The President MUST Appeal The Acosta Ruling

Judge Timothy Kelly, a Trump appointee, verbally ordered the President of the United States to reinstate CNN Reporter Jim Acosta’s hard pass to access the White House on Friday.  The judge, who sits in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, has not posted his ruling yet, forcing us, at least temporarily, to rely on press reports for details.

Predictably, CNN has called the ruling a huge victory for the First Amendment.  However, according to numerous press reports, Judge Kelly took issue, not with any alleged affronts upon the First Amendment, but rather, the process used to revoke Acosta’s hard pass.  According to one news outlet, the judge said that Sarah Huckabee Sander’s “belated efforts at [answering Acosta’s concerns] were hardly sufficient to satisfy due process.”  Additionally, according to Breitbart, the judge found that in creating press conferences, the President created a public forum to which limited due process rights attach.

I disagree.  Contrary to Judge Kelly’s view, the White House press conference is an internal working of the executive branch done solely for a public relations and communications purpose and at the pleasure of the President of the United States. As such, and as reported previously by The Federalist Pageswhen the Court interferes with how the President conducts his press conferences, it is essentially intruding into the rightful powers of the President of the United States, as Chief Executive, in conducting the internal dealings of the executive branch.

Seen from this angle, which is the dominant issue in this matter, it becomes clear that the President must zealously pursue this case for the sake of the preservation of the autonomy of the executive branch.

Let’s be clear.  There is no finality to Friday’s ruling.  

The judge’s order was the implementation of a temporary restraining order against the President until such time that the case actually goes to trial.  Strategically, the President now has a couple of opportunities available to him.  First, he can let the case play out at the District Court, and if the judge should rule against him at the trial, he can appeal.  Alternatively, the President may appeal the temporary injunction as a matter of law, right now.  Either way, it is imperative that the President take the case to the next level. If he does so, it is likely that a higher court would not accept the invitation for the judiciary to intrude into the inner workings of another branch of government.  If argued as a matter of separation of powers and the comity between the branches of government, it is likely the district court’s position will not be upheld.  If it does, I am equally confident the Supreme Court will take this case because of the constitutional implications it carries to the inner workings of government, and will reverse it.

Make no mistake, although this case is being painted with a brush held by Acosta and the media, it actually represents, yet another small but significant intrusion onto the proper balance of powers; an intrusion with which the Framers, except for John Marshall, would be in total disagreement.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in The Federalist Pages. The featured photo is by rawpixel on Unsplash.

Diverse and Divided

The Association of American Colleges and Universities (AAC&U) Board of Directors issued a comprehensive statement in 2006, whose combined language included helping students to connect their education to societal issues, change inequities, and to promote cultural empathy, pluralism, and diversity in a liberal education.  The key words for determining the value of today’s education, which are severely undermining western civilization, however, are Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion.

Diversity used to define the variety of learning experiences, opinions, and opportunities for a well-rounded education, but the term now applies to the students themselves – their gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, race, and disability – and how they are to be divided and classified for acceptance into the institute of higher indoctrination.   Meritocracy, then, has been set aside for a quota system based on superficialities, which is passionately supported by the University of Michigan (U-M), among others.  Its spending for the promotion of diversity and inclusivity, reported on October 10, 2016, was $40 million per year with an additional $85 million proposed over the next five years.  Another strategic plan for an “inclusive and equitable campus community” required $17 million, and $31 million would be taken from the university’s general fund – increased tuition (by 3.9 percent), student fees, and appropriations granted by state lawmakers – more than double the rate of inflation.  Liberal programs of propaganda are indeed expensive propositions. As we shall see, the key words are a whitewash of deception, while an assault is being waged against the very education that these students hope to obtain.

Lest we assume that U-M is alone in its objectives, Colorado State University has a “Bias Hotline,” where one may report any conduct, speech or prejudice that could be seen as intimidating, demeaning, degrading, marginalizing, victimizing, or threatening to individuals or groups based on that individual group’s actual or perceived speech or behavior.  This is, of course, a violation of the First Amendment, the freedom of speech, but also a means of robbing students of coping skills they’ll need in the adult world.  In keeping with the times, the U-M also implemented a hotline for citing microaggressions, discrimination, and incivility by students and instructors alike, where one might even report an offense at not being addressed by a preferred pronoun.

Further, university President Mark Schlissel nominated the school’s first chief diversity officer to distinguish and root out discrimination, for a hefty annual salary of $385,000 (within the diversity office payroll of $11 million).  This preoccupation with denouncing someone for mis-speaking strongly resembles the Nazi HJ-Streifendienst (Patrol Force).  The divisiveness causes  suspicion and greater rifts between student groups, as well as a purposeful disconnect from school camaraderie and national unity.

In order to gain Inclusivity, however, the minority students must declare their Exclusivity, their distinction to the group with which they align. This is a regression to tribalism with an increased hostility toward others, to gain power in their common victimhood, to seek more privileges and prestige from the more numerous white, straight, Christian (conservative) males, whom they now view as oppressors and label “white supremacists.”  It is also a total disregard for E Pluribus Unum, out of many, one.  They are not accepting that America was founded by Whites, that the end of slavery was achieved by Whites, and that our nation’s growth and prosperity was realized by Whites.  England’s Shakespeare and other masters in their fields, also Whites, have been removed from many curricula, an intentional depletion of scholarship for the sake of activism and the new equity.

Additional agitators have singled out Jews as oppressors, providing the setting for racist, fascist, Klan, Nazi, and pro-Palestinian groups to isolate, boycott, and protest the existence of Israel and Jews – even with violence.  Jewish instructors have been isolated, harassed and sometimes forced to leave because of threats to their families.  Jewish students are the prey of biased teachers and antisemitic groups.  Disturbingly, the new school culture strongly suggests an alignment with the strategy of the left and ideology of Islam.

In the past, Equity meant equal opportunities for all students to rise as far as their own abilities, hard work, and talent would take them.  Today it means accepting an equal number of students defined by social issues to produce like-minded mediocrity.   The new “cultural training programs” do not address the American culture, and the “language police” are engaged to monitor and restrict the use of words deemed offensive to the diverse groups.  Their apparent purpose is to change the student’s focus – from correct to politically correct, from justice to social justice, from the groundwork for their future occupations to their groundless preoccupations.  Visiting speakers with new ideas are usually unwelcome, and aggression, comparable to the left or Islamic incitement, is promoted to shut down those who dare to impart their opposing views.

Needless to say, because the student pool is no longer the “best and brightest,” it has become necessary to change teaching methods and criteria – reduced requirements to meet reduced abilities, and to qualify for federal grant money.  Education finally accommodates Hillary Clinton’s deceptive trope, “no child left behind.”

Inclusion is now an identity-based, rather than an industry- and achievement-based, system of quotas, and students who once qualified for a university education may now be disqualified if his/her marginalized group has not gained acceptance.  For example, Harvard, among others, has sought to limit the number of Asian-American applicants when it exceeds the quota, despite that group’s exceptional achievements in scholastics, extracurricular activities and interests.  Accordingly, academia is willing to deny superior students’ entry to prestigious schools in order to offer the opportunity to less capable students who, further down the road, may be overwhelmed and obliged to quit.   As for the Jewish students, on far too many campuses, they are targets of harassment, vandalism, exclusion from campus activities, and calls for expulsion, while leftist schools protect the vandals by declaring their attacks to be “free speech.”

Once again, this “education” appears to be geared to the destruction of democracy.  The mechanism leads us through Neotribalism (breakdown of social structure, friendship and community), opposing white students and isolating Jewish students, eroding the male identity, curbing thoughts and speech, and the weakened education, as the left prepares the students for a parallel Islamic legal system.

Another example is the university’s Institute for Research on Women & Gender’s sponsoring an event in February, 2018, titled, “Pederastic Kinship: Deidealizing Queer Studies,” which focused on pederasty, that is to say, sexual relationships between an adult and underage boys.  By its mere presentation, the criminal deviancy was validated, again dishonoring masculinity, and encouraging a behavior that is tolerated in many Muslim societies.

The Jewish victimization is being addressed.  The U of M’s President Mark Schlissel and administrators  have received notification from The Lawfare Project for reports that John Cheney-Lippold, American culture professor, and Lucy Peterson, graduate teaching assistant, denied Jewish students’ their earned letters of recommendation to study abroad in, specifically, Israel.  Another student divulged that her instructor said her degree was contingent upon her watching a slide presentation that contained historic anti-Semitic conspiracy theories: one equating Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu with Adolf Hitler, and another depicting Jews as money-hungry pigs.  In fact, Lawfare is monitoring several universities across the country that have created hostile antisemitic environments, and is now demanding from the U-M immediate and concrete steps to unambiguously condemn anti-Semitism in order to provide a “safe academic environment for Jewish and Israeli students,” in keeping with the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition of anti-Semitism.  The First Amendment was not established as a shield for bigotry.

To paraphrase a quote by Shannon L. Adler:  Before a student or educator calls himself any of the identities recognized by the schools’ programs, one must first learn to be human.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured photo is by Devin Edwards on Unsplash.

A Glimpse Into a World Without Men

Ah, to have an all-female workplace, full of sugar and spice and everything nice and absent #MeToo turpitude and transgressions. Are you in, ladies? Well, before signing on that dotted line, you may want to consider the experiences of the sugar-and-spice girls at Sweden’s new Gender Equality Authority.

Yes, that sounds like what’s birthed when Orwell’s 1984 meets The Cannibal Women in the Avocado Jungle of Death (Bill Maher’s most memorable movie), but it wasn’t mainly men being consumed in this bureaucracy. As Sweden’s FriaTider reports (auto-translated and corrected for grammar):

The New Gender Equality Authority has a leadership consisting of 100 percent women. Ten months after its inception, an internal report now reveals a work environment so bad that 70 percent of its employees are distressed enough to be at risk of ill health, reports Ekot.

The internal survey, Ekot also noted, shows in addition that a majority of the employees of the Gender Equality Authority suffer from sleep problems and “risk fatigue”.

Among other things, the women-dominated workplace is characterized by bullying and harassment, according to the survey.

If this surprises you, perhaps you derived your conception of the sexes from a women’s-studies class (maybe the one known as modern American culture). Whether it was Aristotle’s observation that women are more likely “to scold and to strike,” Rudyard Kipling’s verse about how “the female of the species is more deadly than the male” or statistics on bullying, it has long been known that the sugar-and-spice bit reflects marketing and male flattery, not reality.

As Forbes wrote in 2012 on inter-employee harassment, “Women make much nastier office bullies than men, says psychologist Dr. Gary Namie, co-founder of the [Workplace Bullying] Institute.” This behavior is “particularly vicious among working women,” informs Forbes, and ranges “from playing favourites to badmouthing colleagues” to undermining other women’s careers (and men’s, too).

Unsurprisingly, Forbes attributed this to conditioning (read: it’s our Patriarchal™ society’s fault), writing that girls “are taught to be critical about each other from adolescence.” How this is taught or where it’s taught I have no idea, but that’s their story and they’re stickin’ to it. It’s just good the Female Criticism 101 classes don’t also instruct on how to criticize men, otherwise there could actually be nagging wives in the world. (Unless they’d just skip right to the physical, as some studies show that women are more likely to initiate both domestic and teen-dating violence.)

Those adolescent girls must be quick learners, though, because experts and studies (two troubling phenomena, no doubt, but, hey, even a blind squirrel and a broken clock, ya’ know?) inform that bullying among girls is notably worse than among boys. Just consider the left-wing Guardian, which outlines the problems and practices of these teen Gorgons and then closes with the question: Do these realities “make the ‘normal’ bullying of, generally, low-level violence as used by boys seem strangely comforting?”

Part of the explanation for this is that as poet William Congreve noted in 1697 (pre-“gender”-sensitivity training), Hell hath no “fury like a woman scorned.” His context was affairs of the heart, of course, but it extends further. While men have their characteristic sins (lust, for example), a female one is vindictiveness. I suspect this is partially, though not completely, because women are very emotion-oriented, are easily hurt and, most significantly, are emotion-retentive. Thus, a real or imagined slight cuts deeply and doesn’t just remain in a woman’s mind, but in her heart. It’s harder to forgive when negative feelings linger — demanding retribution.

The bottom line is that, as often portrayed art-imitating-life-style in film, two men can engage in fisticuffs and be buddies an hour later. Women? Not so much.

The psychological experts will tell us this is taught, too, but it’s even (and especially) apparent in children. When a little boy gets upset, he may have a tantrum and explode like a volcano yet 15 minutes later behave as if nothing happened. A girl is less likely to do this but more apt to simmer for long periods, not boiling over noticeably but not cooling to a calm, either. Consequently, rifts with friends are too often permanent.

Then there’s that, speaking generally, men are creatures of principle, women of preference. As I put it, treating this recently, “Years ago a female writer (whose name…escapes me) discussed the different ways boys and girls settle problems. She wrote that boys are natural-born deal makers; they’ll try to ensure fairness for everyone and then shake hands, saying ‘Deal? Deal.’ In contrast, girls will try to ensure an outcome everyone feels good about.”

“Witnessed here, even from young ages,” I continued, “is that boys instinctively reference principles, the objective; fairness is a principle. The girls, of course, are referencing feelings, the subjective.”

The point? “Fair fighting” or conflict resolution in the workplace or anywhere else requires adherence to principles; emotion won’t secure it (which is why catfights are, well, catfights). Philosopher C.S. Lewis touched on this in his book Mere Christianity when he asked: With whom would you rather deal if your dog bit the child next door, the man or woman of the house?

Lewis explained that when the man handles what could be called the family’s “foreign policy,” outsiders are more likely to get a fair shake; the woman’s extreme “family patriotism” often precludes this.

The latter is, of course, what can cause a woman to be wholly devoted to her children, even to the point of backing them when they do evil (serial killers’ mothers come to mind). For only principle instructs, “Your family is wrong, and you must say so”; emotion exclaims “My family right or wrong!”

Kipling touched on this as well, writing of man, “Where, at war with Life and Conscience, he uplifts his erring hands [t]o some God of Abstract Justice—which no woman understands.”

The strong, unyielding feminine emotion can provide the no-holds-barred love and devotion a child needs. But when this intense passion is turned to competition in the workplace or elsewhere, it’s just no-holds-barred. So I don’t know about spice, but maybe, as so many today claim, sugar really is a killer.

Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter or log on to SelwynDuke.com.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured photo is by Angel Santos on Unsplash.

Paradise Long-lost

Rebecca Ratcliffe’s article in the Guardian, (Women in Paradise face violence and political exclusion, campaigner tells UN, Oct. 26), concerned Randa Siniora, director of the Women’s Centre for Legal Aid and Counseling, and her recent address to the UN Security Council.  Siniora presented multi-faceted accusations against Israel, with scant background or context.  She referred to Israel as an occupying power despite the UN’s declaration of Israel’s sovereignty as a state in 1948 over territory that had been Jewish-occupied for 3,000+ years, and never ruled or developed by Muslims.  The brief “occupation” of Gaza by Israel, won in a defensive battle against five attacking Islamic armies, was voluntarily relinquished in 2005; Gaza has since been ruled by the Palestinian Authority and Hamas, a terrorist organization.  Siniora’s address represents Islam’s perpetual jihad.  To Islam, the entire world falls into two kinds of “houses” – The House of Peace, Dar al-Islam, the land that Islam as already conquered, and the House of War or Chaos, Dar al-Harb, literally the rest of the world that is targeted for conquest for Allah (8:40).  There are no other designations.

Siniora shamelessly provided partial stories in an effort to elicit a biased response.  She spoke of women being chased from their homes, but neglected to explain whether the homes were legitimately built on land zoned for such construction, in keeping with Israel’s laws (and particularly because of Israel’s size), or if the homes belonged to the families of Palestinian terrorists who had harmed or killed Israeli citizens.  Or they may have been the families of the young men who were responsible for the incendiary balloons and kites that destroyed seven square miles of agricultural land, forestry, nature reserves, livestock, people’s homes and livelihoods, and causing respiratory illnesses.  She chooses to not acknowledge these deadly activities or the bombed school buses, bus stations and restaurants; the terror tunnels that lead to schools and villages for the sole purpose of murder or kidnapping.  (At this writing, the Palestinians fired 400+ rockets today alone into Israel.)  The confiscation of their families’ homes as a consequence of these actions is a very light penalty, indeed.

On the inflated claim of a “humanitarian crisis,” she was also seeking additional funding for UNRWA, which was established in 1949 to support the 700,000 Arab refugees who fled the Arab armies’ attack against Israel, but which offered no safe haven to their brethren; the funds were never extended to the more than 850,000 Jews who fled Arab and Muslim persecution around the same time.  It is time to reduce the aid due to its “endless and exponentially expanding community of entitled beneficiaries,” the Palestinian rejection of Israel’s sovereignty and Jerusalem as its capital, their constant animus toward the United States, and because much of the subsidy is funneled through the UNRWA to support terrorism.  By allowing them to appropriate our humanitarian funds for killing, we have become their accomplices.

Her bemoaned “humanitarian crisis” is, in point of fact, a result of the harshness with which women have been treated by men since the time of Mohammed, and continues to this day.  In the Islamic ideology, men are given complete authority over women, where beatings are acceptable (4:34); their lives lived in stark contrast to the “paradise” quoted in the article’s title.  Domestic violence is undeniably rampant in the Arab community and the male’s foremost whipping boy is usually the female, his property – his wife, who must assume the blame for the faults and incompetence of others.  Would not this situation of homegrown cruelty be more closely examined and perhaps eased if the truth were exposed to the UN?  However,  like Linda Sarsour, Siniora is a jihada who uses lies (taqiyyah) to hide the truths of Islam and protect the violent ideology that perpetuates it, whether out of fear of repercussion or out of a desire to be accepted in the greater jihadi community.

Why does the woman who has achieved stature and access to the nations of the world not expose and speak out against the barbaric, sadistic FGM (Female Genital Mutilation) that UNICEF estimates has disfigured 200 million women in 30 countries?  Why do Siniora and her peers not rally against the burqas that restrict, confine, and isolate, but are also used to spotlight the non-Muslim women as fair game for rape or acid attack?  Why does she not work against the woman’s subservient status of one-half to one-quarter of the man’s value in their court system?  Why does she not try to save the children from terror training so that they won’t grow up to be the next generation of hate-filled, sadistic, controlling husbands who live to dominate the women and kill non-Muslims, particularly Israeli Jews?  Arab women’s subjection comes from the Koran and women like Siniora and Sarsour, who might be in a position to improve their lot, instead lend assistance to the injustice.  If either has gained access to the UN, why doesn’t she use this opportunity to speak out for Muslim women and insist on working toward equalization?   Sadly, they are jihadas, who clearly prefer the platform of propaganda and the tawdry glory of being temporarily raised from the diminished female status of the Muslim woman.

In spite of their public announcements, since polls were first taken in 1996, Israeli Palestinians, 20 percent of the population, have consistently rated Israel’s democracy as the one they most admire in the world.  This is not surprising, since all Arab municipalities receive government funding for education and infrastructure.  Israel has enacted affirmative action policies to help its minority citizens achieve full social and economic equality. Within Israel, there is legal protection against religious discrimination and hate crimes and Israel is the only Middle Eastern country where the Christian population is thriving instead of disappearing as they do under Islam.

Siniora claims the Arabs in Gaza are experiencing an increase in male violence due to Israel’s “occupation,” although that ended in 2005.  Of course, she is  antagonistically claiming the whole sovereign State of Israel as “occupation,” an attitude that nourishes the Arab hostility toward the Jews (9:30) (4:89). She alleges that when Jews counterattack, the Arab men increase their violence toward their wives and children.  How is it, then, that when Arabs attack Israelis, the Israeli men only devise more methods of defense and build new shelters for their families’ protection?

Are we to believe that Arab men are peaceful when Israel is a non-factor?  On 11/11, a woman was hacked to death with a machete by ADF, and her five children kidnapped in the Democratic Republic of Congo. On 11/10, six civilians were killed by Islamist shrapnel in Syria, and an official was killed by Taliban bombers in Afghanistan.  On 11/9, a man was killed by a motorcycle bomb blast in Pakistan; four family members were killed by a shell to their house in Yemen; a man praised Allah while attacking a group of police with an axe in Indonesia; a man tried to blow up hundreds of worshippers in a church but succeeded in slashing the priest with an ax in Indonesia; three Somalian suicide bombers killed 40 at a Somalian hotel and stabbed passersby while praising Allah; armed fundamentalists killed 17 local security personnel in two attacks in Afghanistan. During the month of October, there were 158 Islamic attacks in 20 countries, 801 people killed and 712 injured.  Are these the behaviors of an otherwise nonviolent people?

It is obvious that Siniora thus addressed the UN in order to deflect from the shame of her culture and to delegitimize Israel’s sovereignty. The philosophy of Islam is the life of Mohammed and his savagery.  A seriously flawed individual, frustrated by his lack of success, he turned to violence to achieve his ends and his world-ambitious followers continue his bloody legacy into the modern age.

If there is to be improvement for the Arabs in the West Bank and Gaza, they must assume full responsibility for removing the ills from their society, stop the blame/shame ideology, and begin to create a government that allows them to flourish.  I recommend the Constitution of the United States as a guide.

RELATED VIDEO: Tom Trento On Location Israel-Gaza Border, Sderot, Israel 2018.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured photo is by Toa Heftiba on Unsplash.

Breaking Up The Media/Political Vicious Circle

The 2018 mid-term elections was the largest campaign of its kind in history, both in terms of votes cast and campaign money spent, which was in the billions of dollars. Perhaps it is time to reflect on why this happened. We now live in a 24/7 news cycle. Whereas back in the 1960’s we would read morning newspapers, watch evening news, and skim through weekly news magazines (e.g., Time, Newsweek, Life, etc.), news is now offered on a non-stop basis, not just on one television channel, but several, as well as the Internet. Forget reality TV and sports, news is now the #1 entertainment medium and there are millions of news junkies around to prove it.

What we are now faced with is the diabolical manipulation of the American psyche, much more persuasive than anything invented by Joseph Goebbels during World War II. Let me be brutally frank, the news media is not concerned with reporting reliable news and accurate information, it’s about making money, and this includes all of the news sources. They have sacrificed “fair and balanced” for the political agenda they believe will cause the most angst among the American public. This includes the major television networks, cable, the Internet, and printed press. Their influence is so pervasive, it explains why the country is polarized and people suffer from such things as Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS).

To illustrate, during the election, the news media was quick to quote the latest poll du jour. All of these polls were just as inaccurate as they were in 2016 when they confidently predicted Mrs. Clinton would win the presidential election. Instead of examining early voting data as provided by the various state board of elections, they preferred to quote some cockamamie poll instead. Please understand, the early voting data is far more accurate and insightful than any poll, yet the news media refuses to quote them as it doesn’t create as much drama as a skewed poll does.

This overt attempt to whip the public into a frenzy is shared by the news media, the polls, and fact checkers. They are all on the take, which is why they encourage upheaval, cast doubt on politicians, and lack professional courtesy. Their job, as they see it, is to make the news, not report on it.

The question thereby becomes, what can be done about it? The answer is actually simple. Since the source of energy for the media is money, we should minimize the amount they can earn. For example, our electoral cycles have fallen into the rut of creating campaigns lasting as long as two years. This includes campaigns for federal, state, county, and municipal politicians. I just witnessed a campaign here in Florida where I saw state and county politicians, who earn approximately $30,000 a year, spend ten times that amount to be elected, some much more than that. From a business perspective, this represents a lousy return on investment. Again, the only group profiting from this is not the politicians, but the news media who reaps the reward.

As an aside, in 2018, politicians spent in excess of $2 billion for campaigning, a new record. This money was not used for charitable purposes, or to update our infrastructure, or to cure cancer. It was used to line the pockets of the media and create multimillionaire celebrity news personalities.

The end of the 2018 election marks the official beginning of the 2020 campaign, and the vicious circle starts all over again. The pumping of huge sums of money into the coffers of the news media only encourages them to persist in irresponsible news reporting. But what if the gravy train was interrupted; what then?

To curb spending and obnoxious campaigning, we should do as other countries do and reduce our electoral cycle to a defined period, such as 90 or 120 days. For example, there are several countries who have less than a 90 day election period, such as Argentina, Canada, France, and Japan. Further, some countries do not allow the purchase of TV ads, such as Brazil, Japan, and the United Kingdom. Such policies dramatically inhibit the media money machines and causes them to take the histrionics out of their broadcasts.

The symbiotic relationship between the Media and Politics is so imbued in our culture, getting the two parties to agree to my proposal is out of the question. To implement such a program requires changes in our electoral process which must be driven by the citizenry, not politicians. This cannot happen unless the country becomes aware of the problem and expresses outrage over it, but since the media controls communications it is doubtful voters will ever learn of it. In fact, watch this column be torpedoed and sunk.

Keep the Faith!

Note: All trademarks both marked and unmarked belong to their respective companies

RELATED ARTICLE: Democrats demand removal of Illinois election judge after she reported fraud

EDITORS NOTE: The featured photo is by Elijah O’Donnell on Unsplash.

Hillary Clinton Will Run In 2020, and We’ll Regret It!

A quick look at the stars reveals that Hillary Clinton will run again for President of the United States in 2020. If you can’t see it, look closer, it’s there.

The reason why isn’t just because it’s in the stars. It’s because she’s an egomaniac that will do anything in support of her fantasy of being President of the United States, no matter what the negative repercussions of pursuing it may be to her message, her party, or her country.  (You can hear more about my reasoning in my podcast from today.)

In an article by Mark Penn and Andrew Stein appearing in the Wall Street Journal, the authors predicted that Clinton would run for President because she would not allow her career to be ended by a rank amateur, namely Donald J. Trump.  And she’s going to do it by concentrating on universal health care.

Undoubtedly, a Hillary Clinton run for President would be a calamity.  Consider all the bad things have happened to Mrs. Clinton since she lost her race to President Trump.  First, she actually proposed and defended the position that Bill Clinton should not have stepped down as President even though he infamously had sex with a White House intern in the Oval Office.  She said this despite calling for President Trump to step down because he uttered disparaging comments about women in a private conversation in a private recreational vehicle while not being President.  And when asked how she could defend her husband’s actions, she said, in the midst of the Me Too Movement, that it was okay because Monica Lewinsky was an adult, and she knew what she was doing.

Clinton also purposefully said in an interview that non-Republicans could not be civil with Republicans because they were trying to destroy everything she stood for.  As a matter of fact, according to Mrs. Clinton, civility could not return until the Democrats assumed power.  How do you think, that video will play out in the general election?

If that wasn’t bad enough, there’s the matter of her book, What Happened,where she appears as a sore loser and blames everyone else, including women and the press, for her loss rather than reflecting on her shortcomings as a candidate.  Notably, it is in this book where Mrs. Clinton infamously spoke about the press being against her when in fact, few candidates have found a more favorable press than Mrs. Clinton did in her 2016 run.

Moreover, as time passed and people had the opportunity to view her conduct through the clarity of hindsight, many, including some of her more ardent supporters, have warmed up to the idea that Mrs. Clinton and her Clinton Foundation were engaged in inappropriate dealings with foreign entities for her own personal enrichment.  Many now believe that her mishandling of classified and non-classified emails was done in an effort to provide cover for her activities related to the Clinton Foundation.  And don’t forget, the nexus between her dealings with Uranium One and her personal enrichment has become a radioactive issue for her.

Overall, it appears that there are just too many scandals involving Mrs. Clinton to make her a viable candidate.  But she is not the first candidate with seemingly insurmountable problems that have gone on to win an election.  Just look at President Donald Trump.  But the final dagger to Mrs. Clinton’s candidacy is also the most effective: Clinton is simply not liked.

Even if Mrs. Clinton tried to explain away her discrediting issues, which she is a master at doing, she will ultimately be unsuccessful because of her lack of interpersonal skills.

In short, Mrs. Clinton is not likable.  From her high-pitched voice, to her witchlike laugh, to her arrogant demeanor, Hillary lost and will lose again because she does not resonate with non-elites.  They simply don’t like her.  She appears uncaring and judgmental to everyone outside of her inner circles in the high-rises of New York City, and that, as in times prior, will be her downfall.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in The Federalist Pages. The featured photo is by Andrew Vickers on Unsplash.

Lessons Taken from the Recent U.S. Election Mess

By Wallace Bruschweiler & William Palumbo.

Another November, another Election Day debacle.  Leave it to the State of Florida to once again (think Bush v. Gore) expose the severe shortcomings of the American election system.  Though, to be fair, it isn’t only Florida; Arizona and Georgia are also in the proverbial “big soup” this time around.

The point of this article is not to systematically condemn the American election system, nor detail its deficiencies.  As any observer is painfully aware, there are legal, partisan, and political reasons why the system remains – basically – broken.  Nor shall we evaluate any contemporary claims of voter fraud; for these arguments will be lost and won by an army of lawyers, sent from D.C. to the states which have bungled yet another political election.

For the sake of both completeness and brevity, listed below are some broad complicating factors of the U.S. electoral system:

  • Generally speaking, states establish their own election laws – subject to Federal oversight – essentially creating fifty different regimes, each with their own idiosyncrasies and complications.
  • Gerrymandering, which allows the creation of customized electoral districts to the benefit of one party or the other.
  • Voter participation in the United States rarely exceeds 50-55%%, which is amongst the lowest in the so-called developed world. Therefore, approximately just 26-28% of eligible voters determine the direction of the entire country.
  • Electoral College: In Presidential elections, electors (not voters) ultimately decide who wins the office. This is enshrined in the U.S. Constitution.  Wow!

Rather than focus on the various problems, we seek here to present examples from other countries where the election systems do work, for context and fermentation of ideas domestically.

A Look around the World

Australia

  • Population: 24.6 million
  • Voter participation: Greater than 90%
  • Nota Bene: Voting has been compulsory since 1924. Non-voting results in a fine, and elections are typically held on Saturdays.  Voters are not required to present identification.

Brazil

  • Population: 209.3 million
  • Voter participation: 79.54% (2016)
  • Nota Bene: Compulsory voting for all “literate” citizens between the ages of 18-70 years old, dating back to 1932.  Consequences of non-voting include exclusion from government funds, and potentially being prohibited from obtaining a passport.  Identification is required and voting is entirely electronic.

France

  • Population: 67.12 million
  • Voter participation: 67.9% (2017)
  • Nota Bene: France is one of the most centralized countries, administratively, in the world. Voters use paper ballots and are required to show identification.  Presidential elections are every five years, and it is typically a two-round process, assuming that no candidate receives more than 50% in the first round.

Germany

  • Population: 82.79 million
  • Voter participation: 76.2% (2017)
  • Nota Bene: Germany has a two vote system, in which votes are cast for both candidates and for party (for representative purposes in the Bundestag (i.e., federal parliament). Elections are managed by the Ministry of Interior which sets forth regulations, which includes presenting identification.  There are election management bodies, primarily the Federal Returning Officer, who is appointed by the Ministry of Interior.

Italy

  • Population: 60.59 million
  • Voter participation: ~73% (2018)
  • Nota Bene: Italy has a “parallel” voting system, in which 37% of seats are allocated by “first past the post,” and the remaining 63% are allocated proportionately. On a paper ballot, the voter can cast his ballot in three different ways: basically, different combinations of candidates and parties.  Voter identification at the polling station is required.  Representatives of the two leading parties then decide how to form the coalition.  Finally, the Italian President first validates the proposed coalition, and secondly the list of ministers, to form the government.  The President is an unelected official who, with respect to the formation of a government, is somewhat comparable to the power of the Queen of England.

Israel

  • Population: 8.71 million
  • Voter participation: 72.36% (2015)
  • Nota Bene: Voters in Israel vote for a party, not the candidate. The Knesset, Israel’s parliament, is proportionally representative of the votes cast.  Voters present their national identification card, complete a ballot, place it in an envelope, and slip it into a blue ballot box.

Japan

  • Population: 120.8 million
  • Voter participation: 53.83% (2017)
  • Nota Bene: Japan’s voter participation rate is on-par with the United States’. Voters must present voter cards.  Ballots are completed by writing in the candidate’s name.  Elections for the House of Representatives involve two votes: one for the district candidate, and one for the party.  Electronic voting first occurred in 2002, and early voting was introduced in 2003.

United Kingdom

  • Population: 66.02 million
  • Voter participation: 68.8% (2017) ; 72.21% (“Brexit” referendum, 2016)
  • Nota Bene: Registered voters can vote either in person, by post, or by proxy. Except in Northern Ireland, it is not required to show identification.  Voters complete a paper ballot and drop it into a ballot box.  Follow the close of polls (10 pm), the ballot box is immediately taken to a central counting location.

Conclusions

With the notable exceptions of Australia and the United Kingdom (two English-speaking countries), each one of the above countries requires a form of identification to be presented by the voter.  With the exception Japan, voter turnout is significantly higher in these countries than in the United States (25-35%).  Countries with compulsory voting – Australia and Brazil – unsurprisingly have the highest voter participation – 90% and 79% respectively.

Furthermore, the authors searched for recent examples of voter fraud in these countries, and were unable to find any eminent instances.  Unlike the United States, which has had multiple prominent election problems that have made international news, a comparable example among the countries analyzed cannot be readily identified.  Indeed, a U.S. level of election shenanigans seems to be reserved for what we typically call a “banana republic.”

A Divided Country, Embarrassed on the World Stage

Ever since the Greeks invented democracy in ancient times, societies have been voting.  From a technological standpoint, it is a very basic procedure.  Even Iraq, practically ravished by wars since the 1980s, votes using a straightforward and understandable process: ink on the index finger identifies each one who has cast a vote.

Not only do contested and contentious elections further exacerbate an already divided country, but they are a black mark on the reputation of the United States on the international scene.  Allegedly the leading country in the world today, it is almost impossible, for our allies and foes alike, to comprehend how we cannot even master a task so simple as a routine election.

Perhaps instead of sending two opposing battalions of lawyers to litigate the vote counting, it is time for meaningful reform that addresses both voter participation and the integrity of each and every vote.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in the USA Transnational Report. It is republished with permission. The featured photo is by Casey Robertson on Unsplash.

Why We Need More Climate Change Skeptics

Instead of demonizing such skeptics, we need to encourage and respect such people who work hard to identify where biases have interfered with the pursuit of truth.


Climate scientists are not prophets. Those who believe them on faith provide no good service to the pursuit of truth.

Those who blame climate change for every storm or forest fire are silly. Equally silly are those who claim that a particularly cold day proves that climate change is a farce.

Fear of environmental calamity has caused human destruction before, such as when Rachel Carson’s book, Silent Spring, led to the banning of the pesticide DDT. As a result of the “success” of the environmentalist movement in banning DDT, an estimated 30-50 million people in Africa—mostly children—died from malaria carried by the renewed growth in the mosquito population. Malaria deaths increased from tens of thousands per year pre-ban to millions per year post-ban. The story was similar in India. These were preventable deaths that resulted from stoked fears.

Now the target is carbon dioxide. We are told that 97 percent of climate scientists agree with their own scientific consensus. But that’s a misleading statement in an important way. The actual figure refers to “97 percent of climate scientists actively publishing in scientific journals.” To understand the relevance of this 97 percent figure, we need to know: what are the determiners of “actively publishing?”

Could the selection process for entry and success (“actively publishing”) in the climate profession create a bias that compromises the information we rely on to make our critical decisions about climate?

Let’s ask the question, calmly and rationally, and see where it takes us.

1. It is reasonable to consider that children raised in climate-conscious families are more likely to become interested in the environment than those raised by families who either don’t care or who deny. The climate-conscious children are more likely to undertake science fair projects and write papers about climate change. Climate work is rewarded in school, so it shouldn’t be any surprise if such children, more than others, later consider environmental science as a college major. If this occurs, which seems likely, this childhood process would be Distillation Step 1 in creating a future climate scientist. More speculatively, if sufficiently reinforced, some of these youths might even develop some neuronally hardwired (unchangeable) biases as the brain matures.

2. As is true in all fields, college climatology professors encourage the most dedicated students in introductory environmental studies classes to pursue climate science as a major. Other students—such as those who are skeptical—may never again see the inside of a climate science classroom. The selection of academic major is Distillation Step 2.

3. When students pursue their master’s degrees, the crop of future climate scientists is further distilled. Those who don’t align with their professors’ views are less successful getting into PhD programs. Then, success within a PhD program relies (in any field) on abiding by one’s dissertation committee’s wishes so as to get their PhD in as few years as possible and finally make some money. During this phase, those who best comply will be more likely to obtain their doctorate and get set up in post-doc positions working for experienced senior scientists. Distillation Step 3 has occurred, along with further psychological reinforcement to agree with those more senior. The climate liquor is getting more concentrated.

4. To succeed in academia, the newly minted PhD must apply for grants, mostly from government agencies or his own university. He chooses hypotheses and writes his grant application with care, knowing he’ll need the approval of committees populated with scientists who are invested in promoting their previously published papers and who make their living from government-funded studies of climate change. If he fails to craft his project to appeal to the needs of the reviewers on the committee, he won’t get funded. Funding failure increases the likelihood that he will wash out of academia. This selection of research grants to write is Distillation Step 4.

The process of nurturing and selection of the climate scientist starts in kindergarten and proceeds through high school and college, then to grant funding, manuscript preparation, and publication. His research is then only seen through the lens of the media’s selective presentation. The many reinforcing layers of bias create a distillate of pure concentrated climate orthodoxy, and this liquor is what we are offered to drink.

5. Successfully obtaining funding allows the young academic to perform a research project that will buttress the beliefs of the grant committee that channeled funding to him. Research studies are these days (improperly) designed to accomplish the affirmation of the hypothesized outcome as opposed to examining the truth of a hypothesis. If his project (done well or done poorly) appears to prove his hypothesis, then he tries to publish a paper to join the ranks of the “actively publishing.” He will craft the conclusion and abstract to promote his bias (again, this is true in any field). By the way, we should not underestimate the pressured academic’s skill at justifying to himself the removal of any data from his dataset that adversely affect his ability to get a publishable p value of “less than 0.05” (an arbitrary cut off in statistics that is needed for publication).

Note that if the project fails to prove his hypothesis, the young scientist probably will never write a manuscript about it, and therefore he won’t yet be “actively publishing.” Oh, and often there are multiple hypotheses in a project, and if only one of them is proven, it will be the only one written up and submitted for publication. The disproven hypotheses will not be written up and will never be seen by us. This is all part of Distillation Step 5.

6. Even if a scientist goes to the effort to write a manuscript that fails to support climate change concerns (which would be called a “negative manuscript” as it negates the hypothesis), it will be harder to get it published. Such “negative manuscripts” are, in any field, commonly rejected by the editor before going to peer review.

If a negative manuscript does get to peer review, the reviewers will be more critical because the manuscript will conflict with their prior publications. Then the scientist will have to go to the considerable effort of resubmitting the manuscript elsewhere or have to respond to the reviewers’ critiques by getting more grant money and doing more studies, which will prove difficult. And it just isn’t worth it because publishing such a paper could only hurt his career. So the young academic understandably sticks the rejected manuscript and its data in a desk drawer, never to be seen again. This is Distillation Step #6.

Selective manuscript writing, editorial bias, peer-review bias, and selective re-submission are four important biases in any field. This could be a reason—completely unrelated to scientific facts—as to why climate literature slants the way it does.

After these multiple distillation steps, almost all impurities have been distilled away. Perhaps only 3 percent remains. It should be no more surprising that 97 percent of actively publishing climate scientists agree with the climate change consensus than that 97 percent of actively preaching seminary graduates believe in their religion.

7. Those who make it onto the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), are the most highly distilled, fully vetted climate scientists of all. Pure 200 proof. For this reason and others, consensus at the level of the IPCC is even less useful than “expert opinion.”

In response to climatologists’ complaints that the IPCC is biased against nuclear power, Jonathan Lynn, an IPCC spokesman, rejected the accusation, telling Axios: “We completely reject the idea we are biased about nuclear power or anything else.”

I would call Mr. Lynn’s statement psychological denial. Of course the IPCC is biased. Everyone who cares, one way or the other, is biased. To say otherwise is poppycock.

8. Now, if it bleeds it leads. The lay world only hears the most dramatic climate stories. What self-disrespecting mainstream click-baiting journalist will bother to read anything beyond a research abstract or would waste their editor’s time with anything positive (or even innocuous) regarding climate change? Answer: none. Furthermore, journalists now manage to stick a scary line about climate change in any article they can. Bees, birds, ticks, human migration… it’s all climate change. This continual exposure to unsubstantiated statements from journalists will bamboozle many readers.

What we in the lay world get to read and hear is a highly distilled climate change liquor and the most catastrophic fears of what climate change may cause. The climate-concerned lay reader is unlikely to be presented with, or click on, a climate story that opposes his worldview. Those with defensive personalities will reflexively lash out with vitriol at an author of such an article, as if the author were an infidel, often without reading past the title.

We need to get our heads around the climate in an intellectually comprehensive way. We need science to do that. Unfortunately, the politicized climate field has many reinforcing biases entrenched within it. This must lead to the dissemination of biased or incomplete facts and biased conclusions.

Yet it is important we don’t get this wrong because people suffer and die when science becomes unquestioned dogma.

We need private watchdogs who go to the effort to examine the research that the climatologists produce, looking for flaws, biases, misrepresentations, malincentives, and even manipulations. Instead of demonizing such skeptics, we need to encourage and respect such people who work hard to identify where biases have interfered with the pursuit of truth.

I recognize the importance of a healthy climate. I am not ignoring facts, and I respect the scientific method. I’m not brainwashed by oil companies nor in psychological denial. To the contrary, any skepticism I have arises because I do not deny the weaknesses of the academic process that create a scientist and the research he produces. Reinforcing layers of bias can occur in any field, but politicization exaggerates it.

Let’s remember what saved the whales. It wasn’t Greenpeace. It was, rather, the successful distillation of petroleum that replaced the demand for the renewable fuel known as whale oil. That distillation made petroleum purer and more flammable. The distillation of climate science makes it purer, too—and more incendiary.

Policymakers, teachers, journalists, environmentalists…all of us…really know nothing about climate change other than what trickles down from the climate scientists’ desks. Are the many reinforcing layered biases of the climate field sufficient to have relevant effects on the research results that are presented to us? Are the climate scientists getting some of it wrong, or maybe exaggerating it?

It has happened before—with DDT—with horrific consequences.

And the climate change field is even more politicized.

This article was reprinted from International Man.

COLUMN BY

Doug Casey

Doug Casey

Douglas R. Casey is an American writer, speculator, and the founder and chairman of Casey Research. Casey is a real estate investor, as well as an advisor on how to profit from market distortions and periods of economic turmoil.

RELATED ARTICLES:

The Chill of Solar Minimum

Why Won’t Liberals Look at the Evidence On Climate?

Gov. Brown blames climate ‘deniers’ for worsening wildfires – Scientific evidence refutes him: ‘Less fire today than centuries ago’

EDITORS NOTE: This column with images is republished with permission.

Could We Actually Achieve “Warp Speed”?

Everybody knows ‘the speed of light’ is fast. The only thing faster is Chuck Norris, who, the legend goes, can turn out the lights and be under the covers before the room gets dark.

But just how fast is light?

And does it always move the exact same speed? Can we use light to transmit data in a way that harnesses its speed as one of the fastest actors in the known universe? There is has always been a dream of teleportation or using wormholes to jump across time and space at warpspeed, but some scientists now believe that such technology may be more feasible than once thought.

And even if we are centuries away from transporting anything meaningful at the speed of light, the idea of lightspeed may soon jump from the realm of Star Wars to something much more tangible.

How Fast Is Light?

How Fast Is Light?

In a vacuum, light travels 299,792,458 meters per second, which translates to over 670 thousand miles per hour. Light is so fast that it’s difficult to comprehend what that even means.

The second you turn on a light switch, the entire room is flooded with light. But our universe is big. So light from the sun takes seven minutes to reach earth, while light from distant stars experiences so much latency that scientists say we can still see light from stars that burned out many years ago.

It’s a mind-bender to contemplate light covering a distance so long that we could still see it after ‘the lights go out.’ In our observable realm on earth, that idea seems impossible.

Another seemingly impossible idea?

That light might travel at different speeds depending on external factors. This goes in the face of Einstein’s theories about light, but this hypothesis has recently been posited by many modern scientists.

New theories suggest that light moved much faster in the nascent universe, when ambient temperatures were hotter and gravity was lower than it is today. There was also a theoretical phenomenon known as ‘inflation,’ in which the fledgling universe’s rapid expansion essentially bent the rules of every aspect of physics.

Scientists now say that if the speed of light is indeed variable as they now propose, everything about the inflation theory is no longer applicable.

These theories suggest something along the lines of light experiencing air resistance and gravity, much like tangible objects do. This revelation does not disprove Einstein’s theory; rather, it clarifies that while the speed of light is constant in a vacuum, outer space has not been a scientifically-perfect vacuum across history.

The updated theory proposes that different temperatures, gravities, and bodies all change the way light travels. And this means that some measurements made assuming uniform speed of light may be incorrect, thus changing scientists’ understanding of the size of the universe and distance to various celestial bodies.

Before you make your brain hurt too much thinking about measuring the size of the universe using a variable for the speed of light, let’s be clear about what lightspeed means for humanity.

Achieving Warp Speed

Achieving Warp Speed

Outside of references to warp speed in Star Wars and warp drive in Star Trek and other intergalactic sci-fi, humans have never achieved travel at anything close to the speed of light. The U.S. government has put some money and research into the idea of warp drive and other such sci-fi-sounding technology applications.

The conclusion of the study was, predictably, that traveling at or near the speed of light–or even creating warp-drive-like conditions in a strictly scientific setting–is nowhere near possible.

The theory behind warp drive is actually far crazier than simply propelling an object at the speed of light. Instead, it entails using something akin to wormholes to create an interruption in the space-time continuum that would allow whatever enters the wormhole to travel far faster than the speed of light.

However, this theory relies less on next-generation propulsion techniques and more on our ability to one day physically manipulate the fabric of space-time. The fact that this study was lumped in with UFO research should provide some color to the government’s general stance on warp drive.

With phrases like “dark energy” and “extra dimension” featured prominently in the report, it is clear that this possibility, even if it is theoretically plausible, lies squarely in the realm of science fiction.

Still, scientists have lately decided that warp drive is far more imminently possible than once thought. The largest hindrance to warp drive is the amount of energy required to interrupt the space-time continuum in any meaningful way.

Yet, recent advances in power storage and delivery technology and achievements in disrupting the natural state of being at the molecular level using CERN have renewed scientists’ belief and interest in the idea of achieving warp drive, if only at the scale of transporting a single cell via warp drive.

The Power of Fiber Optics

The Power of Fiber Optics

You may have heard the line that “fiber optics transfer data at the speed of light.” This is, strictly speaking, true, but there is a big caveat to it.

Light travels 31% slower through a perfect fiber optic cable than it does through a vacuum–and not every fiber optic cable is in perfect condition or made of the purest materials possible. So, again, we run into the idea that the speed of light is variable. It encounters resistance in the form of fiber cables just the same way scientists have theorized it does with gravity and varying temperatures in the universe.

But, thanks to technological advances in materials and power transfer, researchers have created fiber optic cables that transfer data at 99.7% of the theoretical maximum speed of light–a full 1,000 times faster than today’s average fiber optic cables. This is an application of lightspeed that is pertinent to humans immediately and in the near future.

Achieving near light speed on earth through fiber optics could allow for data transfer speeds far beyond anything we have witnessed, allowing all-but-instant transmission of signals for everything from consumer grade internet to controlling hypersensitive factory operations and robotic devices with lower latency than ever before.

These new ‘light fibers’ are made almost entirely of air and allow optic data to travel much the same way light does in a vacuum–unencumbered by physical resistance. While this technology is not yet ready to be applied in long-distance fiber optics applications, it has nearly immediate potential to provide radically increased speeds in short-distance applications.

The Speed of Light in Your Life

The Speed of Light in Your Life

While we may not achieve lightspeed travel in any of our lifetimes, the speed of light is imminently relevant to all of our lives. As internet providers bring fiber optics to more cities and technology companies sink more research into fiber optic cables themselves, there is ever more reason to believe that we may experience lightspeed internet connectivity in the not-so-distant future.

And as scientists continue to refine their understanding of the variable speed of light, we may even learn of radical new theories behind the size, age, and origin of the Universe itself.

EDITORS NOTE: This column with images originally appeared in IQS Directory and is republished with permission.

Liberals Aren’t Losing Faith in Our Constitutional System. They Just Don’t Like Its Results.

In liberals’ imaginations, there are only four ways to lose elections—and none has to do with their leftist turn, their hysterics, or their one-dimensional identity politics.

Democrats say they lose because of gerrymandering, voter suppression (sometimes known as asking for ID), Russian mind-control rays deployed by social media, and our antiquated and unfair Constitution.

That last excuse is becoming increasingly popular among pundits who continue to invent new crises to freak out about.

Take Vox’s Ezra Klein, a longtime champion of direct democracy: “I don’t think people are ready for the crisis that will follow if Democrats win the House popular vote but not the majority,” he tweeted before the midterms. “After Kavanaugh, Trump, Garland, Citizens United, Bush v. Gore, etc, the party is on the edge of losing faith in the system (and reasonably so).”

The “House popular vote” now joins the “national popular vote” and “Senate popular vote” as fictional gauges of governance used by Democrats who aren’t brave enough to say they oppose the fundamental anti-majoritarianism that girds the Constitution.

Otherwise, why would Democrats lose faith in a “system” that is doing exactly what was intended?

The Constitution explicitly protects small states (and individuals) from national majorities. The argument for diffusing democracy and checking a strong federal government is laid out in the Federalist Papers and codified on an array of levels. This was done on purpose. It is the system.

I mean, do Democrats really believe that the Electoral College was constructed to always correspond with the national vote?

Do they believe that the signers of the Constitution were unaware that some states would be far bigger than others in the future?

If the Founding Fathers didn’t want Virginia to dictate how people in Delaware lived in 1787, why would they want California to dictate how people in Wyoming live in 2018?

If you don’t believe that this kind of proportionality is a vital part of American governance, you don’t believe in American governance.

You can despise Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh all you like, but why would Democrats lose faith in “the system” that saw Republicans follow directions laid out in the Constitution for confirming a Supreme Court nominee?

Why would Democrats lose faith in “the system” that elected Donald Trump using the same Electoral College that every other president used?

Why would they lose faith in a system that houses a Supreme Court that stops the other branches from banning political speech?

When the Supreme Court affirmed the election of George W. Bush, it turned out to be the right call.

It’s because they see the system as a way to achieve partisan goals, not as a set of politically neutral idealistic values.

It’s not a civics problem, either.

One hopes that such liberal activists as NBC News’ Ken Dilanian, who wonders “how much longer the American majority will tolerate being pushed around by a rural minority,” understand sixth-grade civics.

New York Times columnist Paul Krugman surely knows that the Constitution doesn’t give “disproportionate weight” to smaller states. It intentionally gives all states the same weight in the Senate.

Krugman only finds this idea “disproportionate” because it protects millions of Americans from the centralized coercive state that he envisions for them. The disproportionality he sees merely reflects his own concerns. It has nothing to do with the system.

Also, rural America doesn’t bully people such as Dilanian. The federal government was never supposed to be this powerful. Those in non-“forward-moving” America—those dummies Krugman would like to nanny from Washington—don’t very much care how Dilanian lives. He, on the other hand, has big plans for them.

It should be noted that these majoritarians throw millions of Americans aside to make this argument. We don’t know how a national majority would vote.

There are many millions of Republicans in New York and California who don’t involve themselves in the futility of state politics. Those who rely on a “Senate popular vote” are being particularly dishonest, considering California didn’t have a Republican on the ballot Tuesday. There are more Republicans in California than there are in Wyoming.

But as you can see on Election Day, liberals have made “democracy”—a word mentioned zero times in the Constitution and Declaration of Independence—into a sacramental rite.

Getting more votes in an election outweighs the inherent rights of liberty that are laid out in our founding documents—unless, of course, a right happens to intersect with some advantageous partisan idea, e.g., birthright citizenship; then Democrats become strict originalists.

The only reason these folks who claim to want to save Constitution from Trump see crisis in the system is that it fails to deliver for them politically.

They’re not losing faith in the system. They just don’t like the system.

COPYRIGHT 2018 CREATORS.COM

COMMENTARY BY

Portrait of David Harsanyi

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


The Daily Signal depends on the support of readers like you. Donate now


EDITORS NOTE: This column with images is republished with permission. The featured photo is by Anthony Garand on Unsplash.

Free and Fair Elections?

Why is it that the with the majority of the contested recounts we mostly find tens of thousands of missing ballots for the Democrats and not the Republicans? I mean, what are the odds of that? Slim I would suggest, slim. If Rick Scott of Florida does not take decisive action and steps immediately, his own election along with Ron DeSantis is in serious jeopardy. Am I insinuating that there is voter fraud and election theft taking place in Florida and other states as well? You bet. Now there is plenty of news out there today and in the coming days perhaps weeks about the recounts taking place today that can be found on social media and by scouring the various news feeds. So I will not regurgitate. If you are a true concerned patriot and possibly an activist then I ask you to read the following excerpt from my book Trump and the Resurrection of America provided for you below and share this post everywhere.

Chapter Excerpt

Americans are under the illusion that there is a two-party system in place and that we have free and fair elections and we have a choice. But in actuality, it really is a one–party system serving the same master. I will get into this in the chapter titled “Shadow Government.” Let’s discuss the U.S. free and fair elections. Free and fair elections? Oh really? Ask Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders about free and fair elections.

The United States actually has the worst voting system in the developed world. According to NYU professor Mark Crispin Miller, even Harvard University ranked the U.S. dead last place in the developed world. Professor Miller went on to say that former President Jimmy Carter said in 2006 in a NPR interview that the elections in the U.S. are so poor that we don’t even rise to the minimal level where the Carter Center would bother to monitor them.

You see, we are under the illusion that we have free and fair elections when in fact the candidates are “selected,” funded with full-blown support from the PACS, big corporations, the corrupt, biased media, and then placed into office. We have shed blood across this globe fighting for others to have the right to free and fair elections, yet we do not. It is “they” who get to decide who becomes the President of the United States. Well, that all changed with the election of Donald J. Trump in 2016, being perhaps the only exception in modern history. Consider this.

Voter Fraud and Election Theft

Voter fraud and election theft have been going on for a very long time and perhaps even more so today. Who is guilty? Well, both parties are guilty; depends upon what the shadow government’s agenda is.

We see reports where dead people are voting. During the primaries of 2016, absentee ballots were seen being shredded into a wastebasket. There is gerrymandering taking place as yet another method. There are instances where one person has voted multiple times. There is the corruption in play with the PACS that Donald Trump spoke out against during the primaries of 2015 and 2016. Some years ago, in the Tampa Bay area of Florida, there were sworn affidavits which have been collected by a team spearheaded by attorney Mark Adams, indicating that votes were significantly changed in local elections. Not to mention the onslaught of illegal aliens voting. There are many other instances of fraud. But perhaps the most telling and most disturbing one of all is the fact that the Diebold voting machines are hackable and rigged. Then there is the process known as “skimming.” What is skimming? The following summation of skimming and the GEMS software sections were provided by Dr. Richard Davis of PollMole.

Skimming

  • A very sophisticated method of election fraud
  • The most common way to “steal” an election
  • Manipulate pre-election polls to project a “close race”
  • Design the polls to have a wide margin of error
  • Wide margins rig the system against any effective legal challenge
  • Manipulate the vote to make sure the race is close
  • Fit the official vote to hide within the black hole (i.e., margin of error)
  • Skimming is hard to detect and almost impossible to prove
  • Honest campaigns can only win in real landslides of 10 percent or more, unless a scientific polling technology could be deployed that generates cost-effective, statistically robust results with very small margin of error.

Traditional Polling So with typical polling you see oftentimes a “select” group of people being polled. The number of people being polled is typically five hundred to two thousand. Then with traditional polling you can expect a margin of error to be as high as 6 to 10 percent. This is about as effective as polling a group of steak eaters at a large steak house in one neighborhood and asking them if they prefer steak or seafood for dinner. This is the same method used in political polling. This type of polling is not representative of the electorate across the country. And so the fix is in, and the expectation is set, and the biased media’s talking points set the narrative for the regurgitating puppets, we the “sheeple.”

For example, after the second debate between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, CNN released a poll minutes after the debate, a select group of people totaling just 537, and the poll resulted in Hillary beating Trump 57 to 34 percent in that debate. CNN reported that 58 percent of those polled were democrats.

Anyone who watched, even Hillary supporters, knows that Trump slaughtered her in this particular debate. I rest my case. Skewed, rigged polling, skimming the elections. The plot thickens.

Edison Research Group

What is the Edison Research Group? This group conducts the exit poll results on election day. They provide the data under an exclusive contract to the National Election Pool (a cartel of six huge media conglomerates: ABC, CBS, CNN, FOX, NBC, and AP). Edison is owned by the same six cartel members. How cozy and convenient. And with the GEMS manipulation capabilities in place and if the artificial intelligence (AI) is activated, election theft occurs. Think about it, private for-profit companies tell us about our election results outcome. Are you hearing me? Are you following me? Are you with me so far?

All of the mainstream media (MSM) and now as recently observed even some of the alternative media will never get into the crux of the voter fraud and election theft issue. Sure they might touch on the dead voters, the voter who has voted more than once, and so on, but pre-programmed computers with AI? You probably won’t hear that on the MSM. Discussing computerized election fraud is generally off limits. It’s like discussing how the twin towers came down on 911, not to mention building number seven. These subjects are off limits when it comes to MSM. And so the blackout and gag order are in full force and Americans are once again hoodwinked and a laughing- stock to the world.

GEMS

The GEMS resident software has been installed on virtually all central server voting machines deployed in the U.S. and can easily steal the election, undetected, with extreme precision. This is also known as black box voting. There is some evidence that this technology was used by Hillary to steal her primary from Senator Sanders. The GEMS software has now been placed under the control of an advanced Artificial Intelligence system that can continuously manipulate the “official vote” tally nationwide in nanoseconds, right down to the precinct level, without detection. This system will have been specifically designed and purpose-built to be the perfect tool—leaving no evidence behind—in order to commit the perfect crime.

WikiLeaks has provided credible evidence that the pre-election presidential polls were being rigged as well, in order to set the expectation for a Clinton victory. Meanwhile Clinton and Kaine had been cancelling rallies due to little to no attendance as Trump continued to fill arenas across the nation, with thousands more lined up outside unable to get in. Enough said. There is speculation within inner circles that perhaps a counter AI may have been deployed, ensuring the victory for Trump. We simply don’t know for sure. We do know that the election process in America is fatally flawed for multiple reasons and Russia had nothing to do with this.

Forward Progress

“The people who cast the votes don’t decide an election, the people who count the votes do.” – Joseph Stalin.

The Founding Fathers stated the votes are to be cast in private and counted in public. This of course is no longer being done since the advent of computerized voting. Think about it—have you ever seen a computer count? The following suggestions regarding an overhaul to our flawed corrupt election process were made by NYU Professor Mark Crispin Miller.

  • Eliminate private companies with vested interests in the counting and reporting of votes
  • Return to hand-counted paper ballots
  • Get rid of computerized voting
  • Require automatic registration on birthdays
  • Election Day should be a national holiday.

These in my opinion are sound and simple steps to take to help re- store election integrity. There is another method, yet another way of detecting and deterring voter fraud and election theft. You may recall in my open letter at the beginning of this book I mentioned I spent some time assisting with a startup company leading up the election of 2016. That company was PollMole. So what is PollMole, you may ask? Reminds me of the movie Back to the Future, where the guy says to Marty, “Who the hell is JFK?” This may soon become the case with PollMole. Time will tell. PollMole is a highly disruptive, transformative social networking and connectivity technology. It empowers its users to directly and interactively retrieve, analyze, process, archive, and share opinions, ideas, beliefs, and other forms of complex information, from an almost unlimited number of people, simultaneously, in real time, twenty-four/ seven, and translate this information into actionable intelligence, thus providing extremely accurate, focused, science-based information designed to optimize decision-making ability.

Whew. So how does this relate to the election process? In essence, PollMole bypasses the traditional content controls erected by the big media’s information cartel and delivers real information directly into the hands of we the people. PollMole is a downloadable app that can help to restore election integrity results. When you download your free app and cast your anonymous vote, an electronic affidavit is registered within the technological platform. Should there be an election contest, PollMole can become quite the useful tool as a “weapon of truth” if you will.

If a court order were presented to PollMole, the candidate contesting the election outcome might find PollMole most useful. After all, if there were a large sampling of votes cast across all 180,000+ precincts, say, with twenty million votes having been casted and recorded in the PollMole app with a near zero margin of error, this would detect just where the voter fraud took place and perhaps reveal enough forensic evidence to overturn the election results. This would be historical and a real game changer. In fact, this would change everything.

In addition to detecting voter fraud and election theft, there would be consequences such as prosecution for those who committed the fraud. This can be widespread as you move up and down the channels.

Furthermore, the media and the rigged polling organizations, agencies, and corporations as well as the pundits are caught with their pants down, exposed and discredited, and so the media itself must then become honest and straight or simply lose their audience, ratings, revenues.

And due to the way the firewalls have been constructed within the PollMole back-end technology, the names of those who cast the votes remain anonymous as intended by the Founding Fathers.

You can learn more about this startup company called PollMole by visiting the company’s developing website and by doing a Google search. I am certain by the time the next election cycle rolls around, with a Trump administration in place, we can look forward to significant and much-needed changes to the election process.

Conclusion

I hope you actually took the time to read this book excerpt. As to PollMole, you can learn more by visiting the PollMole archived articles on my website JohnMichaelChambers.com and I will be providing an update on PollMole before 2018 plays out.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Broward voters deserved better from Snipes – she should go | Editorial

A look at Broward elections chief Brenda Snipes’ long history of trouble

Disgraced Snipes, Head of Broward Elections, Mixed Illegal Ballots with Valid Ones

Arizona GOP Claims Democrat Election Official Destroyed Evidence of Ballot Counting ‘Irregularities’

EDITORS NOTE: The featured photo is by Randy Colas on Unsplash

New ‘Ginsborg’ proposed after recent fall

Washington, DC — The 85-year-old Supreme Court Justice Ruth Ginsburg, who recently suffered injuries from a fall and has had a number of health issues, may soon get an upgrade to Ginsburg 2.0 due to recent breakthroughs in medical and robotics technology.

somewhat frail Ginsburg is currently undergoing tests as a candidate to become a cyborg, a half-human/half-robot being, a notion that until recently belonged to the realm of science fiction. Dr. Claude Bertuzzi, an expert cyborgologist at the Karl Marx Treatment Center, will lead the team of specialists converting Justice Ginsburg into what he likes to call “The Ginsborg.”

Dr. Bertuzzi assured reporters of the safety of the procedure, saying, “I can guarantee she will be no nuttier than she is now.”

According to unnamed sources, this extremely expensive, ground-breaking procedure is funded by a coalition of parties known as KeepOurRuth.org, a secretive organization with ties to Google, Planned Parenthood, and the ACLU.

A KeepOurRuth.org spokesperson held a press conference this morning with the following statement about the procedure’s purpose and potential benefits. “We all know she’s been a bit wobbly the last few years, but we need her on the Supreme Court. Since we can’t possibly pass most of our revolutionary ideas in Congress, we need like-minded jurists in the courts to force those ideas on a grateful public. We’ve been doing that at the Federal Judiciary level for decades, but the Supreme Court is like a weapon of mass destruction for this type of stuff. They can really put a smack-down on all this ‘rule of law’ nonsense if properly staffed. A Ginsburg Cyborg could stay on the court indefinitely as long as spare parts are available.”

The spokesperson went on to say, “We’re also looking at the same procedure for other prominent but decrepit stalwarts of our causes. I won’t say who is next, but don’t be surprised if someday you see ‘I’m Still With Her: 3016’ bumper stickers on the flying car hovering in front of you.”

RELATED MEME:

EDITORS NOTE: This political satire by Panem Et Circenses originally appeared on The Peoples Cube.

 

Post Election, Democrats and the Holidays

Hello America. My wife Mary and I spent much of the past two years traveling state to state campaigning to keep Republicans in control of the house and senate. Along with our team of associates, Mary and I worked extremely hard and passionately for Conservative/Republican candidates and our country.

The day after the election, we were in a Nevada hotel room preparing to fly home. After Mary finished packing our suitcases making sure they weighed less than 50 pounds, the impact of losing the U.S. house hit her. Mary wept. While I am also disappointed, I trust God.

In a just world, the Democratic Party should have been crushed November 6. Americans should have been blessed with a red tsunami.

America’s chickens of decades of surrendering our kids for leftist indoctrination in public schools have come home to roost. Consequently, far too many of our millennial voters have disdain for their country. They embrace socialist and Communist candidates who run as Democrats.

Democrats outrageously promote mob violence against Trump supporters and threatened blood in our streets if Democrats did not come out on top in the midterms.

Insidiously evil Democrats plan to continue lying to destroy the lives of Brett Kavanaugh and his family. It has been exposed that Democrats are funding the invasion of our country by illegals

An Antifa mob attacked the home of Fox News’ Tucker Carlson. They publicly posted on the internet the home addresses of Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, Tucker, his brother and his friends. Antifa publicizing addresses is a clarion call to their fellow Democratic Party anarchists to assault all who dare to disagree with their evil Godless agenda.

The Democratic Party not being punished at the ballot box for behaving like evil divisive domestic terrorists had me feeling a bit frustrated.

Upon our flight landing into Baltimore, we picked up our car and began the 3 hour drive home to West Virginia. My thoughts about the election were all over the place. A country song came on the radio, “You’ve Got to Stand for Something” by Aaron Tippin. The lyrics truly spoke to me, boosting my spirits.

you got to stand for something or you’ll for fall for anything. You’ve got to be your own man, not a puppet on a string. Never compromise whats right and uphold your family name. You got to stand for something or you’ll for fall for anything.” 

Aaron’s song affirmed my God ordained mission to continue “standing for whats right” – to keep fighting to send strong character driven politicians to represent us in Washington, D.C. Senator Ted Cruz in Texas is one such man for whom I proudly campaigned

Ted “stands for something” and that something is constitutional conservatism. Praise God Ted defeated Democrats’ $70 million extreme radical leftist golden boy Beto O’Rourke. Thank you God for Republicans keeping the senate.

On the other hand, Utah congresswoman Mia Love proved to be a RINO “puppet on a string” disappointment. Several years ago, Mia spoke at the Republican convention boldly touting Tea Party conservative principles. Along with our Republican base, I was excited about a fellow black constitutional conservative on our side.

Suddenly, Mia scrapped her original team to sign-on with the GOP establishment’s team in Utah. Mia began distancing herself from the Tea Party. Aaron song says, “never comprise whats right…” Mia threw the Tea Party under the bus when she thought it would further her political career.

Many of the 45 Republicans who retired causing the GOP to lose the house were cut from the same disloyal and anti-Trump mold as Mia Love. By refusing to embrace Trump’s “America First” agenda, these Republicans did not “stand” for the best interest of our country. They “fell” for Democrats’ and fake news media’s lies. We the People and President Trump deserve much better.

It would be dishonest not to admit that I am suffering a bit of pushing-back-against-evil-Democratic Party burnout. But folks, the Bible says, “And let us not be weary in well doing: for in due season we shall reap, if we faint not.” Galatians 6:9

We must never grow weary in protecting and saving America. As we enter into the holiday season, I plan to enjoy loving on my wife, family and friends; petting Sammy our elderly greyhound – the smell of Mary baking cookies. Like George Bailey, I am grateful that God has blessed me with a wonderful life.

Meanwhile, I will remain engaged in special elections and recounts, keeping a watchful eye for Democratic Party dirty tricks and mob attacks during the holidays. I will trust in God and keep my powder dry in preparation of stopping Democratic Party attempts to roll back the remarkable unprecedented achievements Trump has made for We the People. Trump has kept his promises, stacking up 289 achievements and counting

I met Aaron Tippin about 10 years ago. We were both featured recording artists at a Gathering of Eagles Troop Support Rally in Washington, D.C. Aaron is an unpretentious really nice patriotic guy. It is interesting that Aaron’s song showed up at a perfect time to encourage me. You got to stand for something or you’ll for fall for anything. Folks, please take a stand for America.

Have a happy and blessed holiday season.

RELATED ARTICLE: Racial, gender, age, education and religious differences in 2018 midterm elections

EDITORS NOTE: The featured photo is by Josh Carter on Unsplash.

Comrades! Find your missing ballots!

With so many important races being so close and every vote needing to be counted (and some countered) it’s absolutely imperative that you start looking for those missing ballots that always show up after the polls close.

First, check the trunk of your car, your attic, your neighbor’s mailbox, or anyplace else you might have absentmindedly deposited a large number of ballots.

Second, sort through all your missing ballots and weed out any that might have chosen a Republican candidate. This isn’t “voter fraud,” this is just making sure that every valid vote is properly counted, and all Republican votes are automatically invalid. You’ll be saving time during the recount and preventing the confusion that comes with too many choices.

Third, shout that all votes must be counted, especially yours. America is a democracy, so naturally the Democrat Party must win. If some fossil comes up and tells you America is a Republic, just apply pepper spray and push him off a bridge. Such intolerance must be stamped out decisively.

Fourth, if your truly patriotic efforts fail to turn the election, accuse the Republican candidate of voter suppression, colluding with Russia, stealing the election, and personally assaulting you even though you struggle with recalling specific details. You deserve to be heard!

So get on it, comrades! Act as if your ration booklet depended on it.

EDITORS NOTE: This political satire by Komissar al-Blogunov originally appeared on The Peoples Cube.

Florida Dems: Steal Going Strong?

There are plenty of threats to democracy, but what happens in the voting booth shouldn’t be one of them! Tell that to the people of Florida. Days after the media called the Senate and governor’s races for Rick Scott (R) and Ron DeSantis (R), election officials have suddenly “found” tens of thousands of Democratic votes. And we’re concerned about other governments meddling in our elections?

Unfortunately for Republicans, this isn’t the first time Broward and Palm Beach Counties have been caught cheating the system. More people have been burned by voter fraud on the west side of Florida than the sunshine. Brenda Snipes, the head of Broward County’s election board (and a registered Democrat), could have faced five years in jail for tampering with votes two years ago. Now, Snipes is back to her dirty tricks, telling reporters she has no idea how many ballots are left to count in a race for governor that the Democrat already conceded.

In testy exchanges with reporters, Snipes was visibly upset when Local 10 News asked why two days had gone by and she still didn’t have a final count. “But, Dr. Snipes, it’s now Thursday. We’re still counting ballots in Broward County.” “We’re counting five pages or six pages for each of the people who voted,” Snipes fired back. “But other counties have been able to do it,” he replied. “Other counties didn’t have 600,000 votes out there,” she argued. “Well, Miami-Dade did,” the reporter said simply. “Don’t try to turn this around [on me],” Snipes said and stormed off.

But people who know Snipes’s history say it is on her. In 2016, a judge found her guilty of destroying ballots from a primary in the middle of a lawsuit. In August, she was charged with “improperly handling mail-in ballots,” opening them in secret. Even fellow Democrats, Governor Rick Scott (R) reminds everyone, accused her of “individual and systematic breakdowns” in 2014. Tim Canova, one of the victims of her political sabotage, said, “We’re dealing with organized crime. I don’t trust anything that comes out of this office…”

Neither does Florida Senator Marco Rubio (R), who blasted the counties’ leadership for trying to steal the election. Bay County, he points out on Twitter, “was hit by a Cat 4 Hurricane just four weeks ago, yet managed to count votes and submit timely results. But over 41 hours after polls closed Broward elections office is still counting votes?” Pictures snapped by the South Florida Sun-Sentinel show stacks of ballots that supposedly still haven’t been counted. “A U.S. Senate seat and a statewide Cabinet officer are now potentially in the hands of an elections supervisor with a history of incompetence and blatant violations of state and federal election laws.”

Then there are the other inconsistencies: a passerby allegedly sees ballots being transported in private vehicles and transferred to rent truck on Election night and posts the video “This violates all chain of custody requirements for paper ballots,” Rubio fumed. “Were the ballots destroyed and replaced by a set of fake ballots? Investigate now!” At Miramar Elementary School, a teacher stumbled on an entire box labeled “Provisional ballots” left behind on Tuesday. Republicans in Palm Beach complained that they weren’t allowed to monitor the county’s handling of damaged absentee ballots, which is a serious violation of protocol. And it gets even fishier in Minnesota, where a woman who hadn’t lived in Florida for five years says she got a Florida ballot in the mail.

Governor Scott, whose race for Senate against Bill Nelson (D) had been called by all of the major news networks, now seems headed for a recount, thanks to the magical appearance of 42,000 Democratic ballots. How unusual is that? Well, according to the Florida Department of State, there hasn’t been a recount for governor or senator in state history. And now, suddenly, there are two in one year?

“Late Tuesday night, our win was projected to be around 57,000 votes,” Scott told reporters yesterday. “By Wednesday morning, that lead dropped to 38,000. By Wednesday evening, it was around 30,000. This morning, it was around 21,000. Now, it is 15,000.” Scott, who filed a lawsuit and launched a state investigation, told Fox News’s Sean Hannity, “We don’t know how many votes they’re gonna come up with. But it appears they’re going to try to come up with as many votes as it takes to win this election…” But, he promised, “We’re gonna fight this… No ragtag group of liberal activists or lawyers from D.C. will be allowed to steal this election from the voters in the state of Florida.”

After the antics and outright lies we’ve seen from the Left this year’s, no one can be surprised at how low they will stoop to get their hands on more political power. But this isn’t just about 2018. It’s about 2020, 2022, and every election that comes after. Democrats, Republicans, Independents — we all have a stake in making the democratic system an honest one.


Tony Perkins’ Washington Update is written with the aid of FRC senior writers.


RELATED ARTICLES:

Yes, Democrats Are Trying To Steal The Election In Florida

Florida election supervisor mixed bad provisional ballots with good ones

Broward County Is An Embarrassment, And The Potential For A Stolen Florida Election Is Real

Florida Vote Scandal Coverage Shows Media-Democrat Complicity. Again.

A Washington Post Mortem on SPLC

Voters Recoil at House Gun Agenda

EDITORS NOTE: This column with images is republished with permission.