order, it used to be things I could rattle off for you. I’m not real sure anymore.” (RELATED: Jonathan Turley Says Removing Trump With The 25th Amendment Is ‘Extremely Unlikely’ But ‘Can Happen’)

Gowdy said he did not know what role, if any, Trump would continue to play in the Republican Party but suggested the president incited the riot.

“Did you listen to the president’s speech yesterday?” Gowdy asked Fox News host Sandra Smith.

“Then you tell me. Who said that? Who said go fight? Who blamed Mike Pence and blamed Republicans and said the election was stolen?” Gowdy asked.

Gowdy joins other prominent Republicans who have chastised Trump for the destruction and violence. There have been calls to impeach Trump after rioters stormed the Capitol building, bringing chaos and violence to the Electoral College vote certification proceedings.

Former Republican New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie suggested Trump was to blame for the riots by encouraging his supporters to reject the results of the 2020 presidential election. Republican Wyoming Rep. Liz Cheney claimed Trump “lit the flame” of the riot.

Gowdy said people should not blame the police for not reacting swiftly enough to the threat.

“I don’t know how reasonably foreseeable it should be for cops that tens of thousands of people are going to be told to go fight, that an election was stolen from them, to go fight, to blame [Vice President] Mike Pence … and other Republicans,” he said. (RELATED: ‘I’m Distraught’: Freshman GOP Rep Nancy Mace Says Trump’s Legacy Has Been ‘Wiped Out’)

“I can’t tell you what was on the president’s mind. I can tell you that he said ‘let’s march together to the capitol,’” Gowdy continued. “So I don’t blame the cops when tens of thousands of people are told an election was stolen from them and then they decide to scale the walls of the people’s house. I don’t blame the cops for that. I blame the people who did it.”

Police Draw Weapons As Pro-Trump Rioters Break Down Glass Door Of Capitol Building, Brawl With Officers


Reported BRIANNA LYMAN, REPORTER | January 06, 2021

Read more at https://dailycaller.com/2021/01/06/capitol-building-riot-donald-trump-election/

HuffPost’s Matt Fuller tweeted that guns have been drawn in the chamber as hundreds of rioters storm the Capitol, tearing down four layers of security fencing and breaching the building.

Meanwhile other rioters engaged in an all-out brawl with police as officers struggle to keep up with the mass rioting.

Earlier video shows rioters smashing through glass doors at the Capitol Building as hundreds of rioters descend upon the capitol.

 

The Madison building on Capitol Hill was evacuated minutes after the breach, Politico reporter Melanie Zanona said on Twitter. Zanona followed her tweet up noting the Capitol is on complete lockdown and tear has has been dispersed after those on the floor of the House were told to “get down on your chairs if necessary.”

 

Other videos posted to Twitter shows a small group of rioters, some donned in red “Make America Great Again” hats, standing together as one protester begins spraying a fire extinguisher in the building as smoke billows up. (RELATED: Pence Breaks From Trump – Tells Congress He Won’t Try To Overturn Election Results)

Steven Nelson of the New York Post reports that there are other protesters in the building as well taking cover from the select few who discharged the fire extinguisher.

President Donald Trump’s Campaign Makes Last Ditch Effort To Toss Out 50,000 Ballots In Wisconsin


Reported by BRIANNA LYMAN, REPORTER | December 29, 2020

Read more at https://www.conservativereview.com/president-donald-trumps-campaign-makes-last-ditch-effort-to-toss-out-50-000-ballots-in-wisconsin-2649694897.html/

President Donald Trump appealed his recent loss in the Wisconsin Supreme Court to the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday, seeking to toss out 50,000 votes and possibly change the election outcome in the state. The campaign is arguing that 50,000 ballots were counted despite the fact that they were allegedly invalid. The campaign says more than 28,000 votes were counted from people who didn’t provide identification and instead used the state’s “indefinitely confined” status to vote. The campaign also alleged some 6,000 ballots were incomplete or altered which is forbidden by state law.

The campaign is seeking an expedited review of the case ahead of Jan. 6 Congressional review of the Electoral College votes. Jim Troupis, the president’s lead attorney in Wisconsin, said that the Wisconsin Supreme Court didn’t address the merits of their claims in an official statement. (RELATED: Trump Demands ‘List’ Of Republicans In Congress Who Say Biden Won)

“Three members of the Wisconsin State Supreme Court, including the Chief Justice, agreed with many of the President’s claims in written dissents from that court’s December 14 order,” he continued.

Trump lost the state to President-elect Joe Biden by roughly 21,000 votes. Trump’s campaign filed a suit that sought to invalidate more than 221,000 absentee ballots in Dane and Milwaukee counties for purportedly failing to meet requirements to obtain an absentee ballot. The suit also requested the Republican-led state legislature to appoint pro-Trump electors to the Electoral College.

However, the state Supreme Court rejected the suit, ruling the claims were filed too late and one claim lacked merit. However, three dissenting conservative justices argued that the lateness was moot, and the questions about the legality of the votes demands an answer.

Kylee Zempel Op-ed: To Democrats, ‘Unity’ Means Doing Everything They Want And Shutting Up About It


Commentary by Kylee Zempel NOVEMBER 12, 2020

To Democrats, ‘Unity’ Means Doing Everything They Want And Shutting Up About It

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 uniter’s, not dividers, into his administration.” Conservatives who fall for this “unity” schtick are hopelessly naïve.

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 theother 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.

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

Mitch McConnell Urges Senate To Override Trump’s NDAA Veto


Reported by ANDERS HAGSTROM, WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT | December 29, 2020

Read more at https://dailycaller.com/2020/12/29/mitch-mcconnell-trump-ndaa-veto/

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell urged his colleagues to vote to override President Donald Trump’s veto of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) on Tuesday.

Trump vetoed the NDAA last week, and the House of Representatives has already voted to override the veto with a two-thirds majority, making the Senate the final hurdle for approving the funding. The NDAA passed the Senate originally with a 84-13 majority on December 11, but the grounds have shifted somewhat.

Independent Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders has vowed to filibuster any attempt at an override on the NDAA bill until McConnell allows a vote on the $2,000 COVID-19 direct relief payments. Trump called for the increase from $600 to $2,000 last week, a proposition Democrats have endorsed but many Republicans have not. (RELATED: The Numbers In Georgia Point To Two Tossup Races)

“McConnell and the Senate want to expedite the override vote and I understand that,” Sanders told reporters Monday evening. “But I’m not going to allow that to happen unless there is a vote, no matter how long that takes, on the $2,000 direct payment.”

The House voted in favor of the increase to $2,000 on Monday, leaving McConnell and the Senate as the final obstacle. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer attempted to pass the $2,000 increase by unanimous consent during Tuesday session, but McConnell blocked the move.

 

Trump originally objected to the NDAA because Congress refused to include provisions in the bill that would dismantle Section 230, the law that governs how internet companies moderate third-party content. Trump also objected to provisions in the bill seeking to rename military bases currently named after Confederate figures.

Schumer, Pelosi, Sanders And ‘The Squad’ Support Trump’s $2,000 Payment Demand


Reported by SCOTT MOREFIELD, REPORTER | December 23, 2020

Read more at https://www.conservativereview.com/schumer-pelosi-sanders-and-the-squad-support-trumps-2-000-payment-demand-2649630009.html/

Key Democrats came out in support of President Donald Trump’s last-minute demand that $2,000 in direct payments to Americans be included in the coronavirus stimulus bill. Trump declared in a video posted Tuesday that he would not sign the recently passed bill in its current form, instead demanding the extra payments along with the elimination of several items he considered “wasteful.”

Responding to Trump’s video Tuesday night, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi supported the idea while also pointing out that the president never called for a specific payment amount during months of negotiations.

“Republicans repeatedly refused to say what amount the President wanted for direct checks,” Pelosi tweeted. “At last, the President has agreed to $2,000 — Democrats are ready to bring this to the Floor this week by unanimous consent. Let’s do it!”

“That’s great!” Independent Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders responded, including Pelosi’s tweet. “I first introduced a bill to provide a $2,000 direct payment with @SenKamalaHarris & @EdMarkey 7 months ago. Now, Mr. President, get Mitch McConnell and your Republican friends to stop opposing it and we can provide working class Americans with $2,000. Let’s do it.”

Democratic New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez wrote that an amendment to include the payments is “ready to go.”

To which Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer responded, “I’m in!”

Schumer had initially seemed to support passing the bill as-is, but appeared to change his mind.

Other “Squad” members publicly echoed their support for the idea. (RELATED: CNN’s Michael Smerconish Calls Trump’s Push For $2,000 Stimulus Checks ‘The Most Effective Thing He’s Done’ Since The Election)

 

 

After months of negotiations, Congress on Monday passed the sweeping $2.3 trillion package that includes $900 billion in coronavirus stimulus as well as $1.4 trillion to fund the government through October. If he changes his mind, Trump has until December 28 to sign the bill.

Morocco Will Normalize Relations With Israel, Trump Administration Announces


Reported by CHRISTIAN DATOC, SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT | December 10, 202011:51 AM ET

Read more at https://dailycaller.com/2020/12/10/morocco-relations-israel-trump-administration-middle-east-peace-abraham-accords/

President Donald Trump announced Thursday that the Kingdom of Morocco has agreed to normalize relations with Israel, making it the latest in a string of majority-Muslim countries to do so.

“Another HISTORIC breakthrough today!” the president tweeted. “Our two GREAT friends Israel and the Kingdom of Morocco have agreed to full diplomatic relations – a massive breakthrough for peace in the Middle East!” (RELATED: Trump Removes Sudan From Terror Sponsor Blacklist, Prompting African Country To Normalize Relations With Israel)

 

 

Senior advisor to the president Jared Kushner told reporters shortly after the president’s announcement that Morocco — like other signatories onto the Abraham Accords — will immediately open liaison offices in Israel, start scheduling direct flights from the country to Israel, and foster “cooperation” between companies in both nations. He confirmed that in addition to Morocco’s decision to normalize relations, Trump had also signed a proclamation recognizing Morocco’s sovereignty over the Western Sahara.

“This comes on four years of very, very hard work and diplomacy,” Kushner stated. “We have peace sprouting in the Middle East.”

Kushner called the announcement a “part of the president’s efforts to bring peace and prosperity to the world,” and stated that other countries in the region “want to keep this progress going.” He claimed that the more majority-Muslim countries begin to interact with Israel, the less Islamic terror groups will be able to justify their actions.

Trump has touted the Israel “peace deals” as some of his administration’s greatest accomplishments. Prior to the Morocco announcement, the Trump administration had helped foster normalization negotiations between Israel and the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, and Somalia.

This is a developing story and will be updated with new information as it becomes available.

Trump Lawsuit: Thousands Of Fraudulent Votes In Georgia Cast By Felons, Dead, Underage Voters


Trump Lawsuit: Thousands Of Fraudulent Votes In Georgia Cast By Felons, Dead, Underage Voters

A new criminal complaint in Georgia, filed in the Fulton County Superior Court by State Republican Chairman David Shafer and President Donald Trump on Friday, alleges that tens of thousands of votes cast in the presidential election were fraudulent, thus violating state election code and creating “systemic failure.”

These votes, in congruence with the reduced scrutiny applied to mail-in ballots through “unconstitutional” litigation filed by Democrats in Georgia and difficulties contesting ballots during tabulation, the lawsuit states, have created “substantial doubt regarding the results of the election” and require a complete do-over election.

“Georgia officials who have fecklessly asserted that the general election was an ‘amazing success’ ‘with no credible evidence of irregularity’ are undermining public confidence in the integrity of our elections,” Shafer warned in his announcement of the lawsuit.

“Our lawsuit does not rely on theories about the voting machines. These theories will be explored in other lawsuits. Instead, we painstakingly show thousands of examples of ‘low tech’ voting irregularities and fraud sufficient in scale to place the election result in doubt,” Shafer continued.

According to the lawsuit, “a sufficient number of illegal votes” were “jointly and severally, improperly” counted by election officials despite their disqualifications. These votes violating Georgia state law, the plaintiffs argued, mostly fall on the shoulders of Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger who is “required to maintain and update a list of registered voters within this state.”

Instead of properly updating the voter registration lists, the lawsuit alleges that these fraudulent votes included:

  • 2,560 felons

  • 66,247 underage registrants

  • 2,423 people who were not on the state’s voter rolls

  • 4,926 voters who had registered in another state after they registered in Georgia, making them ineligible

  • 395 people who cast votes in another state for the same election

  • 15,700 voters who had filed a national change of address forms without re-registering

  • 40,279 people who had moved counties without re-registering

  • 1,043 people who claimed the physical impossibility of a P.O. Box as their address

  • 98 people who registered after the deadline

  • 10,315 people who were deceased on election day (8,718 of whom had been registered as dead before their votes were accepted)

  • 305,701 people who, according to state records, applied for an absentee ballot past the deadline (more than 180 days before the election)

  • 92 voters whose absentee ballots were cast before they even requested one

  • 13 people who weren’t registered voted with absentee ballots

  • 2,664 absentee ballots were mailed from elections offices before the earliest date permitted by law

  • 50 peoples’ absentee ballots were counted despite being returned and accepted before the earliest allowed date

  • 2 people whose ballot applications were rejected voted anyway

  • 217 people who voted by absentee ballots were “applied for, issued, and received all on the same day.”

Some of these numbers, the complaint alleges, could be higher but can’t be verified by the plaintiffs because the election officials responding in the lawsuit “have the exclusive capability and access to data to determine the true number of Double Voters.”

Instead, the lawsuit includes sworn affidavits from dozens of witnesses backing up these claims and lists out examples of acknowledged election incompetence and resignations by officials specifically in Fulton County, home to Atlanta.

It also shows comparisons of data from 2016, demonstrating the state’s extremely low rate of rejected absentee ballots in 2020 of .034 percent, compared to the 2.90 percent rejection rate in 2016, and the 3.46 percent rejection rate in 2018. They allege this is a direct result of the Democrats’ “Consent Decree” which changed the absentee ballot process and made it more difficult on election officials by tripling the number of people required to provide a ballot rejection.

“There will be irreparable damage to the Citizens of Georgia through their loss of confidence in the integrity of the election process by virtue of the illegal votes included in the tabulations of the Contested Election, which outweighs any potential harm to Respondents,” the lawsuit states.

According to Shafer, the number of these votes the lawsuit identified without the extra information held by the Peach State’s election officials still largely outnumbers Joe Biden’s just under 12,000-vote lead in the state, legally qualifying Shafer and Trump’s request for an audit of absentee signatures to ensure they match those on record with the Secretary of State’s office.

“Under Georgia law, we must show that the number of unlawful votes exceeds the purported margin of victory. It does not require us to show for which candidate the unlawful votes were cast,” he wrote.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

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

Rudy Giuliani calls Pennsylvania case a success: ‘A lot’ of voter fraud evidence yet to be seen


Posted by Daniel Chaitin | Washington Examiner | November 30, 2020

Rudy Giuliani said there are two ways the Trump legal team is getting a “major censorship” of its widespread voter fraud allegations. He told Newsmax on Friday that the Trump camp is equally focused on presenting evidence to state legislatures as it is on court hearings, but it is facing an uphill battle because of judges who won’t hear the cases and media that won’t air its presentations.

“We’ve got a lot of evidence. We don’t have a lot of time,” Giuliani said. “The public has only a small idea of the kind of evidence that we have.”

The Trump legal team, led by Giuliani, and its allies have endured dozens of losses, and they are turning to presentations of witnesses to state legislatures in places such as Arizona and Michigan. The team had one such event in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, this week, and the Trump team said a judge in Nevada will allow Republicans to present their findings at a hearing on Dec. 3.

As it stands now, President-elect Joe Biden has 306 Electoral College votes, and President Trump has 232. More than one state would have to flip for Trump to emerge as the winner. Time is running out as states are certifying their votes ahead of an Electoral College meeting in mid-December.

A federal appeals court in Philadelphia on Friday rejected Trump’s latest bid to challenge the 2020 election results. However, Giuliani insisted that because the team got its presentation before GOP lawmakers, “in essence, we accomplished the purpose of that case.” He added that the Supreme Court “can now take a look at it.”

Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Wolf signed off on the certification of Biden as the winner of the state and its 20 electoral votes on Tuesday, but a Pennsylvania appeals court judge ordered state officials on Wednesday not to take any more steps toward certification as part of a separate lawsuit brought by Republican Rep. Mike Kelly and others trying to invalidate all mail-in ballots, which were mostly cast by Democrats. Wolf’s administration asked the state Supreme Court to intervene.

In addition, dozens of GOP state lawmakers proposed a resolution on Friday disputing the 2020 election results.

The former New York City mayor also remarked on how media outlets gave coverage to Trump calling into the Pennsylvania presentation, but Giuliani claimed that if there were witnesses against Trump, “every single one of those witnesses would be on for days like they did during the phony impeachment hearings.”

Biden’s Reported Pick As Secretary Of State Mocked Trump’s Foreign Policy: ‘Everyone Is Running In The Other Direction’


Reported By  Hank Berrien |   DailyWire.com

Blinken
Mike Coppola/Getty Images for National Committee on American Foreign Policy

Former Vice President Joe Biden has apparently decided that he would pick Obama Administration Deputy Secretary of State Antony Blinken as Secretary of State in a prospective Biden administration. Blinken supports reentering the dangerous Iran nuclear deal which the Obama administration ardently supported, and has claimed that Iran was complying with the deal; he also has slammed President Trump for making decisions he felt were best for America’s interests without caring whether other nations were offended, saying, “Everyone’s running in the other direction.”

In an interview with France 24’s Marc Perelman in 2019, Blinken stated:

I think it’s very unfortunate that the United States pulled out of the agreement that Iran for all of the things that we don’t like that it does; was complying with that agreement, with the nuclear agreement. From Iran’s perspective, I imagine that at a certain point, they were no longer getting the economic benefit they bargained for in making the agreement, that they might decide to resume their nuclear program. That seems to be the point that they reached.

Perelman asked, “So Iran has withdrawn from some parts of the agreement; they say we’re still complying with the agreement, are you concerned that this could be the last step before Iran effectively gets out of the agreement?”

Blinken answered:

Well, at some point you’re in the agreement or you’re not in the agreement. They’ve said they’re staying in yet they’re starting to do certain things that are proscribed by the agreement. And so at some point, the other parties, the European parties, Russia, China, will have to decide if Iran is, in fact, still complying with the agreement. But what’s so troubling about this, Mark, is it basically puts us back in the situation we were in, potentially, before the agreement was reached; that is, Iran on the threshold of having the capacity very quickly, to develop a nuclear weapon, and the United States and other countries faced with that, having to decide what to do about it: let them do it or take action to stop them. That was a bad choice and the nuclear agreement created a third choice, which was actually putting real constraints for a long period of time on Iran’s nuclear program. But now that’s falling apart; we’re back to where we started.

He posited, “President Trump decided to tear up an agreement that Iran was actually complying with. And I say this cognizant of all the other things that Iran does, the destabilizing activities throughout the region, support for terrorism, its horrific record on human rights; all of those things that we don’t like and it continues to do, but the one thing it actually was doing in good faith was complying with the nuclear agreement and that’s the one thing we’ve now torn apart.”

Yet The Wall Street Journal reported in August 2015:

Iran so far has refused to allow United Nations inspectors to interview key scientists and military officers to investigate allegations that Tehran maintained a covert nuclear-weapons program, the head of the U.N.’s nuclear watchdog said in an interview Wednesday. … The IAEA and its director-general, Yukiya Amano, have been trying for more than five years to debrief Mohsen Fakhrizadeh-Mahabadi, an Iranian military officer the U.S., Israel and IAEA suspect oversaw weaponization work in Tehran until at least 2003.  Mr. Amano said Tehran still hasn’t agreed to let Mr. Fakhrizadeh or other Iranian military officers and nuclear scientists help the IAEA complete its investigation.

In October 2017, famed attorney Alan Dershowiz noted:

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) recently stated that it could not verify that Iran was “fully implementing the agreement” by not engaging in activities that would allow it to make a nuclear explosive device. Yukiya Amano of the IAEA told Reuters that when it comes to inspections, which are stipulated in Section T of the agreement, “our tools are limited.” Amano continued to say: “In other sections, for example, Iran has committed to submit declarations, place their activities under safeguards or ensure access by us. But in Section T, I don’t see any (such commitment).”

It is well established that Tehran has consistently denied IAEA inspectors access to military sites and other research locations. This is in direct contravention to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) and bipartisan legislation set out by Congress, which compels the president to verify that “Iran is transparently, verifiably, and fully implementing the agreement.”

In November 2019, after the U.S. had pulled out of the nuclear deal, AP reported:

Uranium particles of man-made origin have been discovered at a site in Iran not declared to the United Nations, the U.N. atomic watchdog agency said Monday as it confirmed a litany of violations by Tehran of the 2015 nuclear deal. The International Atomic Energy Agency said Iran has begun enriching uranium at a heavily fortified installation inside a mountain, is increasing its stockpile of processed uranium, and is exceeding the allowable enrichment levels. All such steps are prohibited under the agreement Iran reached with world powers to prevent it from building a bomb.

Blinken criticized President Trump’s penchant for making decisions that he considered best for America without the support of other countries, saying, “It’s really not leadership if no one is following and if everyone is running in the other direction.”

Joe Biden: Why Are Reporters Asking Me Questions?


Joe Biden: Why Are Reporters Asking Me Questions?

Former Vice President Joe Biden isn’t used to getting real questions. On Friday, Biden appeared dumbfounded as to why a reporter was asking the projected Democratic presidential-elect a question as the press pool was being scurried away by staff.

“Mr. Biden, the COVID task force said it’s safe for students to be in class. Are you going to encourage unions to cooperate more to bring kids back to classrooms, sir?” asked CBS reporter Bo Erickson.

“Why are you the only guy that always shouts out questions?” Biden said.

It was a bizarre episode for the 78-year-old Democrat, who enjoyed the least amount of media scrutiny on the campaign trail of any modern candidate running for president. While serious revelations were emerging, revealing Biden’s role in his son’s potentially criminal overseas business dealings, reporters asked hard-hitting questions such as what kind of ice cream Biden purchased at a pit stop.

Erickson was also one of the few reporters to ask Biden about the scandals plaguing his campaign, bombshells suppressed by Big Tech and either ignored or dubiously delegitimized by other mainstream outlets. When pressed on the issue, Biden lashed out at the media. Erickson’s treatment of the former vice president Friday was the same treatment the media offered to President Donald Trump and his staff throughout the entire last four years, which was on full display again in the White House briefing room on the same day.

Meanwhile, one would be hard-pressed to find California Sen. Kamala Harris, Biden’s running mate, at any point throughout the entire general election campaign taking a single question from a reporter during a press conference.

The media gave a preview of how it would treat a Biden administration on Monday, when Biden began speaking with reporters, who lobbed him softball questions. Joe Concha, a media reporter for The Hill, dubbed the incoming presidential press corps “The new marshmallow media in the Biden era,” in a column published Thursday.

“Any press conference Biden has held since capturing the Democratic nomination has consisted mostly of questions about President Trump and very few questions about Biden’s own worldview, record, policy stances or perspective on important issues such as trade, foreign affairs, gun control, immigration, education, or taxation as it relates to repealing the Trump tax cuts,” Concha wrote. “Of the 12 questions Biden received Monday, there were zero follow-ups. Zero interruptions during answers. Zero questions about any of the issues above, which rank as among the top concerns on voters’ minds, along with the coronavirus.”

Tristan Justice is a staff writer at The Federalist focusing on the 2020 presidential campaigns. Follow him on Twitter at @JusticeTristan or contact him at Tristan@thefederalist.com.

Without President Trump, On Whom Will The Left Blame Their Failures?


Without President Trump, On Whom Will The Left Blame Their Failures?

There is honor among thieves. There has to be, if they are to be successful. Even lawbreakers require some sort of law, both in reality, where organized crime requires organization, and in fiction, where it is a standard trope that the Guild of Assassins (or whatever) has rules. The wicked still need some virtue to be effective, although it must be severed from the whole of virtue.

This explains a lot about politics. The rules and organization necessary for societal or group survival and success are not the same as justice; indeed, they may be nothing more than a predatory morality that enables cooperation in oppression.

Governments often begin as the biggest band of brigands around, and many never rise much beyond that. As Augustine put it in “The City of God,” “Justice being taken away, then, what are kingdoms but great robberies?” He illustrated this point with the tale of a captured pirate who told Alexander the Great that the difference between piracy and Alexander’s empire was only of scale.

Adherence to the norms and manners of the ruling class does not assure personal virtue or political justice. This is obvious to those on the outside, but members (and aspiring members and hangers-on) of the ruling class have an interest in not seeing it. This willful blindness also explains a lot about the recent election.

The Biden campaign told us that the election was about the soul of the nation. A multitude of Democrats, media figures, and Never-Trump leftovers told us that it was about restoring decency to the White House. Even now, in apparent victory, they remain appalled that anyone voted for President Trump, let alone more than 70 million Americans—don’t we know how indecent he is? But it is not that we think Trump is decent, it is that we doubt that his opponents are.

We suspect that by decency they mean nothing more than the professional civility of the educated class, and we know that true decency is more than civility. It is certainly more than not being Donald Trump.

This is not to say that civility does not matter. Conservatives know that manners matter. Manners can force us to be restrained, to at least make a show of treating political opponents with respect, and by inculcating these habits, they can make us better.

But manners can also be weaponized. They can become tools of exclusion that keep those with different beliefs and backgrounds out. They can conceal great wickedness behind a pleasing mask.

There is a persistent temptation to focus on the superficial form of decency (as manifest in politeness) over the substance of virtue. So we are treated to lectures on decency from men who have cheated on a succession of wives or traded in the wife of their youth for a young research assistant—and from a presumptive vice president who slept her way into politics.

Nor is such wickedness confined to personal sins; it extends throughout political positions. Consider the Democratic Party’s fanatical support for abortion. There is nothing decent about tearing a baby limb from limb and displaying her still-beating heart on a tray—if decency encompasses support for unrestricted, taxpayer-funded late-term abortion, then to hell with decency and the decent.

Likewise, the bipartisan establishment embrace of China is indecent, unless decency merely means civility in the service of ruling-class interests. There is nothing decent about closer bonds with the Chinese Communist Party and the genocidal totalitarian slave state that it runs. All the civility and cheap consumer goods in the world cannot wash away that guilt.

The pretense of decency also asks us to ignore that our ruling class is neither civil nor trustworthy. The same people who spent years suggesting that Trump colluded with Russia to steal the 2016 election are now outraged that he has not conceded this one. And remember when Senate Democrats accused Brett Kavanaugh of being a high-school gang-rape mastermind?

Remember when the media tried to destroy a high school student for smiling awkwardly while wearing a Trump hat? Remember when they told you the most expensive riots in American history were mostly peaceful? Remember all the times they’ve called you and your friends and family ignorant, racist bigots—as epitomized by Hillary Clinton’s consigning you to an irredeemable basket of deplorables?

The response to this litany of leftist indecency is predictable—what about this and that and the other thing Trump did and said? Well, what about them? People who have concluded that our leaders are corrupt and indecent will not support them just because Trump is also indecent.

Furthermore, Trump will soon be out of office, while our elites will remain in their positions in media, academia, entertainment, business and government. Without President Trump, what excuse will they then have for their failures of virtue and justice?

Trump leaving office will not make America more decent if it just returns power to those whose garb of civility covers corrupt hearts. What is needed is not further recriminations over Trump, but a commitment to seek justice and the common good. This renewal must be led by those who have the power to shape institutions and culture.

I don’t say this to deny the need for all of us to repent of our sins. I merely state the obvious, which is that those with the power to shape the culture bear the most responsibility for it. If we are as indecent a nation as they say, then perhaps the likes of New York Times writers, Ivy League professors and pop stars should spend less time lecturing Trump voters and more time in sackcloth and ashes.

Nathanael Blake is a Senior Contributor at The Federalist. He has a PhD in political theory. He lives in Missouri.
Photo Official White House Photo by Joyce N. Boghosian

Nolte: Top Pollster Finds 47% Say ‘Likely’ Democrats Stole Election


Reported by JOHN NOLTE | 

Read more at https://www.breitbart.com/2020-election/2020/11/19/nolte-top-pollster-finds-47-say-likely-democrats-stole-election/

polling

AP Photos/Patrick Semansky, Andrew Harnik

There are polls and then there are poLoLs. Fox News, New York Times/ Siena, Washington Post/ABC, Quinnipiac, NBC/Marist, Reuters/Ipsos, Monmouth, Politico/Morning Consult… Those are all poLols — totally useless liars and propagandists who have gotten three election cycles so horribly and deliberately wrong, only a fool would pay attention to them. Liars. Damned liars. PoLoLs. Get away from me with your poLoLs.

And don’t even get me started on that useless clown Nate Silver.

Based on their track recorded — you know, actual merit, I trust IBD/TIPP, Susquehanna, Trafalgar, and Rasmussen… Those are pollsters. Those are polls. And when Rasmussen tells us a whopping 47 percent of likely voters believe the Democrats stole the election, I am confident in passing that along.

“How likely is it,” Rasmussen asked 1,000 likely voters between November 17-18, “that Democrats stole votes or destroyed pro-Trump ballots in several states to ensure Biden would win?”

Only 50 percent said it was not likely, while a whopping 47 percent said it was likely.

Not at all likely: 41 percent.

Not very likely: 9 percent.

Somewhat likely: 11 percent.

Very likely: 36 percent.

There’s another way to look at this… only 41 percent are certain the election was not stolen from Trump.

The partisan breakdown is not exactly what I expected with 75 percent of Republicans — 75 percent! — saying it is very (61 percent) or somewhat (14 percent) likely the election was stolen.

Get this… 30 percent of Democrats — Democrats! — say it is very (20 percent) or somewhat (10 percent) likely the election was stolen from Trump.

Of course 69 percent of Democrats say it is not at all (61 percent) or not very (8 percent) likely the election was stolen from Trump. Still, that 30 percent of Democrats who say it was stolen is pretty remarkable.

On the issue of whether Trump should concede, 61 percent say he should, while 33 percent say no.

Eighty-four percent of Democrats, 37 percent of Republicans, and 59 percent of unaffiliated voters say Trump should concede. But 57 percent of Republicans disagree, which mean they want him to keep up the fight.

When asked the all-important question of whether “your friends and neighbors think Trump should concede,” only 51 percent say yes, while 30 percent say no — 18 percent are unsure.

The reason the “friends and neighbors” question is important is because America’s top pollsters believe that question is a more accurate reflection of the true intent of the person being surveyed. Now that we live in an increasingly fascist country where roving bands of left-wing Brownshirts will either get you fired, or blacklist you, or physically assault you for supporting Trump,  people have become shy about telling pollsters the truth of their Trump support. So…

Let me repeat this…

Only 51 percent say Trump should concede.

LOL.

Democrats and their media minions are losing the public relations battle, and losing it badly.

Someone still needs to explain to me why four deep blue cities — Detroit, Philadelphia, Atlanta, and Milwaukee all of a sudden stopped counting when Trump was in the lead. Never in my life have I seen the counting stopped like that. And when the counting restarted, Will you look at all those Biden votes!

Brother, that stinks to high heaven, and until I hear an explanation that makes sense — No, no… You know what, there is no explanation that would ever make sense of that. So until the votes in those states are audited in detail with transparency, I will never completely accept the outcome of a Biden victory.

Follow John Nolte on Twitter @NolteNCFollow his Facebook Page here.

Rudy Giuliani Blasts Media for Failing to Report Evidence: 220 Affidavits in MI Case Alone, ‘Triple-Counted’ Ballots


Reported by HANNAH BLEAU | 

Read more at https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/11/19/rudy-giuliani-blasts-media-failing-report-evidence-220-affidavits-mi-case-alone-triple-counted-ballots/

Trump’s personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani holds a ballot envelope as he speaks during a press conference at the Republican National Committee headquarters in Washington, DC, on November 19, 2020. (Photo by MANDEL NGAN / AFP) (Photo by MANDEL NGAN/AFP via Getty Images)

Rudy Giuliani, President Trump’s lawyer, blasted members of the establishment media during a Thursday press conference, contending that they are failing to do their job by “falsely” reporting a lack of evidence in Trump’s election disputes in key swing states.

“There are many more affidavits here. I’d like to read them all to you, but I don’t have the time. You should have had the time and energy to go look for them,” Giuliani said, telling the reporters in the room that it is, quite literally, their job.

“It’s your job to read these things and not falsely report that there’s no evidence. Do you know how many affidavits we have in the Michigan case? Two hundred twenty affidavits. They’re not all public, but eight of them are,” Giuliani continued before laying out the claims made by four affiants alone.

They reported an incident that “under any other circumstances would have been on the front page of all your newspapers if it didn’t involve the hatred that you have, the irritation — pathological hatred — that you have for the president,” Giuliani said.

The former New York City mayor detailed their claims of a truck pulling up to the Detroit Center in the dead of the night, which they say was filled with ballots in garbage cans, paper bags, and cardboard boxes.

“The people thought [the truck] was food, so they all ran to the truck. It wasn’t food. It was thousands and thousands of ballots, and the ballots were in garbage cans, they were in paper bags, they were in cardboard boxes, and they were taken into the center,” he said.

Giuliani said the ballots were put on tables. At the time, “they thought all the Republican inspectors had left,” but two remained, as well as an employee of Dominion.

The affiants claimed that “every ballot that they could see, everything they could hear, these were ballots for Biden.”

“When they saw a ballot, these were ballots only for Biden, meaning there was no down ticket. Just Biden. Many of them didn’t have anything on the outer envelope because these ballots were produced very quickly, very swiftly,” he explained.

Giuliani added that those ballots are expected to be “a minimum of 60,000, maximum of 100,000” and said many of them were “triple-counted.”

“I didn’t see that. I don’t know that, but for the fact that three American citizens are willing to swear to it, and we’re not going to let them go to court and do that?” he asked:

We’re going to let this election go by when there are in this case 60 witnesses that can prove what I’m saying to you and other acts of fraud in Michigan? I mean, what’s happened in this country if we’re going to let that happen? What happened to this country if we’re going to cover that up? We let Al Gore carry on an election dispute longer than this one has been going on for one state.

The issue expands far beyond Michigan, he added.

“This happened in Pennsylvania. This happened in Michigan. Michigan probably, right now, if I count up the affidavits, just one case alone … the case we dismissed today because that case was attempting to get the Wayne County Board of Supervisors to decertify,” he said.

“Well, they did. They decertified. That case has 100 affidavits,” he said. Those allege the improper counting of ballots, people voting three and four times, as well as changing and backdating ballots “to the point of at least 300,000 illegitimate ballots that we can specifically identify.”

On Wednesday, two Republican members of the Wayne County Board of Canvassers in Michigan rescinded their votes to certify the election results, alleging harassment and bullying.

“The margin in Michigan was 146,121, and these ballots were all cast basically in Detroit, that Biden won 80-20. So you see a change as a result in the election in Michigan if you take out Wayne County, so it’s a very significant case,” Giuliani added.

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


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.

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


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.

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


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

Journalist Tests Nevada Voter Signature Verification, Discovers Whopping 89% Failure Rate


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:

Alan Dershowitz: ‘I Do Think that Trump Will Win the Pennsylvania Lawsuit’ if Enough Votes at Stake


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).

5 Historical Trends That Show It’s Utterly Shocking If Trump Lost In 2020


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.

Partisans Cheating By Ignoring Election Law Is A Problem As Big As Vote Fraud


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.

Why President Trump Has A Strong Supreme Court Case To Contest Pennsylvania


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.

Today’s TWO Politically INCORRECT Cartoon by A.F. Branco


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.

A Look At The Money And Men Working To Take Georgia — And The Country — Left


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.

To Democrats, ‘Unity’ Means Doing Everything They Want And Shutting Up About It


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.

Calls For ‘Unity’ From Those Who Demonize Opponents As White Supremacists Are Deeply Unserious


Reported by Tristan Justice NOVEMBER 11, 2020

Former Vice President Joe Biden delivered a victory speech Saturday night calling for national unity, insisting the country to move past partisan divides to new heights.

“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 celebrating his media-declared victory. “It’s time for Americans to unite. And to heal.”

True to form, however, Biden cast no blame on the loudest voices within his own party or the Trump-deranged media vilifying the president and his supporters as white supremacist enemies of the state at every turn. In truth, Democrats want Trump-supporting Republicans to heel, not heal, while punishing those billed as “complicit” in the president’s supposedly authoritarian regime cutting taxes and opposing Democrats’ draconian lockdowns.

“You can’t heal or reform the GOP who are now an extremist party,” wrote New York Times writer Wajahat Ali, the same columnist who mocked Trump supporters as ignorant rubes on CNN earlier this year. “They have to be broken, burned down and rebuilt. When Biden is in power, treat them like the active threats to democracy they are. If those who committed crimes aren’t punished, then they will be more emboldened.”

The usual culprits concurred, offering their own remedies to rooting out Trumpism, which was supported by more than 71 million Americans at the ballot box this year. New York Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was one of the first to promote the idea of creating Soviet-style dissident lists to harass heretic Trump supporters.

“Is anyone archiving these Trump sycophants for when they try to downplay or deny their complicity in the future?” Ocasio-Cortez pondered on Twitter.

The socialist congresswoman proceeded to mock the response from those she wished to punish.

“Lol a the ‘party of personal responsibility’ being upset at the idea of being responsible for their behavior over last four years,” she wrote.

Moments later, former Pete Buttigieg staffer Hari Sevugan responded to the congresswoman’s request touting the launch of the “Trump Accountability Project,” creating the lists in question “to make sure anyone who took a paycheck to help Trump undermine America is held responsible for what they did.”

Sevugan has since threatened potential future publishers and employers of ex-administration officials who dare make contracts with those who supported the president.

 

CNN’s Jake Tapper and the Washington Post’s Jennifer Rubin joined the chorus, demanding retribution against those demanding Trump have his day in court and every vote be counted before certifying the results of the election.

 

Labor Secretary Robert Reich had already recommended creating a “Truth and Reconciliation Commission” to put Trump backers on trial in October.

The calls for punishment of Trump supporters comprise just the latest episode in the nation’s downward spiral after the left and their allies in the corporate media spent years liberalizing definitions of white supremacy, racism, sexism, and homophobia to cast their opponents as contemptuous villains in the way of their utopian empire featuring actual racism. Biden has been no exception by calling Trump America’s first racist president, and neither has his running mate California Sen. Kamala Harris, who ushered donations to the Minnesota Freedom Fund bailing out Minneapolis rioters who burned down the city in the name of social justice.

The former vice president is not serious about national unity. If he were, he would have forcefully condemned calls within his own party to prosecute supporters of his November opponent. Biden cannot unify a country while still ignoring the loudest voices in it calling to punish political opponents for differences of political opinion.

Meanwhile, nothing about this president suggests he’s a white supremacist operating as a covert Klansmen in the Oval Office for the sole purpose of oppressing minorities. By the end of his first and potentially only term in the White House, Trump has probably condemned white supremacy more than any other president in front of a hostile media repeating this same question over and over. Whenever the media ask Trump to denounce white supremacy, it’s never a question, and it’s never presented in good faith. It’s always an accusation, an exhausting one at that.

A look at the exit polls, on the other hand, shows the media’s purported white supremacist president made considerable gains among Asian, black, and Hispanic voters while losing major ground among whites. That means there’s only one party that got more white this election, and it wasn’t the Republican Party. 

In a concrete bid to “unify,” Biden’s transition team has floated the possibility of appointing Republicans to cabinet-level posts. Among the names touted, however, include Republicans who publicly engaged in the same attacks by the radical left on Trump and his supporters.

Elevating this kind of Republican is just as divisive, such as John Kasich who, while on a crusade for partisan unity has underhandedly fomented the very divisions the former governor claims to despise by endorsing impeachment and warning that Trump was rotting America’s “soul.” If Biden were serious about forming a bipartisan cabinet, then the media-declared president-elect would opt to include actual Republicans who espouse conservative ideas rather than token GOPers to claim unity.

Tristan Justice is a staff writer at The Federalist focusing on the 2020 presidential campaigns. Follow him on Twitter at @JusticeTristan or contact him at Tristan@thefederalist.com.

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: