Advertisement

Happy Thanksgiving Week

November 24, 2020

Happy Thanksgiving week, and I hope you don’t live in a state where the government wants to arrest you for buying a turkey that feeds more than six people.

With all the other things in the news, a very important anniversary is not getting the attention it deserves. This year marks the 400th anniversary of the arrival of the Pilgrims in the New World aboard the Mayflower in 1620. A lot of people are poisoning our children’s minds with lies about their nation’s history and trying to convince them that America was founded on nothing but racism, slavery and genocide. They are an even better argument for home-schooling than COVID-19.

Arkansas Tom Cotton has a terrific article at the link about the importance of this date and the Pilgrims, and the truly great and real American traditions that first appeared in that small colony of people seeking the freedom to express their religious beliefs without fear of government oppression.

John Adams called the Pilgrims’ arrival and their organizing document, the Mayflower Compact, the “birth-day of your nation.” Sen. Cotton writes, “In this covenant, the ship’s passengers agreed to form a ‘civil body politic’ of ‘just and equal laws’ based on the consent of the governed and dedicated to the ‘Glory of God’ and the ‘general good of the colony.’ Immediately after signing the compact, the signatories conducted a democratic election to choose their first governor.”

No wonder schools don't want kids to be taught that anymore! Read the whole thing. It will remind you of a whole lot of things that all Americans have to be thankful for, and that a lot of people would like us to forget about.

Speaking of 1620, National Review has a great article about an important new book, “1620: A Critical Response to the 1619 Project.” It’s a well-deserved deconstruction of the New York Times’ awful “1619 Project” that falsely recasts America’s founding as being about nothing but enforcing and preserving slavery and that some schools are now teaching as part of their curriculum (see my recommendation of home-schooling, above.)

It didn’t require a multinational voting machine conspiracy to swing votes away from Trump and towards Biden and the Democrats, though it might turn out there was one. There are other ways in which we KNOW some strings were pulled. Some of these were legal; some were not.

Monday on Tucker Carlson’s FOX NEWS show, research psychologist and author Dr. Robert Epstein showed that, after gathering voluminous data on the 2020 election, he can conclude “Google’s search results were strongly biased in favor of liberals and Democrats.” (They did not find this to be the case for Yahoo or Bing.) The bias was shown with almost every demographic group; interestingly, conservatives saw more liberal bias in response to their searches than liberals did.

They also found what Dr. Epstein called a “smoking gun”: over a period of days, the vote reminder on Google’s home page was sent ONLY to liberals. “Not one of our conservative field agents received a vote reminder during those days,” he said.

On the fourth day, they went public with these findings, and Google “backed off,” he said. “They literally shut off that manipulation that night, and so for four days before the election they were showing vote reminders to everyone, finally.”

Apparently it pays to notice such things and bring them to light. Otherwise, social media will go right on doing whatever they want --- and getting away with it.

Dr. Epstein said the manipulations they’ve quantified from this election had the potential to shift at least 6 million votes, easily, “in just one direction,” and you know which direction he means. “That’s the bare minimum of at this point,” he said. It’s also greater than the margin between Biden and Trump. Dr. Epstein said that because they have so much data, they haven’t even begun to estimate the possible maximum effect. Thanks, Google!

Oh, and I should mention that Dr. Epstein is NOT a Trump supporter; he deserves points for objectivity. He’s heard from whistleblowers for over a year that this has gone on at Google for some time, and he's seen leaked videos and documents attesting to it as well. “There’s no question that they set about after the 2016 election to make sure that President Trump...is not re-elected." The data they’ve collected, he said, is consistent with what the whistleblowers and leaks have said for a long time.

How is this done? Dr. Epstein alleged that “Google literally buys candidates and politicians, and my colleagues, my fellow academics, are often bought by Google with large grants...The fact is, if you’re a Democrat or you’re a liberal, you LIKE what Google and, to some extent, these other tech companies are doing. It’s to your advantage.”

The problem, he said, is that we don’t know who Google is going to be supporting tomorrow. On this one point, I beg to differ; the fact that they currently support someone like Biden and the leftist machine behind him and Harris is very much the problem NOW. I hope one day soon he sees that.

He also pointed out that Google works with the Chinese government “to help surveil and control the Chinese population.” When Google first came into existence, its motto was “Don’t be evil.” What happened, Google?

Dr. Epstein is currently seeking funding to continue this research as his group moves to Georgia and monitors the senatorial run-offs. There could hardly be anything more important than that.

Guest Sharyl Attkisson also spoke about Big Tech, how it “moved into the internet in a way we haven’t seen before, in a very overt way in those weeks before the election,” to try to control the “information landscape,” as she described it.

As one example, she said Google announced after the coronavirus hit that they would direct searches to the World Health Organization, which in reality was giving out false information. She also related how, as we got closer to the election, they started “overtly censoring and taking down accounts,” de-platforming people and even media organizations, as they did with the NEW YORK POST Hunter Biden story. And they knew there would be no repercussions.

She didn’t see how to stop this before the Georgia runoffs in January, but said we have “a lot of strong, technical minds" looking for ways in which "information can be disseminated without being curated by these self-appointed parties who have their own conflicts of interest.”

So she's optimistic. “I do think something new will be born of all this,” she said. We shall see; I think we’ve got a big fight ahead, one we MUST fight if we want to take back the control being exerted over us.

And now to Facebook. Ken Blackwell for CNS NEWS has a commentary on how the election was hijacked in what he calls “a masterpiece of electoral larceny involving Big Tech oligarchs, activists, and government officials who prioritize partisanship over patriotism.”

Blackwell says they planned this well in advance and executed it ruthlessly, by exploiting the pandemic and also by going state-by-state and getting laws changed (unconstitutionally) to make it easier to weaken the integrity of the vote.

His piece details the activities of former Obama campaign manager and senior adviser David Plouffe, starting in 2017 when he went to work leading the policy and advocacy initiative of the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, an organization established by Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg and his wife, Priscilla Chan.

Plouffe published a book called –- I am not kidding –- A CITIZEN’S GUIDE FOR DEFEATING DONALD TRUMP. This offered a “roadmap” for a Biden win, turning out voters “block by block” in key Democrat strongholds in swing states.

Guess where these are. The examples Blackwell gives are Minneapolis, Philadelphia, Detroit and Milwaukee.

Investigators and attorneys for the nonpartisan Thomas More Society have been “following the money” for 18 months. “Under the pretext of assisting election officials conduct ‘safe and secure’ elections in the age of COVID-19, Blackwell wrote, “Zuckerberg donated $400 million...to non-profit organizations founded and run by left-wing activists.” The Center for Tech and Civic Life (CTCL), whose prior yearly budgets averaged less than $1 million per year, got most of it, $350 million. The CTCL distributed these funds to left-leaning counties in battleground states, in large part to those areas identified by Plouffe. Blackwell estimates this level of spending could have translated into hundreds of thousands of votes in Philadelphia alone.

Take a look at the CTCL website. I can't wait to read "Cybersecurity for Election Officials."

Here’s the kicker: Zuckerberg and the CTCL wrote detailed conditions into their grants, including rules for exactly how elections were to be conducted, “down to the number of ballot drop boxes and polling places.”

The lawyers who tried to stop this before Election Day had their lawsuits dismissed because they’d not yet been able to show harm. Of course they hadn't --- the election hadn’t happened yet!

Blackwell’s piece is a must-read, but one caution: You are going to get very, very angry, particularly with Zuckerberg and the other Big Tech billionaires pulling the strings in this world of 2020. And it’s going to make you doubt the election results even more than you already do.

57 Years Later

November 24, 2020

Sunday marked the 57th anniversary of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy in Dallas on Nov. 22, 1963. For those of us who are old enough to have lived through seeing the assassination of a President unfolding on live television, it will forever be seared into our memories. Not until 9/11 was there such a traumatic moment that affected the entire nation.

That’s one of many reasons why some of us find it so shocking and appalling that loose talk of assassinating a President you don’t like has become commonplace. It’s just one of many examples of how woeful the younger generations’ history education has become.

There have been many distorted conspiracy theories about JFK’s death that have supplanted the real history, and in recent years, they’ve taken a new twist as political partisans have tried to rewrite the truth about that dark day to throw shade on their contemporary political rivals. For instance, on the 50th anniversary, liberal media outlets like the Washington Post tried to link the Tea Party with the “right-wing extremism” of the ‘60s to imply they would have killed JFK if they’d been around back then. I wouldn’t be surprised to find similar attacks on Trump supporters, if I felt like digging through the muck to look for them. So let me just give you a quick history lesson:

For years, Dallas was unfairly painted by the left as a “city of hate” because JFK was killed there. Yes, there were some nasty anti-JFK ads in the local media (imagine that during a campaign year!) But in fact, the streets of Dallas were jammed with hundreds of cheering well-wishers who turned out just to see the President drive past. That’s why the FBI had so many photos to analyze: because there were so many people who came out to get a picture.

Lee Harvey Oswald was not a Dallasite, or even a Texan, and certainly not a right-winger. He was born in New Orleans and had only recently moved to Dallas. He was also a genuine, card-carrying communist who admired Castro and Cuba and had actually defected and lived in the Soviet Union for three years. He hated JFK for his anti-communist policies.

He was also known to be a rude, arrogant, communist loser who couldn’t hold a job and was always arguing with people and getting into fights. I could make an argument that he sounds more like an Antifa member than a Tea Partier or Trump supporter. But I won’t.

The anniversary of the JFK assassination should be a time for reflection on a tragic event that affected the world and all Americans. It should also be a time for reflection on what horrors can take place when people let their political passions overrun their sense of basic human decency.

From Saturday into Sunday morning, there were four killings in Los Angeles, including a 17-year-old boy riding a bicycle. That pushed the total killings this year to 300, and it’s only November. The last time there were that many was in 2009.

City officials are blaming it on the coronavirus, and its attendant economic lockdowns, unemployment and restrictions on city services and interventions.

And I’m sure that is a major factor. However, I notice that the virus is everywhere while the worst spikes in violent crime have come in cities like Los Angeles, Chicago, Portland, Seattle, Minneapolis and Austin that have been run entirely by Democrats for a long time, and whose current leaders are the most far-left in history. It makes me wonder if maybe policies like slashing police budgets, letting all the criminals out of jail, doing away with bail, not prosecuting a wide range of crimes while targeting citizens who defend themselves against criminals, tolerating widespread homelessness, providing sanctuary for criminal illegal immigrants and allowing rioters and looters to run amuck might have a little something to do with it, too.

When attorney Sidney Powell said last week that she was getting ready to “release the Kracken,” there was no clue that President Trump’s legal team would distance itself from her just days later, as it seemingly has done. So, what does this mean? It depends on who’s talking. One could speculate that Powell’s claims, whether eventually provable or not, might not mesh with the team’s immediate strategy, mostly because of time constraints.

BREITBART quoted a White House source (for what that's worth) as saying “the scope of Powell’s public claims had gone beyond the scope of the evidence they had seen and believed they could prove in court.”

As THE EPOCH TIMES reported, Trump’s personal attorney and head of his re-election effort Rudy Giuliani issued a statement that “Sidney Powell is practicing law on her own. She is not a member of the Trump Legal Team. She is also not a lawyer for the President in his personal capacity.” It’s not clear from this statement if she ever was a part of Trump’s official team.

Trump himself has sort-of referred to her in that way, listing her among their “lawyers and other representatives.” Even THE EPOCH TIMES’ headline was unclear, describing her as part of “their election legal effort.”

Powell appeared with the team during their big press conference of November 19. Whether or not she was officially a member at that time, it certainly appeared so.

But this “distancing” might be about something else entirely. Michael Flynn, Jr., son of Powell’s looooongtime client Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, aimed to clear it up with a message on Parler, saying, “Cannot confirm yet but I’m confident this has to do w money coming in for legal defense fund [support]. Sidney Powell has her own separate entity 4 legal donations that isn’t in conjunction with the Trump legal team. Frees SP to do her own thing...which will STILL b biblical. Give this the 24 hour rule.”

That’s what we always do. Here’s Flynn later: “Can confirm this parlay...Sidney Powell is free to focus and not be tied to having to vett everything through the campaign.”

Here's how Andrea Widburg in an opinion piece for AMERICAN THINKER dissects the story. (She does believe "epic fraud" took place, but the allegations are so huge that I'm waiting to see what Powell has.)

Powell told NEWSMAX that “we’ve got tons of evidence; it’s so much it’s hard to pull it all together.” Of course, they do have to pull it all together for it to be worth anything. As we’ve cautioned, showing that votes COULD have been changed is not the same as showing they WERE changed.

On Sunday, Michael Steel, spokesperson for Dominion, was interviewed on FOX NEWS, and he told Eric Shawn it was “physically impossible” for the machine to switch votes.

But reportedly, Steel is also a former strategist for John Boehner, Paul Ryan and Jeb Bush, so what’s going on here? This strong opinion piece –- repeat, opinion –- from NOQ REPORT is highly skeptical of his defense of Dominion. I pass it along to you so you’ll have more to go on as we all try to unravel this story.

Incidentally, here’s a story from NBC NEWS about the problems with Dominion voting machines. I know, hard to believe they'd cover that, right? But it’s from 2019, when it was okay for the MSM to report such things.

Moving to another question, since this is civil litigation, what kind of evidence is needed? Mark Levin, on Sunday’s LIFE LIBERTY & LEVIN (which was recorded before the latest on Powell and has little to do with her claims), said filing a civil complaint requires “a reasonable basis in fact and law. Allegations can be made on information and belief.” A motion to dismiss assumes everything in the complaint is true --- interesting --- and then asks if relief can be granted for that complaint.

I would add that, of course, this has to do with what form the “relief” takes. If it means canceling out millions of votes, the complaint would have to be serious indeed.

Levin finds it troubling that some cases brought by Trump’s team have been dismissed when they shouldn’t have been. (Of course, when this happens, the media don’t question it; they just say Trump lost another case.) The threshold should be fairly easy to reach that allows the case to go forward and lets the plaintiffs seek “expedited discovery.” Since time is of the essence, he said, “discovery can be ordered immediately.”

In civil litigation, he said, “unexplained significant deviations from expected results --- mathematical inconsistencies supported by experts --- should be more than sufficient to establish a reasonable basis to file a complaint and justify fast discovery.”

Aha –- we definitely have mathematical inconsistencies, very big ones, supported by experts. This should be enough to advance a civil case. Those who say “there is no evidence” are wrong.

It seems to me that judges, in dismissing these cases, are cutting Trump’s team off at the knees before they can go forward with discovery to gather the evidence they'd need to take to trial. Such rulings prevent the lawyers from fact-finding, and that might be their purpose.

Levin reminds us that the Trump team has collected “hundreds and hundreds” of affidavits, sworn under penalty of perjury (meaning jail, unless you’re on Team Hillary), from “election workers, state officials and civilians."

We also have the question of who makes election laws. The Constitution says state legislatures do this, not governors or state supreme court justices. This distinction will come into play in Pennsylvania, and that’s why Justice Sam Alito ordered Pennsylvania to keep late-arriving ballots separate, pending future rulings.

Dershowitz has maintained this is a strong Supreme Court argument for the Trump team, as well as equal protection, as he said on FOX NEWS. Still, he believes that the strongest case, “if they have the evidence,” is the one about voting machines turning hundreds of thousands of votes.

Recall that in the months before the election, Democrat lawyers such as Marc Elias (of Hillary law firm Perkins Coie) brought over 300 lawsuits to change voting rules in various states, all with the result of making fraud easier if not downright institutionalized. JUDGES made these decisions, when the Constitution says state legislatures are supposed to do it. Some of these changes call into serious question the accuracy of the vote count.

Levin says the legislatures in these states should have issued resolutions early on, stating that THEY had a duty to ensure Article II of the Constitution is upheld, that THEY make the election laws and that THEY declare these judges’ rulings null and void. If they had, they would've headed off all kinds of chaos. But they didn’t.

Powell may have gone “a bridge too far” in her claims, but we shall see. She has a sterling reputation, and her determined, measured handling of the Flynn case makes it hard to believe she’s saying things she can’t back up or isn’t confident she’ll be able to. As I've said, this seems startlingly out of character for her, so much so that we suspected there was something about it we just didn’t know. But now we have an idea what that might be.

On Friday, we reported that Dominion Voting Systems had backed out of a scheduled meeting with Pennsylvania officials regarding the use of their equipment in the 2020 election and that they appeared to have lawyered-up. As this was a developing story, the plan was to provide a more detailed account on Saturday.

The story is developing more slowly than that.

New details are hard to come by right now. Here’s a local news blurb from Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.

It seems intended to offer a brief defense of Dominion for not showing up. “Dominion addresses [the software issue] and other questions on its website," it says, "disputing what it says are fraudulent claims. It says it is a nonpartisan, American company, its results are 100 percent auditable, and there were no glitches in its software.”

Well, that’s good enough for me! It’s right there on their website. So why should they bother to attend any hearings and answer any questions, even if they had agreed to do so?

Here’s what they post on their website as of November 17 –- “setting the record straight,” as they put it –- that it seems they’re reluctant to say face-to-face in a Zoom call with state officials questioning their claims.

Anyway, the Harrisburg story continues: “Multiple fact-checkers say there’s no evidence that Dominion Systems switched any votes from Trump to Biden.” Actually, some have gone farther than that, to say definitively that Dominion systems DID NOT switch any votes. But the conclusion that there was no vote-switching is still open to legitimate question. It would be more accurate to say something like, "If there is evidence, it has not been made public."

It is true, at least at this point, that we have NOT seen conclusive evidence that this happened, only statistical anomalies suggestive of it. (Also, note that the specific wording in the Harrisburg story still allows that someone else besides Dominion might have done it.) Let me make it very clear, I am making no accusations about the voting machines or the software or what anyone did; I’m just saying that it’s something that should be looked into, like just about everything else surrounding this chaotic election. The lack of curiosity in the media about these issues and the desire to shut down all questions is amazing.

"The federal agency that oversees election security says the election was secure,” the story also says. Ah, well, I guess that’s that. But this statement conveniently glosses over the problems with that agency’s conclusion.

The agency is CISA, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, which was headed by Christopher Krebs until President Trump unceremoniously (as in, by tweet) fired him, after CISA issued a statement saying this election was “the most secure in American history.” As you saw if you visited the Dominion website, the outrageous assertion that got Krebs in hot water is the very one quoted there.

The FEDERAL NEWS NETWORK says “CISA works with the state and local officials who run U.S. elections as well as private companies who supply voting equipment to address cybersecurity and other threats while monitoring balloting and tabulation from a control room at its headquarters near Washington.” What it doesn’t say is that two of those private companies happen to BE Dominion Voting Systems and Smartmatic. And at the time CISA issued their statement, this information was not disclosed.

Again, we haven’t seen evidence that Dominion machines and/or the election software were used to commit voter fraud. It’s also true that we’re not legally entitled to see such evidence before it’s presented in court, so we can’t conclude it doesn’t exist. That applies to the fact-checkers as well; just because they haven’t seen it doesn’t mean there isn’t any. And we sure can’t count on the media to uncover it and show it to us. So right now, we can’t do much more than wait while the attorneys assemble their case.