May 9, 2022
The new Dinesh D’Souza documentary film on the 2020 election, 2,000 MULES, premiered online this weekend. As you know, it was made in collaboration with an organization called True the Vote, which has done a monumental amount of research on the stuffing of unsupervised ballot boxes in battleground states. His movie lays out their findings.
It opens with an orderly in-person election scenario --- the way Election Day is supposed to be --- with a lofty voiceover from Ronald Reagan. The contrast between this and what comes later in the film is dismaying. Whether or not it can be conclusively proved the 2020 election was rigged, we’ve got a BIG problem with our elections.
The film transports us back in time to Election Night, with stories from puzzled reporters of vote counts being stopped in the middle of the night and, the next morning, battleground states that had been solidly in Trump’s column being miraculously flipped for Biden, by razor-thin margins. Afterwards, reporters with their marching orders repeat the same mantra over and over: “The 2020 presidential election was the cleanest, the safest and most secure election ever in American history!” (Sorry, but whenever someone says that, I'm reminded of the line from THE MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE, “Raymond Shaw is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I’ve ever known in my life.”) Anyone who questions this is supposedly perpetuating “the Big Lie.”
This movie shows how geopositioning technology was used by True the Vote to track the movements of ballot-box stuffers and –- most compelling –- how security cameras clearly show the (alleged) stuffing itself, done with gloves that were peeled off after each drop-off and placed in nearby trash cans. Traffickers photograph the ballots before dropping them in, presumably so they can get paid later.
But you don’t have to be a tech wizard to understand what went on. D’Souza includes a roundtable discussion with Larry Elder, Sebastian Gorka, Eric Metaxas, Charlie Kirk and Dennis Prager, who announced at the outset that he’s “agnostic on this question.” Others, such as Metaxas, professed to be extremely skeptical of how the election turned out and believed most of America is, too. (Polls bear that out.) It just never made sense to them that a weak candidate who campaigned from his basement and had so little enthusiasm from his party got more votes than Barack Obama did. But all they had seen so far were, as Kirk put it, “crumbs,” nothing cohesive.
“If I thought the President were a Nazi, I might steal the election,” Gorka said. And people on the left definitely had been brainwashed to think Trump was one. Still, as Gorka pointed out, Trump had built more support from the black and Hispanic communities than any Republican President since the 1960s. And Biden STILL got more votes overall; how does that happen?
Larry Elder also brought up the media suppression of the Hunter Biden laptop story, which, as we all know, was de facto election interference. “That alone altered the election,” he said. But, of course, that story would need a documentary of its own.
They agreed that the people who say we have to “move on” are those in the elite who think Trump was an anomaly. Hugh Hewitt insisted, “Show me the proof and I WILL speak up, but I’ve not gone on board with ‘I know this was a fraud.’”
But then the evidence is presented, and it’s compelling. Just see the film; so much is visual. And afterwards, take a look at Politifact’s laughable “fact”-check of the 2,000 MULES trailer. It’s just what you’d expect from those Poynter Institute propagandists.
Their headline says the premise of the trailer is ‘faulty.’ But it goes on to refute that premise by stating a faulty premise of its own, that the 2020 election, with its widespread use of mail-in voting and lax security laws (thanks to Marc Elias), was the most secure in history. They must've heard that from some CNN reporter.
“Many states have laws allowing people to return completed mail ballots on behalf of others, such as family members,” Politifact states. “Ballot drop boxes are more secure than standard mail boxes.” But returning a ballot on behalf of a family member is not what this documentary is about AT ALL. And, as one can see from the video, a drop box being tamper-proof has nothing to do with the legitimacy of the ballots being dropped into it. No one is there to ask, “Is this your ballot? Is this the ballot of a family member? Do you have...seven...registered voters in your household? Why are you here at 3AM? And, uh, why are you wearing surgical gloves and carrying a camera?”
“The 2020 presidential election was secure and evidence from state and federal officials and courts shows no indication of widespread fraud,” Politifact states. (Again, I'm reminded of “Raymond Shaw is the kindest, bravest warmest...”) Actually, this is incorrect. Recall that courts refused to look at evidence, citing it as “moot,” or even to grant standing to sue. And in Wisconsin, to cite just one example, an investigation is currently underway into organized illegal vote harvesting in nursing homes, statewide.
“Experts say the evidence D’Souza points to is inherently flawed,” according to Politifact. But they do not adequately explain how it's flawed. Then they go on to smear D’Souza personally, as if that disproved the allegations made here.
They accuse D’Souza of using an out-of-context quote from Biden to make it seem as though he was admitting election fraud. I know that quote, and interpreted its inclusion as just a touch of humor and irony; does anyone think from it that Biden was actually admitting election fraud? I’m not sure even Biden’s shriveled brain would come up with that.
Anyway, the “fact”-check goes on, but there is nothing in it that discredits what True the Vote has put together.
One “expert” they talked with, a political scientist from the University of Florida, was doubtful because if there were such a scheme, it likely would have come to light by now. That’s no reason not to take seriously the evidence that IS coming out now.
Another political scientist –- are these really the “experts” on interpreting cellphone data? –- from the University of Wisconsin-Madison accuses True the Vote of “conspiracist” thinking. “They are interpreting data that confirms their pre-existing conclusions.” Does he not realize that’s exactly what Politifact is doing?
But D’Souza and True theVote are just getting started. They have much more. Their documentary didn’t name any names or give addresses, but they say they’re “pulling the ripcord” very soon and releasing all their evidence, including the identities of over 2,000 ballot-trafficking mules and the addresses of all the ballot stash houses they located. They’re putting it all online.
And D'Souza has responded to Politifact's "fact"-check.
The Associated Press also did a "fact"-check on 2,000 MULES; this one was laugh-out-loud funny, specifically in its lame attempt to explain away the gloves being worn. We were going to fact-check the AP "fact"-check as well, but someone beat us to it, and this one is magnificent.
There’s just one week to go before the Michael Sussmann trial starts in federal court. Last week, we discussed the material that Special Counsel John Durham wanted to include but that the defense was working to exclude. U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper ruled on that last Friday; Nick Arama at RedState has a good summary.
He sees Durham as being limited by this in some respects but still able to get most of his big-picture evidence in. On the downside, this judge doesn’t want to bring in evidence of the “joint venture” among Sussmann, Joffe and the Clinton campaign to smear Trump with the Alfa Bank story, because Sussmann hasn’t been charged with conspiracy. The judge said he doesn’t want to “confuse the jury” and “distract from the issues at hand.”
On the upside, evidence of the charged offense (the lie about working on behalf of Hillary’s campaign and Rodney Joffe) and also of Sussmann’s motive will be allowed in. That includes “evidence of Mr. Sussmann’s client work.” Joffe hasn’t been granted immunity and will have to testify, though this means the prosecution will have to steer clear of whether his actions were “objectionable or illegal,” and also any questions about the accuracy of his data.
But in another development, just as Sussmann’s attorneys, from the Democrat-connected firm Latham and Watkins, are trying to keep Durham’s evidence out, they’ve got their own “evidence” that they want the judge to let in. And what they want to use it for is essentially to put President Trump on trial for colluding with Russia. I am not kidding.
Think of it: they’re in federal court with a Washington DC jury that is probably very biased against Trump. They want to make this case not about their client but about...Evil Orange Man...and his Russia affiliations. For that, they have “evidence” they want to bring in, including a series of over 20 news articles about Trump and Russia that appeared between mid-May and mid-August of 2016.
News flash: articles such as these are not evidence of anything. Or, in Durham’s more lawyerly way of putting it, they have “no evidentiary or factual basis.” Heck, I wouldn’t be surprised if Sussmann had planted some of those stories himself. That was part of the “circular reporting” strategy used by Clinton’s henchmen and even the FBI to advance the Trump-Russia conspiracy theory. It’s even part of how the FBI got their warrant to spy on Trump’s campaign, right along with the phony Steele “dossier.” Hey, how about reading excerpts from THAT to the jury?
As Cleveland describes it, “...the media coverage Sussmann seeks to present to the jury is a tour de force of the press pushing the Russia collusion hoax.” One of the articles she mentions quotes Hillary campaign manager Robby Mook, who generally gets credit for launching the whole fake Trump-Russia story. He did this live on the CNN convention floor, to distract from the breaking story about the DNC sabotaging Bernie Sanders’ campaign. These fairy tales are supposed to be evidence...of what?
But Sussmann’s attorneys want to include them to show that their client had genuine concerns that the Alfa Bank story was real. They think that if they can get a DC jury to believe he felt this way, the jury will let him off for lying. Unbelievable.
Cleveland says that even if the judge excludes this “evidence” as prejudicial, Sussmann can still make the argument on the stand, saying that he “approached the FBI out of a genuine concern for our national security.” Oh, brother. But if he shovels it on thick, a Trump-hating jury might just cut him a break.
May 9, 2022
As if common sense and experience couldn’t tell you that CNN would get any story involving conservative views horribly wrong, the network’s claim that Capitol Police were bracing for violence by rightwing extremists over the looming SCOTUS Roe v. Wade decision was especially jaw-dropping, It would've been hilarious if the consequences weren’t so serious.
CNN, as usual, had the story completely backwards, and as anyone who isn’t blinded by partisanship could have predicted, the violence over the weekend came from pro-abortion, leftwing extremist groups. Nobody in his right mind thought that authorities were putting up fencing around the Supreme Court for fear that pro-life activists might storm the building. That’s just part of the Democrats’ fizzling narrative that out of all the riots of the past two years, the single one by people on the right in the Capitol on January 6, 2021, was the one establishing a dangerous pattern, and not the dozens of deadly riots by the left that have caused billions of dollars in damages -- and that are now flaring up again, thanks to the possibility that the Court might finally hold the Roe decision up to Constitutional scrutiny.
Here’s what the “mostly peaceful” pro-abortion leftists did over the weekend while all those dangerous rightwingers were attending church and celebrating Mother’s Day:
They defaced churches with pro-abortion graffiti and disrupted services with profane, blasphemous, threatening and obscene demonstrations, chants and signs (warning, content is for adults with strong stomachs):
(At least in Virginia, Attorney General Jason Miyares warned that he will come down hard on anyone who tries to interfere with the “fundamental and natural right of all Virginians to practice their religion in peace.)
They also tried to bully Supreme Court Justices into changing their rulings by protesting outside their private homes. They eventually learned that this is a crime in Virginia when police cars showed up, and then they suddenly thought of something else they had to do (also warning: foul language. Such charming and persuasive folks!)
An on-the-scene Daily Signal reporter said the protest at Justice Kavanaugh’s house was an “attempt at intimidation” and one of the scariest things he’d ever witnessed.
Then there were the ones who really showed their true colors by fire-bombing the office of pro-life non-profit Wisconsin Family Action in Madison. The exterior was also spray-painted with the Antifa symbol, a code term for “ACAB (All Cops Are B*****ds”), and the threat, “If abortions aren’t safe then you aren’t either.”
This was so bad that even President Biden’s spokesperson Jen Psaki stopped pussyfooting around about “peaceful protest” and issued a statement strongly condemning “violence, threats and vandalism.”
So memo to CNN, and Attorney General Merrick Garland: This is what “domestic terrorists” look like. Not people who criticize the Administration on Facebook, or complain about what their kids are being taught at school board meetings, or who think you should have to show ID before voting. It’s the people threatening Supreme Court Justices, assaulting churches, throwing Molotov cocktails and threatening the lives of those who disagree with them. I realize this is a difficult nuance for you to comprehend, but do try to discern the difference.
Maybe I should also CC that memo about what an actual “domestic terrorist” is to the FBI. Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee report that FBI whistleblowers tell them the agency is trying to fire employees who attended the pro-Trump rally in Washington on January 6, 2021.
To be crystal clear: These employees are not accused of committing any crime. They didn’t take part in the riot. They didn’t even enter the Capitol. They just exercised their First Amendment right to attend a rally and hear what the President had to say. For this, they’re allegedly having their security clearances revoked, which the majority of FBI employees are required to hold to keep their jobs.
The heads of these agencies who are turning them from once-respected impartial law enforcement agencies into political goon squads should be aware that purges can go in two directions. I’m counting the minutes until January 20, 2025, when I hope and pray that a new Republican Administration, backed by a Republican Congress, will march most of the leaders of these agencies to the nearest exit, forcing them to leave behind all their computers and papers for a thorough audit and investigation, perhaps to be followed by indictments. Then return them to their original nonpartisan roles and let the sunlight in for some heavy disinfecting.
May 9, 2022
To sum up this past week, Spencer Brown at Townhall.com recaps some of the left’s most ludicrous and hysterical reactions to the leak of the SCOTUS draft ruling on Roe v. Wade. From their reactions, you’d think it was not only going to ban abortion, but also interracial marriage, contraceptives and owning more than five cats. Their bonkers response is perfectly encapsulated in the title: “Did Democrats Even Read the Leaked SCOTUS Draft?
Personally, I suspect they haven’t read most things they get spitting mad over, from “Huckleberry Finn” to the Constitution. If they think all this lunatic behavior will help them in November, they obviously haven’t yet read a new CNN poll, taken after the SCOTUS leak. It found that while the abortion issue has increased voter enthusiasm among Democrats, it’s increased it even more among Republicans, and “the overall picture for the midterm elections is little changed after this week’s news.” Yes, this is actually from CNN:
“The share of registered voters who say they are extremely or very enthusiastic about voting this fall rose 6 points between the first survey and the second, but that increase is about even across party lines. Among Democrats, 43% now say they are extremely or very enthusiastic, up 7 points. Among Republicans, it’s 56%, up 9 points. And voters who say overturning Roe would make them 'happy' are nearly twice as enthusiastic about voting this fall as those who say such a ruling would leave them 'angry' (38% extremely enthusiastic among those happy, 20% among those angry).”
The poll also found that while majorities don’t want Roe overturned, and if it is, want a national law allowing abortion, it’s not the primary issue driving most voting decisions. In fact, the Republican edge over Democrats on the generic ballot actually increased since the previous poll to 49-42%.
I also have a feeling the enthusiasm to rush to vote Democrat to protect abortion will also wane as time goes by and people realize just how much of what they’re currently hearing is groundless hysteria completely unhinged from fact. Even Bill Maher is already pointing that out.
For the record, longtime Democrat strategist Doug Schoen is also trying to warn the Party that they’re deluding themselves about unfettered abortion being a winning issue, but I doubt they’ll listen to him any more than they do me.
There’s a book and a documentary about the National Lampoon magazine whose title is a quote from the movie “Animal House.” It’s called “A Futile and Stupid Gesture.” If anyone ever writes the history of this era when Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi ran Congress, they’ll have to borrow that title because instead of good, compromise legislation to lift all Americans, what we got instead was a series of doomed futile and stupid gestures. Now, brace yourself for yet another one.
Next week, Senate Democrats plan to force a vote to codify Roe v. Wade into federal law (although as I’ve already told you, that’s not even true. They basically want to make California's abortion law federal law. If they codified Roe, it would ban most abortions past mid-pregnancy, which is what most Americans want, and the Senate Democrats never do what most Americans want.)
This is a futile and stupid gesture because they don’t have 60 votes to overcome the filibuster, and they don’t have 51 votes to kill the filibuster, so they already know it’s not going to pass. But it will give them a chance to waste lots of our time and money waving their arms, pointing fingers, calling names and firing up their base with false accusations and utter nonsense. Still, better they should do that than actually pass any more awful legislation, so have at it.
Incidentally, here’s a look at just how radical and unserious the Democrats’ abortion bill is.
To make it look somewhat like an actual law, they had to take out a lot of loaded PC buzzwords like white supremacy, gender oppression and reproductive justice; and to appease their base, they had to add some word salad about protecting the right to abortion for anyone with the “capacity for pregnancy,” including “transgender men, non-binary individuals, those who identify with a different gender, and others.” I assume by “others,” they mean “women,” who (pardon my triggering hate speech) are still the only people who can get pregnant.
I’d suggest that they take a Biology 101 course, but these days, it’s not likely students will learn any facts about the birds and the bees there, except maybe that a male bee can give birth to a bird if it identifies as a female bird. Probably a cuckoo. Here’s an example of the kind of Dr. Frankenstein’s Cookbook that passes for medical textbooks these days. I warn you, once you read this, you won’t be able to unread it.
May 9, 2022
If you live in a city where the prosecutor’s election was backed by money from George Soros or one of his shady PACs, then there’s a good chance crime is running rampant and your standard of living and personal safety have taken a nosedive. Soros is notorious for backing open borders and empty prisons. It’s why there’s now a nationwide movement to “Recall every Soros-backed prosecutor.” But there is one way in which you can avoid all that pain and trouble: Don’t elect anyone backed by George Soros to any office in the first place!
To help you with that, here are two stories to read and remember:
1. Attention, Georgia voters: Soros has donated $1 million to elect Stacey Abrams to be your Governor.
2. Attention, fellow Arkansans: A PAC funded exclusively by George Soros has spent $100,000 so far promoting the election of Alicia Walton as prosecutor of Perry and Pulaski Counties (Little Rock is in Pulaski County.)
Walton says she wants to empower victims, but she also says a lot of other things that Soros-backed DA’s have said, like that she wants to “dismantle the school to prison pipeline,” “provide more diversionary programs for those with mental health and substance abuse challenges,” and “provide a pathway for offenders to seek redemption.” All well and good, but if they want redemption, they should go to church. And too often, promises of "diversion programs" have resulted in simply diverting offenders from jail right back into the streets to prey on the public again and again.
As the Washington Examiner notes, “Soros has contributed more than $29 million in support of over 20 liberal district attorneys since 2016, according to the Capital Research Center. Many of the prosecutors who won their elections thanks in part to contributions by Soros have presided over significant crime waves in their cities after assuming office.”
I and many others worked too hard to help make Little Rock a safe and beautiful city. I don’t want it to turn into the Los Angeles of Arkansas. So here’s an easy rule of thumb for voters:
Think of the backing of George Soros as being the financial equivalent of the skull and crossbones warning on a bottle of poison.